Enter the White Knight


The problem with white-knights (especially in the church) is they often don’t realize they’re doing it.  So deeply has the feminist dogma penetrated, they think they’re on the side of both right and good.

Recently, a blogger called “Bike Bubba”  attempted to take me to task because of the (outrageous to feminists) advice I gave.  He was embarrassing to watch.  He seemed upset because I advised a wife (who was seeking suggestions on how she could submit to her husband) to write him a letter and ask that he hold her accountable to the point of disciplining her (if necessary) and she should give him signed permission to do so.  Up to and including corporal punishment.

That, of course, was just too much for Bubba.  Several of the women appeared to be outraged, but it was Bike Bubba who stepped up to the plate to defend against the evil Toad.

First, he said:

Toad, Paul’s challenge to husbands is found in Ephesians 5:25-33, and it does not include any mandate for physical discipline or violence of any kind. 1 Peter 3:7 also notes that the husband who does not treat his wife as the weaker vessel will have his prayers hindered. i would have to assume that unless somehow it’s a good idea to take a hammer to one’s china or crystal, Peter is telling us that treating our wives roughly is not going to end well for us.

Noting his somewhat feminist exegesis, I corrected him.  Note that he’s looking for a “mandate” of some sort.  Note also that he completely ignores any mention of Revelation 3:19, which was cited in my original comment.

@Bubba:  Read it again. Ephesians 5:22-24 is a logical syllogism. The authority of the husband over the wife (within the covenant entity called family) is exactly the same as the authority of Christ over the Church (another covenant entity). Paul was comparing and contrasting the heads of two separate covenant entities- the husband and Christ, making the point that within their own entities, their authority is supreme.

Then take a careful look at the first 3 chapters of Revelation, sometimes known as the seven epistles of Christ. Revelation 3:19 is part of the letter from Christ to the Laodicean church. You might want to do a word study on “chastise” and give it some thought. The risen Lord clearly says that His rebuking and chastening of His church is an act of love. Now go back to Ephesians 5 and contemplate loving the wife as Christ loves the church.

Filled with indignation, Bubba replied.  He said :

Toad, if you think that Ephesians 5:22-4 endorses violence against one’s wife–or any portion of the Bible for that matter–then I hope that (a) you are and remain single and (b) you are not and will not become a church officer. If you should happen to be married and following your perverse, heretical advice, it is my hope that the elders and deacons of the church will administer the discipline you would richly deserve.

Ephesians speaks of cleansing one’s wife in the Word, not abusing her, and 1 Peter 3:7 speaks very clearly of the consequences that follow when a man does not live with his wife as the weaker vessel. Your prayers will not be heard.

OK.  Got that?  Corporal punishment is abuse, in Bubba’s book.  Not only that, it’s perverse heretical advice I’m giving.   Perhaps it’s abuse when Christians are chastised by the Lord for their misdeeds that bring shame upon Him and His church?   Corporal punishment of children is abuse?  Hmmm.  No, it’s simple:  If there are some things a husband simply isn’t to do with his wife, there are obviously some things Christ is not to do with the Church.  Like require obedience and punish for disobedience.  THIS is feminist exegesis.

Bubba provides guidance on what he believes with respect to theology on his blog, describing himself as “baptistic and fundamentalist.”   He even helpfully lists a website on baptist distinctions, which clearly says under the very first in their list of eight distinctions:

The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture’s inherent authority. [Emphasis added]

It just so happens that Bubba and I are in complete agreement with that.  The problem becomes one in which one attempts to recast the Word of God using a feminist interpretation that strips it of all power and authority (unless said power and authority is given to the women).  Sadly, this is common in most Baptist denominations.

Note that under Bubba’s feminist exegesis, treating the wife as the weaker vessel means never giving her the accountability or discipline such a weaker vessel might need and perhaps even want.  It means never providing boundaries within a marriage that are solid and will be enforced, because feminism has stripped women of all accountability.    I responded to him one more time:

Dude- stop white-knighting. Please. It isn’t pretty.

Bubba finally came back and had this to say:

Toad, if citing the Scripture accurately counts as White Knighting, I’ll do it all day long. You would do well to try it.

So what we have here is, apparently, that some people view spanking as a turn-on, in which case it will be ineffective discipleship of one’s wife in the case of a sin issue, and others view it as violence, in which case it falls on the wrong side of 1 Peter 3:7.

In either case, moronic idea, and it has nothing to do with holding women up on a pedestal, but rather has everything to do with treating one’s “spare rib” the way God intended. As the, ahem, weaker vessel.

Nice name-calling, Toad, but that merely demonstrates that you are either unable or unwilling to make a real argument. They don’t call it the ad hominem “fallacy” for nothing, after all.

Notice that I described what Bubba, was doing.  He neglected the central argument, tried to apply a tangential piece of scripture to support his position (prooftexting) and called what I was saying moronic before accusing me of name-calling.

I think he’s actually responding in fear.  That got discussed later in the thread by Scott.

The fact he was whiteknighting is apparent in  his inability to respond to exactly what I said.  But he’s free to make a response here if he chooses.  I won’t clog Sunshine Mary’s blog with any more.   I suggested he do a word study on chastisement. I’m willing to bet he’d be more amazed if he did a study on corporal punishment.  And all the verses that specifically apply it (gender-free) to adults.

It is possible to say things that women don’t want to hear, but the women don’t tend to address what was said, rather they make emotional responses.  They simply make their displeasure known and sit back waiting for a feminist white knight to take up the fight.

They are real, guys, but like the cartoon above, they don’t have much power, even in real life.  Why?  Because knights like Bubba claim one thing (Sola Scriptura) but it’s a feminist bait and switch and it can easily be argued with the Scripture he claims to revere.  At the end of the day, they have an opinion that doesn’t stand up to the Bible they claim to believe in.  That simple.

What’s needed is to reject the feminist assumptions and lies and get back to the subject that Feminism has rejected: obedience.

This entry was posted in Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Enter the White Knight

  1. Bike Bubba says:

    Found your note, and quite frankly, you’re simply reading into the text. For starters, while the husband is to the wife as Christ is as the church, it simply does not follow that the husband enjoys all the prerogatives of the Savior. In fact, it’s nowhere stated in Scripture. Plus, Revelation 3:19 really addresses the members of the church; it’s in the plural “those”. The Church–whether universal or local–would be singular. So nice try at claiming it’s “feminism”, but in reality, it’s simply what the Scripture says. Those who treat their wives in such a way as does not reflect their “weaker vessel” nature nd up on the wrong side of 1 Peter 3:7.

    The same goes for your isogesis (reading into) Revelation 3:19. “Paideo” can refer to physical punishment, other forms of discipline, and teaching. It’s also worth noting that the person disciplined is

  2. Bike Bubba says:

    Also, Colossians 3:19; Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh (bitter) towards them. Matthew Henry clearly interprets this in the same way I do–his commentaries are linked on SermonAudio. Sorry, but your “exegesis” is a series of non sequiturs.

  3. Bubba.. (sigh), you’re an idiot. You can’t even place what you’ve said in context with what you claim to believe. I truly hope that if you ever mate with a woman, that she’s even more intellectually stunted than you, otherwise you’ll end up in my position ten or fifteen years down the road.

  4. Bike Bubba says:

    Toad, when you lead with an insult, as you have repeatedly here, that is of course called the ad hominem attack, and it proves only that you either can not or will not make a real argument. This is perfectly in keeping with the fact that Colossians 3:19 and 1 Peter 3:7 speak clearly against your thesis, that Revelation 3:19 is addressed to individual believers within the church at Laodicea and not the Bride of Christ as a whole (which is currently betrothed, not wed, anyways), and that there is no Biblical evidence for others taking your position. I understand that you are bitter about our divorce, but if indeed this is your position, your divorce does not surprise me.

  5. Bike Bubba says:

    Toad, I’ll be blunt with you. You have clearly mis-interpreted Ephesians 5 and Revelation 3:19 as a warrant for spanking, ignoring clear indications that one is to be gentle with one’s wife, and in doing so, you’ve clearly indicated that you ignored your responsibility to wash her in the Word. As such, it is no surprise that she has failed to learn the Gospel lessons that you failed to teach, and that she has left you.

    Oh, and those court orders? Romans 13, friend.

  6. Bubba… I really don’t like having to treat grown men like three-year-old’s, but you force me to.

    The position you are taking is such that a woman, married, is autonomous. That is feminism. Biblically, she is under the authority of her husband, who has the authority to discipline her if he believes she deserves it. This idea provokes the knee-jerk reaction of the feminist male “may it never be.”

    Bubba… and let me just say that as a southron, I would like to have a face-to-face with you over your nome de guerre. You are a disgrace to anyone of southern heritage. Yes, I am a fan of physical violence because in dealing with men, I’ve found it to be rather effective.

    But, you want to be inclusive. You want to be politically correct. You want to be gentle. Blow me. I have children growing up without a father because of people like you. You say that I’ve clearly misinterpreted Scripture, yet you offer nothing in defense of your assertions? Are you nuts? I think the answer is yes.

  7. Bike Bubba says:

    Toad, the fact that you are not heeding the Scripture here does not change the fact that 1 Peter 3:7 and Colossians 3:19 clearly state that a man is not to be harsh with his wife, nor is he to treat her other than as a weaker vessel. it doesn’t change the fact that 1 Timothy 3:3 and Titus 1:6 clearly note that those who would rise in the church ought to be gentle. Sorry, you’re simply on the wrong side of Scripture, you’re violating Ephesians 4:32 in your abusive speech, and I dare wonder if you earned that protective order your wife got from how you would treat me.

  8. Pingback: Han Solo & the Dark White Knight | Alpha Is Assumed

  9. It’s a particular vice of mine, arguing with idiots. Fembots like Bubba are a case in point. Notice that discipline is instantly equated with being harsh and abusive. The corollary must be that Christ is harsh and abusive when He disciplines His bondservants, yet this cannot be.

    Bubba has staked out a position which holds that within marriage, a husband is not actually in charge. This is consistent with his churchian position that Christ isn’t actually in charge of His church. Observe how the feminist churchians think. Ephesians 5:22-24 is clear- the husband’s authority over his wife is the same as that of Christ over His church. Revelation 3:19 makes it clear that Christ rebukes and chastises His bondservants when they sin, and He exhorts them to be zealous and repent. Therefore, a husband has the authority to rebuke and chastise his wife.

    This authority neither negates the commands of 1st Peter 3:7, nor does it contradict. A wife that is willfully in sin needs to be corrected and it is the husband’s job to do so in love. To say a husband lacks either the authority or the duty to do so is to remove the essence of the word love. Which is what churchians like Bubba have done. He is fighting to keep women from being held accountable.

    I have come to the conclusion that it’s fear. Rejecting the responsibility by rejecting the authority is the easy way out for churchian men who do not want the responsibility of husbanding their wives.

  10. Ton says:

    White knights are basically women. Cannot expect much from them

    Is ok physical correction harsh… aren’t we told spare the rod spoil the child? I see no harshness in physically correcting a child or woman. Depending on the degree of course

    Does my heart good to see a man refer to himself as Southron

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s