Edited to point to the correct post.
Transcribed (as best I could) from the audiobook “Resolute Determination: Napoleon and the French Empire”, by Prof. Donald M.G. Sutherland and from Recorded Books.
The (ed: French) Church was reconstructed as a largely royalist church. The church had split in the early years of the (ed: French) Revolution, and in the schism there is a pro-revolutionary and an anti-revolutionary faction. Because of vicissitudes of revolutionary politics, the pro-revolutionary church was purged and largely destroyed in what’s called the Dechristianization Campaign.
When the church was reordered in 1802 the personnel they had to draw on were clergy who had gone underground, or who had been expelled; indeed as far away as Baltimore or Quebec. They came back, but they came back often bitter, highly politicized, and royalist. Napoleon was well-aware of how potentially dangerous this could be and thus the necessity of subjecting the church to political tutelage.
The Church was a church in crisis almost from the beginning. There had been no creation of clerics for an entire decade; perhaps close to a generation. It was very hard to get seminaries up and running again. The clergy was aging, and the clergy of the restoration church–the Concordat Church–was much smaller than the old regime church had been.
The result was Catholicism itself changed. That kind of Catholicism was a traditionalist Catholicism with a spectacular (what historians of the Church call) “Feminization of Catholicism” in the 19th Century that survived Napoleon’s fall in 1815. There’s a spectacular growth of female religious orders; hospitals, teaching orders, even some contemplative orders. There were probably more female nuns in the 19th Century than there had been in the golden age of the church in the 13th Century. There was also the revival of poor-relief and a Christianization of poor-relief institutions, medical care, and education for small children.
Priests themselves began to change their recruitment patterns. In the old regime priests had been highly educated, middle class, endowed by their fathers to study in the seminary, largely urban. In the course of the 19th Century, and under Napoleon, a ruralization of the Catholic clergy began. Thus, the clergy acquired a lot of peasant attitudes; dislike of towns, superstition, emotionalism. There’s a huge cult of saints and a very emotional kind of Catholicism emerges in the course of the 19th Century; what historians call a “Feminized Piety”.
Popular piety was very difficult to control because the church was so small and the clergy was aging. Popular piety was always a suspicious matter to the clergy, but in the early part of the empire and beyond there’s nothing they could do about ordinary people reviving suppressed feast days, for taking initiatives in the liturgy, for the laity insisting that the clergy authenticate relics which the clergy resisted, or miracle cures that curates were expected to authenticate and things of that sort; where the clergy simply felt overwhelmed by the revival of piety among the laity.
The civil code which we referred to earlier, also had some interesting developments; especially with regard to the status of women. As we have seen, it authorized divorce, and introduced a double-standard in divorce which made it easier for a man to divorce his wife than vice-versa. On the other hand, divorce was extremely rare under this period and becoming more rare as time went on. The overwhelming number of plaintiffs in divorce cases were not men, in fact, but women who were suing for divorce in order to complain about their husbands who deserted them and the purpose was to reclaim the property that they had brought to the marriage in the marriage contract.
That last paragraph is somewhat confusing out of context. What Sutherland said is that even though women did not have the right to divorce, they were still suing for divorce (asking a judge to make the divorce); and women did this more often than men who actually had the right to divorce.
He goes on to say that the response of society under the “liberty” provided by the Revolution and Napoleon was for marriage to be delayed, and also that France was one of the first countries in Europe to adopt the use of birth control despite the fact that birth control was banned by the Catholic Church; including the Concordat Church.
What Enlightenment and revolution promised was relief from harsh rulers and injustice. What it delivered was a dictator and disorder in families and churches. If Sutherland’s account is correct: The fascinating part is that Traditionalists were not even a speedbump to Liberalism. In fact women from the now disordered families and churches remade Traditionalism in their own image. It is still with us.
 Emphasis not in original.
In the previous post on wives and women to be in submission I noted that there is much more instruction in the Bible about the order of Christian households than there is about the administration of baptism or the Lord’s Supper. Six passages were listed within the post, but I left out one in particular; a bit of “meat on the bone” that I hoped a commenter might gnaw off.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16 
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
With this passage St. Paul blows out of the water the nonsense idea of “mutual submission” that so many pretend to glean from Ephesians 5:21.
My next post will probably be about my own error in applying 1 Cor. 11:15, but what is important in this post is:
 The ESV translators footnote that the words wife and husband used in the passage could be translated as woman and man, depending on the context, and that that word for angels could be translated as messengers or observers.
 The linked post of Sheila Gregoire’s blog would be hilarious if she represented only a fringe element of Christian culture. She actually writes of those who quote 1 Peter 3 on the submission of women that they are ignoring the entire rest of the Bible, and that Peter’s instruction that wives act like Sarah is only in reference to Sarah when she followed Abraham out of Ur!
My drive-by commenters believe this verse clearly says that women should always obey their husbands no matter what. However, the readers of Peter’s letter would never have thought that. First, they would have known that Peter didn’t think this; but second, even if Peter had wanted to tell his readers to do so, he would not have used Sarah as the example. Sarah’s life was hardly the picture of a wife obeying her husband in everything!
Instead, when contemporary Jewish readers encountered Peter’s command that women emulate Sarah, who obeyed Abraham “rather than giving way to fear”, that last part would have given them the context of what Peter meant. They would have known that it was not a command to obey in all circumstances. Instead, they would take that bit of the verse–“rather than giving way to fear”–and hearken back to to the time that Sarah DID obey, even when it was scary.
And that was the time that Sarah followed Abraham out of Ur, because God called him. That was a pivotal time in Jewish history (really the beginning of Jewish history). It would make sense that Peter would remind his readers of it. And the message they would take? When God is speaking, you follow by faith. It’s that simple.
They would never think that it meant that women should not confront their husbands’ sin, or that women should forget God’s will and only follow their husband’s will, because that would go against everything they knew of Sarah, and everything they knew of Peter. [Emphasis in original text]
“How could I respond to someones claims that the sanctifying work in Eph 5:26-27 is exclusively the work of Christ towards the church AND towards the wife and that the only action of the husband is to love? Wouldn’t the So (“houtos”) in 28 imply that 26-27 show what type of love the husband is supposed to show?”
I’ve never heard this “interpretation” of Ephesians 5:26-27 before, but it does not surprise me that some hold it. People will twist the Scriptures in all sorts of ways to destroy men’s headship when they can, and obfuscate it when they can’t. The good news is we are blessed with all of Scripture.
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.
1 Peter 3:1-7
3 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
1 Timothy 2:8-15
8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
1 Corinthians 14:33-35
33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
There are, in Scripture, few points of so much agreement compared to the order of Christian households. Not to put too fine a point on it, but: There is significantly less instruction on baptism, or administration of the Lord’s Supper, than there is for wives to be in submission to their husbands, and for husbands to love and manage (not quite the same thing as “lead”) their wives.
The last thing I would point out is: So what? So what does that mean to say the husband is called “only to love” while Christ performs the sanctifying work on the husband’s wife? Ephesians 5:22-24 is explicit:
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
This goes back to the very post which prompted Doc H.’s question: Husbands are not called to ALWAYS lead, but wives are called to ALWAYS obey. Sometimes the head may give a subordinate the lead because that is the prudent thing to do. He does not give up the rule. He may take back the lead at his pleasure, and the subordinate is only right if she gives it up in submission. A wife is to submit and obey her husband.
Our age’s focus on a husband’s leadership is a clever redirect away from the Biblical command for wives to submit and obey. Every instance of Biblical instruction to husbands and wives say the same thing: Wives submit to and obey your husbands. Husbands love and care for your wives. That’s the instruction in 1 Peter 3, Titus 2, Ephesians 5, and Colossians 3; in every instance where the Christian home life is addressed.
The wisdom here is simple, but deep and powerful. If she follows then she is able to fulfill her God-given design. Through Christ she is empowered to be godly even if her husband is a fool; even if he tries to lose her. Likewise, a husband cannot be thwarted from loving his wife. Even if she does not obey him that is no bar to his God-given ability to love and care her despite her wickedness. If he loves and cares for her, and she refuses to obey he is clean. He did not fail to lead.
I’ve written many posts and comments about a husband leading his wife, and I was fundamentally wrong. Over the years it has come to be that the liberal progressives proclaim the right thing for the wrong reasons and the traditionalists fight back with nonsense, and I fell into it also. Christian Feminists (both overt and those undeclared and unwitting) are quick to point out that it is a wife’s duty to obey and not a husbands right to force her to submit. Traditionalists have tried to fight this by demanding husbands lead better, and by stealing the glory of obedient women for themselves; such as when a man says his wife follows him because of his good leadership.
And all of it–the progressive tactics and the traditionalist response–is meant to tangle us up so that a wife’s temptation to rebel and abandon is never the topic of discussion; so that no one says, “Wives, obey your husbands.”
Of course there are times where a spouse’s behavior is so wicked and odious that individuals should take prudential action under the guidance of secular and religious authorities. That’s not the topic today.
In a comment on Dalrock’s post “Feminine Wiles” I wrote:
A woman who is strongly attracted to a man will look for ways to please him; without any prompting on his part, and no matter what the consequences.
What I should have wrote was: A woman who has set her mind on a man will look for ways to please him; without any prompting on his part, and no matter what the consequences.
It is often the case that a woman chooses a man to whom she is not “strongly” attracted, but for unattractive reasons: wealth, security, etc.; in other words for the Beta Bucks. Either way to get what she wants she will follow him around…often literally.
This is what a man wants from a wife. It is what a wife is. That is why a woman is tempted to stop following and rebel after she marries.
“Ever since I was little I had two big goals,” says Noguchi, “One of them was to be a musician or an artist of some sort, and the other was to go to college in the States. That’s why I made the decision to go to Maine by myself when I was fourteen.”
Pretty impressive, right? I thought so.
I mean: A nation whose men made themselves so safe that girls from countries on its periphery can move here alone as children to do pretty much whatever they want unmolested. That’s who you thought were impressive, right? Especially when you consider that they did it for no profit to themselves.
 Infogalactic has no page on the band Superorganism.
I’ve been following the recent events in the SBC since Paige Patterson’s ouster (for his efforts to be faithful to Scripture’s instruction). Yesterday ended the SBC’s annual convention. There they elected a new President, JD Greear from a church group in North Carolina called “The Summit”. If you’ve heard of that church before, it may be because they’re a super-hip church in super-hip Raleigh-Durham.
|Julie Rougeux||Summit Church||Apex||NC|
|Caroline Barnhill||The Summit Church||Apex||NC|
|Stephanie Creasman||The Summit Church||Apex||NC|
|Elizabeth Carter||Summit Church||Cary||NC|
|Elizabeth Ashford||Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Bryce Batts||Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Kellan Dickens||Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Lauren Ellis||Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Jennifer Falco||Summit church||Durham||NC|
|Eva Leung||Summit church||Durham||NC|
|Samantha Linton||Summit church||Durham||NC|
|Melissa Mosby||Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Jessica Thommarson||Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Stephanie Oyler||The Summit||Durham||NC|
|Amber Pearson||The Summit||Durham||NC|
|Lori AdamsBrown||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Nan Beaty||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Sharon Beavers||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Katie Berger||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Jillian Boland||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Daniel Bonar||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Emily Bonar||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Ashley Dickens||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Jonathan Dickerson||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Allison Dolbeer||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Ginger Gooch||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Rebecca Hankins||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Audra Hodges||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Scott Hodges||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Jordan Kohman||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Parker McGoldrick||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Reema Nasrallah||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Matt Oettinger||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Tiffany Oettinger||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Landon Pauley||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Kat Robertson||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Rebecca Shrader||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Alexis Sponaugle||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Haley Warren||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Kate Williams||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Amanda Winter||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Justin Winter||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Aaron Coalson||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Stefanie Golden||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Christina Kelly||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Cindy Peterson||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Sarah Weddle||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Taylor Weddle||The Summit Church||Durham||NC|
|Jason Adams-Brown||Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Amanda Brown||Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Laura Brown||Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Debbie Derbyshire||Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Yolanda Finney||Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Kate Hughes||Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Sarah Davidson||The Summit||Raleigh||NC|
|Patti Taylor||The Summit||Raleigh||NC|
|Becca DeLucia||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Kelsey Hamilton||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Caitlin Hooks||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Morgan Jeffreys||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Sarah Krivsky||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Alex Lewis||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Jessica Locklear||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Zack Locklear||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Scott McWhirter||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Mackenzie Morris||The Summit Church||RALEIGH||NC|
|Doug Porter||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Kristen Porter||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Makayla Riggs||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Nicole Shields||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Amanda Springer||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Katelyn Watkins||The Summit Church||Raleigh||NC|
|Jeremy Robertson||The Summit Church||Raleigh Durham||NC|
|Gardner Pippin||The Summit Church||RDU||NC|
|Hillary Pippin||The Summit Church||RDU||NC|
|Ray Gardestig||The Summit||NC|
The next largest batch of signatures from one church organization in NC is from Imago Dei, with 30. Between these groups, that’s almost exactly 1/3rd (110/331) of all the NC signatures.
Why did JD Greear stand for nomination? He writes:
The correct way to read this list is to recognize that the first point is The Given. It’s the thing you must say to unite or avoid alienating your constituents right off the bat, as he says. These are Southern Baptists Protestants so he leads with “the gospel above all”. If you were in consideration for janitor at Second Baptist Church Nowhere, your application should start with, “The foundation of clean toilets is The Gospel above all.”
It’s the second point which reveals a candidates actual priority and passion, and which will be forwarded under the cover of The Given: “Continue growing in cultural and racial diversity”. This is where Paige Patterson posed a problem as president; not because he had been racist, but because his anti-racism had got tangled up with sexual predation when–way back in the benighted late 80s and early 90s–he defended Darrell Gilyard, a black pastor who had committed several acts of adultery and later was convicted of molesting teenage girls from one of his several churches.
For the moment I count on the reader’s Google-Fu to combat his possible ignorance on that debacle, but from what I have read it seems that Patterson initially took the radical stance that “no charge should be admitted against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses”; not even charges admitted by a woman! The scoundrel!
I have more to say about Patterson and Gilyard in a future post, but for now I’ll just close by passing on the understanding that Patterson’s early defense of his former student Gilyard is some seriously convoluted history from which to virtue signal about the gospel of multiculturalism, and that’s what the new SBC leadership desperately wants to do.
 Hilarious and illuminating text from Imago Dei’s bulletin: “Please note that our Lord’s Supper elements are all gluten-free.”
 I note that he does not capitalize Gospel. Which gospel does Greear have in mind? I think he wants us to assume that he means The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and it fits the Southern Baptist tradition so we’ll go with that for now.
The Ministry of Truth is alive and well.
I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition. Despite my departure from them back in the mid-90s, I still have affection for them. They are how and why I, as a child, became a Texan, and I recall my father’s discussions with other men about the conservative pushback against the liberal SWBTS president Dilday; Dad being with the conservatives. So, as a literal child of the conservative takeover of the SBC, I was interested in the horrific character assassination of now-former SWBTS president Paige Patterson.
I can find reasons to dislike Patterson. He, along with many others, own the mess created by the extra-Biblical idea of Complementarianism.  But the fact is he was taken out because–even in his Complementarian error–he chose to skew closer to Biblical, traditional, and observably true judgments of men and women.
Anyway, that’s about all I have to say about Patterson the man. This post is about the 3,365 Southern Baptists who signed an open letter which rebuked Patterson for being reasonable and Godly in his teaching; even if his specific examples in those teachings were sometimes less than verifiable. I would want to know if the sort of person who would sign such a letter was teaching my kids, or influencing my wife. In fact, I’d want to talk to them about their Godless, views. I’d want my friends to know.
17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,[f] and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. 19 For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
So I have copied the names into a spreadsheet and sorted them by state, city, and church. The data isn’t perfectly massaged, but it is easily searchable. The first tab has the whole list of signers. The rest of the tabs are a breakdown by state, provided the state had enough signers to warrant their own tab. Rhode Island info is only on the All States tab, for example. View the spreadsheet here.
 Even the word itself sounds weak.