“2) While Stott rightly points out that “the domination of woman by man is due to the fall, not to the creation” (330) he fails to make explicit that the desire by woman to rule man is also a result of the fall (Gen, 3:16; 4:7).”

First of all - I want to affirm that I am also a sincere admirer of John Stott. He has a strong reputation of being a solid theologian and a firm Evangelical - but he has also had the courage to admit to his own convictions in regards to Conditional Immortality (re: Interternality of Hell) (see also John Wenham, for another firmly Evangelical theologian who also held this view). That takes tremendous courage.

Second of all - I want to clearly state that the doctrine that this commentator is referencing/defending is an old school doctrine that - outside of those who still want to cling to it - is regarded as purely isogetical (read into the scripture) and is a throw back to a time in our culture where women genuinely were seen as second hand and inferior to men (especially in its more perverse form: archetypically expressed as the subservient, domicile southern housewife, subject to a domineering husband’s whims and prejudices, i.e “women belong in the kitchen and barefoot and pregnant.” I view the doctrine that there is an inherent drive in every woman to dominate every man as absolutely repugnant and hamstrung to outrageous cultural aberrations that are themselves shameful and demand repentance. I only agree that there is potential for an archetypical “Jezebel Spirit” but there is no more potential for it to manifest then any other equally bad archetype in the male side. What this doctrine functionally does is state that a woman is more fallen then a man and that here proper place is tucked away - out of sight and out of mind somewhere behind him. This is perverse and unbiblical and the most outrageous feminist antics!

The issue is that much of what we see and continue to see in regards to what is called “Feminism” is a reaction to an abusive and perverse Patriarchalism. The issue is that there is a biblical or repristinated (if you will) form of that - and then there are forms of it that have been isogetically perverted by prevailing culture. I have the same view of the doctrine outline above as I would if I read a theologian from the Civil War era arguing that Blacks are not fully human and trying to do so from the scripture.

If you have any desire to advance a biblical sense of masculinity and complementarianism - then the first step is repentance from all the garbage that has been drug up from the histo-theological continuum and acknowledge grievous dereliction of exegetical foundation. Repentance begins with the church - and it needs to start here with this.

It strongly figures into my own systematic theology that there is an assertion of biblical servanthood patriarchalism that is appropriate to be believed and lived-out by the believer - but I frame that biblically and exegetically and when unpacking it - I will never make any bones about clearing the field and being blunt about what I feel is a grotesque perversion (I would even say demonic [because it is a brokenness of a sacred thing]).