While I can neither affirm nor refute Mr. Watley’s anointing, I think the brother may be almost onto something here. Consider if you will that the applicable term isn’t superiority but Divine order.
Disclaimer: My spiritual foundation is Biblical, but I speak from a knowing that Love and Truth are universal. And I tell you this because I’m going to need some Word for this one and I don’t want to debate which name God prefers or who Divinity does or doesn’t speak to or through.
Back to order. Are the any Chess players up in here? Think about the game if you will; it is the picture of Divine order. For those of you that don’t play, simply, every piece on the board is limited in its movements according to its title/position, with the exception on the Queen. Girlfriend can move in any direction and as far as she chooses. She is indeed given authority to command the King’s army and protect the King’s realm.
Now the King can also move in any direction he desires, but only one square at a time. Non-players, there is an exception to this rule; when employed it indicates that the Queen has been overpowered or the King is in immanent danger. But this is a game that proceeds perfectly according to purpose, so the King can only move one square at a time. Are the King’s physical boundaries indicative of the confines of his authority? It would appear that in the natural order of things, at least on a chessboard, real power actively resides in the hands of a woman.
Okay, let’s kick this up to the theological for a few. My favorite book says that God is unmoving and unchanging; it says the movement of God among men is the domain of the Holy Spirit.
I don’t want to digress for too long, but again it is necessary. I appreciate your patience. Yes, I believe in feminine Divinity and I believe the KJV supports my confidence. I adhere to line upon line, precept upon precept, so I just want to give you a little sumpthin, sumpthin on which to base your own investigation. Matthew 6:10 and Genesis 1:26 indicate that God purposed man to be the physical reflection of Divinity. Can we agree on this? Now to Proverbs 8 please. Verses 22-30 clearly predate Genesis 1:2 (v.24); then go on to indicate that God brought forth the speaker from himself much as woman was brought forth from man. (v.25) I’m not trying to linger here, but 1 more tidbit before I end this particular digression. Check out Luke 1:26-35. Most of us have been taught that 1 person of God came upon Mary and overshadowed her which resulted in Mary’s impregnation with Jesus. Am I right about it? Well Luke 1:35 reads thus: “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Perhaps I’ve got it twisted, but I don’t think so, and it reads to me like there were clearly 2 persons of God involved. Gotta tell ya, that with my limited understanding of the natural order of things, 2 people make Emmanuel’s Divine conception a bit easier to digest.
Anyway, there you have my grounds, short version, for affirming the Divine feminine; now back to Chess. Oh, I apologize – Proverbs 31:10-31 is the scriptural description and confirmation of the Queen’s position and responsibilities. It is also the bridge that links this Chess analogy to both theological interpretation and “real world” application.
The chessboard Queen has no stumbling blocks to walking in the fullness of her position with its inherent authority and power. This is because not only does she know her job and do it but her army follows her lead. Best of all her man, the King, doesn’t overbear, undermine or question her abilities or intent; he knows his place.
Boy, I wish I could see ya’ll’s faces right about now, but anyway… Harry Watley, if you’re trying to say that on the bottom line the man was uniquely and Divinely purposed to be the bottom line, then I must agree. A man’s authority is indeed the ultimate authority. I must caution however, that “superiority” by which I mean a need or propensity toward heavy handed , dictatorial “leadership” is not a manifestation of authority but an unmasking of one’s fear of having their perceived position encroached upon, a manifestation of insecurity, if you will.
Back to Chess, for real this time. The Queen who moves everywhere and does much has 1 limitation too. The Queen has no power over death. Biblically that power is given to the man born of Luke 1:35. That the power of life and death is given to man is reflected in the game. Only the King has the power and authority to restore a captured (killed) piece to the game (life).
I further agree with Mr. Watley that very many of the challenges facing African America would be all but instantaneously eradicated if we could/would just get our gender relationship thing aligned right. I want to remind you it is the King’s army and the King’s realm. The Queen wields her authority from a secure position of complete confidence that the one standing steadfast is well able to protect and provide her all, up to and including life’s very breath.
One last thing as I go. I want you to know that Strong’s defines “submit” as the willingness to cooperate with and bear the burdens for. Perhaps African America we would be wise, yes very wise indeed, to submit ourselves unto one another?
This piece was inspired by The Strength of Woman by Steve Williams.