It doesn’t work both ways

With Joel and Kathy nearer the front of our minds, me having seen their billboard and Dalrock mentioning them in his most recent post on abuse, it was not surprising to see Jimmy Evans’ email in my box this morning regarding the topic of submission. J and K are the dystopian end game of backwards marriage teaching. Evans and Dobson and Rainey and the crowd are skid greasing towards that dystopian apocalypse.

I read the email with zero expectation of it having any content worth parsing. I mean how many times can you cover the same tripe where Christian leaders apologize for headship scripture, explain it really means that men are draft horses and ought to therefore be easy to respect in a sort of cute huggable work animal way? Mother to child, “honey those bears at the zoo look very cute but they need to be respected because they can kill you”. That sort of attitude may be an improvement to what exists now, but abuse allegations stand ready to cap that line of thinking.

Evan’s take was bolder, by a degree or two.

In Paul’s model of marriage, women are told to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. This passage makes today’s women uncomfortable.

OK. But

When I teach it, many wives recoil at the thought of submission.

Why? Because we’ve misconstrued what it means to submit.

Then he walks into the stream of pedestrians:

As Christians, we submit ourselves to Jesus because we don’t fear being dominated, controlled, or abused by Him. We give Him a position of honor, respect, and leadership because we know His character. We trust Him.

This pay to play performance related submission is a farce. We may not fear being dominated or abused by God (though a smidgen of those feelings would not be wrong) but we indeed ought to consider being controlled. Not in the sense of a marionette, but in the sense that obedience is in effect control. Here Evans implies the extreme in order to rebuke the good.

He isn’t telling them to become doormats or accept abuse.

This is beyond annoying. Is there an analog that is spoken to men when the whole servant leader issue comes up? Is there a cliche that mitigates the words to men? Do we tell men, “yes you are to serve your wife and family….but….that does not mean you are to literally serve their each and every whim no matter what”? Nope, that is left unsaid. And it would actually be closer to prescriptive adjustment than the ubiquitous “she is not a doormat”.

More apologies to the women

He is saying “Treat your husbands with admiration and esteem.”

I’m aware that this isn’t easy, especially with husbands who have done little to earn that kind of respect. One wife once told me, “If he ever starts acting like Jesus, I’ll be happy to treat him like Jesus!”

Women know that giving respect to a man who doesn’t deserve it will often make his irresponsible behavior worse.

He tries to offer some modicum of fear that a man may experience when he confronts what scripture calls him to do, but he goes badly wrong

 I knew Scripture said I should serve her like Jesus served the church, but I thought she would take advantage of me if I did that.

Scripture does not say that. Period.

He touches on a good point, and it informs the major point I wish to make here.

But I eventually realized something about this passage in Ephesians: It doesn’t come with a disclaimer. It doesn’t say, “wives, submit to your husbands…but only if they deserve it.” It doesn’t tell husbands to be loving and sacrificial but not until they get the respect they need.

The Christian life isn’t about reacting to others based on how others behave. It’s about responding to others according to the principles of Scripture—regardless of how we are treated.

Good words. No conditionality. True.

Many preachers make it this far in their explanations. Then they start to get into what makes the whole thing easier for them to speak from the pulpit. They add sugar to the medicine. And here, I take exception.

When a husband begins loving and nurturing his wife the way God intended, she begins to soften. She treats him more respectfully. She trusts him.

When a wife takes the initiative and treats her husband with respect and honor, he begins living up to her expectations. He leads with integrity.

A commenter, Bobbye at Dalrock made an observation that is useful here:

All desire the freedom to do that which is right in their own eyes. Men hate the word ‘submit’ applied to them as much as women do. The church is full of worldly men and women who will not submit to God. the Word teaches that everyone is to submit to everyone. Men are to esteem everyone above themselves. Women are to esteem everyone above themselves. The only way to be able to do that is for everyone to be submitted to God.

Seems very “balanced”, like Evans does. So, if a man loves and leads sacrificially, its easier for a woman to trust and follow. Perhaps it is true. It is certainly irrelevant though because the teaching around it is dangerously flawed.

The problem is that there is a natural order of operations to things. No matter how pleasing to the ears it is, this natural order of operations, if adhered to, will make alignment in proper structure much more likely to function as intended.

The churchians would assign equal weight to each direction in terms of someone going first. If he servant leads, she will more likely and more easily respectfully submit, or, if she respectfully submits he will more likely servant lead.

Sorry, it does not work equally, bi-directionally, not in marriage, and not in any other hierarchy be it military, employment, parental, or even coming under the authority of Christ. It would seem perfect if both parties could switch on simultaneously. We know that is absurd. So where would we go to find the model we should follow for marriage? Exactly where the scripture says to go. The relationship between Christ and His people follows a certain order of operations. He stands ready to lead us, knocking on the door so to speak, but while he could foist His leadership on us, he doesn’t. he awaits our volitional surrender. We sing about this.

If the example of The Lord is insufficient, look to the examples of military or employment. Do we come under the authority of those charged with it by waiting to see how they are doing? Or do we, because it is expected, begin under said authority, and outside of extreme cases, remain there regardless whether the leader rises to the occasion or flails helplessly in his attempt?

The leadership dynamic cannot begin completely until the woman submits of her volition. At this point, and ONLY at this point can rational admonishment of the man kick into high gear, pressuring him , not to lead…he is already doing that because of her volitional surrender, but to lead better.

How many spoon fulls of sugar would get this medicine down?

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “It doesn’t work both ways

  1. So where would we go to find the model we should follow for marriage? Exactly where the scripture says to go. The relationship between Christ and His people follows a certain order of operations….

    The marriage dynamic begins when the woman submits of her volition. At this point, and ONLY at this point can rational admonishment of the man kick into high gear, pressuring him , not to lead…he is already doing that because of her volitional surrender, but to lead better.

    This is just flat out wrong.

    You properly point back to Christ as an example; per Ephesians 5. That’s good. It talks about Christ loving His bride so much that He died for her, and husbands should be loving likewise.

    So, when did Christ perform this loving martyrdom? It’s in Romans 5: “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

    You have provided an inversion of Christ’s example because it makes tactical sense to you, and it protects the man from getting hurt (feelings, finances, family, death…anything). Those things have no eternal consequence. They are of the world. If we love the things of the world more than we love to follow Christ then we are not Christlike–we are not Christian.

    Any man who does not accept this should not marry; which is what the apostles and St. Paul said when they were told the unfairness of the score.

    None of that makes a wife’s bad behavior acceptable.

  2. You have provided an inversion of Christ’s example because it makes tactical sense to you, and it protects the man from getting hurt (feelings, finances, family, death…anything

    I can see how your snippets of my words are the inversion you mention. I reject the reasons you offer for why I did it, those cannot be further from my reasons….even if I am wrong, that has no place in my thinking, protecting the man…..no, not me.

    A man can sacrifice for his wife, yet not lead. In fact that may be central to the problem. A man can take on the full martyr roll with the very best of intentions and in obedience to following the scriptural order of operations. he can spend his whole life washing feet, and that is good. But there is more to it than that. The sacrificing part is where he would be exposed to the dangers you think I was trying to avoid for him. That he is called to sacrifice, from the get go, is correct. Even that he is called to lead, is correct.

    Lots of terms here, prone to conflation. Loving, leading, sacrificing, martyring, etc. Perhaps I poorly differentiated. I do not refute what you said, because it is correct. Your comments do not refute what I INTENDED to be saying even if I was too ambiguous with terms myself. reading back and your response I can see I need to edit this because it does head where you headed it off, and that is wrong.

    My intent was to speak to something more functional, more nuts and bolts, less over arching.
    I’m going to back pedal and correct my own self correction. In the context of what I was responding to, it isn’t that ambiguous. I will stand by it as a response to the Evans article. I maybe could have more actively parsed his words and scattered them better amidst mine.

    Churchians usually say very simply, if a man loves his wife as Christ the church she will naturally respond respectfully in submission. Surely you disagree with that.

    Evans went a little further, and was a little better when he said there is no conditionality in the scriptural admonishments to men or women. Surely you are still on board.

    Words mean things, remember. To lead is either leadership, having someone under authority, or foolish folly like an insane aged soldier still imagining himself with a regiment, running around barking commands at random people and making their responses fit the artificial reality he has created. UNTIL someone is under the authority the thing is not completed, and there is NOTHING a man can do to foist his leadership on another of free will under God just the same.

    He can try, and you can call that leadership all you want, then we will agree to disagree. His trying is his calling, his success and the circle made complete is not, and cannot be made complete lacking the volitional acquiescence of the woman.Im certain you agree with that though I’m also certain you would equivocate and modify because it is your nature my friend.

  3. Both men and women have a choice to obey God or not. This is the same as in marriage.

    A man who leads can no more “help” a woman submit than a woman’s submission can no more “help” a man lead. Corinthians clearly states that submission for a wife in a marriage to an unbeliever is to sanctify the husband and children. It does not encourage him to lead.

    As Cane said noted in Romans 5: “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

    The Father through Jesus has shown us all of the love in the world — perhaps more than we can ever imagine through Jesus’ submission to the will of the Father. Yet, there are many who do not accept this gift of love.

    This is why submission does not encourage leadership, and leadership does not encourage submission.

    The choice is this: humans are ultimately to obey God and cannot do so without submission to His will.

  4. There was no mention , by me, of encouraging him to lead. I stated that the circle of leadership is broken without a volitional follower. Hence, IF he is leading, she is following. Otherwise it is madness.

    This does not contradict scripture

    The Father through Jesus has shown us all of the love in the world — perhaps more than we can ever imagine through Jesus’ submission to the will of the Father. Yet, there are many who do not accept this gift of love

    There needn’t be any encouragement aspect in the perfection of God the Father and God the Son. The analogy falls down there, regardless it still wasn’t about encouragement.

    I disagree with your statement though:

    This is why submission does not encourage leadership, and leadership does not encourage submission.

    Here is why. Again, its not about encouraging, it is about facilitating, enabling. leading does not enable following in the way that following enables leading. hence the title, it doesnt work both ways

  5. “The marriage dynamic begins when the woman submits of her volition”
    This puts the woman 100% in control; not God, not the man, but the woman 100% in control. Your logic is flawed.

    [I did change that sentence. it was wrong the way I had written it]

  6. The leadership dynamic, the proper order of the whole. I’m editing the post to say that.

    In control of what? The only thing she is in control of is herself. even for God to be in control requires an act of volition on her part.

    See this is what i am getting at about the things you say. To refer to God being in control generally is utterly true, he is in control of the sinner, the saint, the angels and the demons, in the purest most over arching sense of the word. But you KNOW thats not what I am talking about.

    So why do that? We come to Christ of own volitional. We surrender to control. this is not new ground.

  7. Ah, I see where we have the misunderstanding. I posted this on Robyn’s blog but I think it fits here now.

    I think there’s two distinctions to be made. Spiritually, the responsibilities and roles for submission to God and His Word are equal (just like men and women are equal in terms of spirituality — all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God). However, the physical consequences are probably more in favor of more of the power to the woman’s side.

    1. Authority/leadership is given to the husband, and he is to love her as Christ loved the church, washing her in the Word. The wife cannot make a husband who doesn’t want to lead to lead.

    2. Submission is commanded of the wife. And like you and I both said, it is either submission or rebellion. A husband cannot lead without a follower.

    There are both roles and responsibilities given to both sexes in marriage. A marriage is not in God honoring unity until both the husband and wife walk into what He has commanded them to.

    Just as a husband cannot command a wife to submit, a wife cannot command her husband to lead. These are two separate commands that each sex must obey if they want to honor God. God is more important than the spouse, and will bring submission to these roles into the unity and sanctification process that is marriage.

    Now, on the topic of physical consequences… just as pre-marital sex damages the woman more than the men, the woman’s submission in marriage will more likely determine if the marriage fails or not. Proverbs and Matthew verses included [see below]. Division per the wife is more likely to bring about a split than two people wandering because the husband won’t lead.

    Matthew 12:25 — “And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.”

    Proverbs 14:1 — “The wise woman builds her house, But the foolish tears it down with her own hands.”

  8. Yes….same page now, thank you

    This

    Division per the wife is more likely to bring about a split than two people wandering because the husband won’t lead.

    is a nice addition.

  9. God is in control of His creation whether anyone submits or not. About the husband being the ‘head’ of the wife. This is declared to be so by God because God declared it to be so. No matter how anyone behaves or thinks or believes, the husband IS head of his wife. Refer to Hosea. God espoused Himself to Israel, His Bride. Israel played the whore but God was always the head of His bride, Israel. If you are a husband, then you ARE the head. You can not ,not be the head.

  10. Also thank you for your prayers. I am 100% in favor of the Body of Christ gathering as they should. Most groups calling themselves churches are mostly worldly people and not the Body of Christ.

  11. Empath:
    It occurred to me recently as I’ve encountered more and more of this Churchian literature that, even though there are numerous appeals to Scripture and a lot more theorizing and pop-psychology, there is little or no discussion of love—a startling omission considering that it’s a central theme in the New Testament and marriages are supposedly predicated on it.

    When one thinks about it, how much of this stuff about sharing housework, or balances, or any of these other issues would even be relevant if the husband and wife gave and received genuine love? All this stress on submission and leadership seems like it would come naturally to a couple in genuine love.

    The same thing is noticeably absent on a lot of Christian-themed manosphere blogs. Article after article is rife with subjects like ‘tingles’ and economics, and submission, and ‘gaming your wife’ and manipulation, power struggles—nothing whatsoever about the ability to give or receive love.

    I suspect the reason why love is never talked about in these circles is because the authors CAN’T talk about it. It seems as though misandry is the ‘third rail’ in these circles that no one wants to open up and talk about.

    What are your thoughts on this?

  12. Empath, I agree with your explanation of submission. I think you would agree with me on this, just curious though. I believe, even though my ex frivolously divorced me three an a half years ago, through the use of the corrupt family courts, that God still sees me as The Head of at least my children. That being said, I had been expressing that to my ex through texts (she doesn’t like actually talking) for about the last four months, which she does not respond back at all, culminating in a formal letter on Fathers Day of this year. Apperantly she found what I’ve said before and wrote, to be emotionally abusive, and thus found an attorney who agreed to summon me to court, where Miss Judge Jezebel found the same and ruled in favor of a two year protective order, in which I cannot have any contact with my children or ex. She has unsurped the authority of God and His Word, and my authority as the head of my children. Agree or disagree?

  13. Greg

    The realm of emotional abuse is down the rabbit hole for the most part. She didn’t need the courts to usurp authority because the courts cannot change what God designates. What changes is her actions, or they do not change, and she has the weight of law and society backing her.

    This is what I am getting at over all. A man can claim to be head, he can BE head, he can sacrifice and behave as a leader. But he is not leading until she, of her volition, submits….period.

    This does not challenge the points made by Cane Caldo. Cane was right in the way he read what i wrote. My wording was awkward. I stand by this though that the marriage hierarchy is not established, the circle is not complete, etc etc until she agrees.

  14. Empath, I’ll bite on the question you asked Eric, because I do think he has a point.

    Using love as described in 1 Corinthians 13, I agree with him. There is very little talk about love. The only thing I’ve read in the sphere that addressed genuine love of late as come from Cane in his most recent post.

    It’s not all emotion no, but there should be some emotion connected to the desire to do good by your mate. The problem comes in when we allow our emotions to preclude us from doing the right thing. I’m not all that emotive by nature but it’s still something to consider when these discussions come up.

  15. @Eric, Elspeth, Empath

    I agree there isn’t enough teachings on love but you have to wonder “Who knows how to love?”

    There is so married people worried about personal gain other than loving their spouse. Asking a spouse to do something sometimes make them feel like they are trying to get them to do everything when all they simply asked for is help.

  16. Empath:
    I would say the best way to define ‘love’ would strongly indicate the concept of ‘value’. In other words, one person sees an intrinsic and unique value in the other. What Elspeth quoted from St. Paul would be the effect of that attitude moreso than the cause. People who were genuinely in love would behave this way whether St. Paul catalogued the qualities or not.

    I think that our culture with its strong depreciation of men incapacities women’s ability to love men in any genuine sense of the word. I even pick this up from a lot of so-called ‘Red Pill Women.’ They will often couch it behind camouflages like original sin, female hypergamy, &c. but they never want to address misandry directly. That approach is a lot more obvious of course with writers of the ‘Stepping Up’ variety. I believe that a lot of women simply don’t want to admit that they hate all men and most pastors and MRAs don’t want to touch the subject for fear of offending them.

  17. Since Cane brought up the issue of ‘submission’ it provides a good example of where I am going on the subject of love. Empath wrote above: “A man is not leading until she submits of her own volition.”

    I technically agree with Empath, but the volitionary part would be a secondary effect to woman in love. She would submit to a man she was in love with like a reflex, more than a consciously thought-out volitional process. It’s not quite the same dynamic as a religious conversion, for example, although the Apostles hold up spiritual love as the model I think again they mean the ideal result than the actual process. My understanding of the Apostles is that even non-Christian can exhibit genuine love, but Christianity adds a spiritual dimension which perfects the natural.

  18. She would submit to a man she was in love with like a reflex, more than a consciously thought-out volitional process

    Not really. “Your desire will be for your husband” speaks to this. The urge to be over bearing and controlling -for his own good- is what I am getting at here. Love can motivate great violence.

  19. Empath:
    The desire to be overbearing and controlling, though, doesn’t stem from a motive like love. If a female desires to control and dominate a man in this way, it would imply that she doesn’t value him (if she did, she would accept him as he is), and if she doesn’t value him, she doesn’t love him either.

  20. I disagree. A woman loves her children …..no…..IF a woman loves her children she will want to control them. Its an aside but it begs the question about the mom/daughter duos that act like friends today.
    Part of love in a woman is a desire to control for what she thinks is best…..buried in that may be a self interest but truly, you cannot say that if a woman truly loves her man she will not want to control him. Its the opposite. Then if she loves him enough, she will stifle that urge.

  21. Empath:
    “part of love in a woman is a desire to control for what she thinks is best.”

    True, but ‘what she thinks is best’ implies a limit on how much control she sees fit to exercise. It also implies a valuation criterion, because she wouldn’t want to do what she thinks is for the best otherwise. If she has to stifle an urge to go beyond those limits, there has to be an underlying motive for the urge to have arisen in the first place, which can’t be rooted in love.

  22. Pingback: Loving and Controlling | Feminism is Empathological

  23. In thinking about the number of women who seem to think that being a “helpmate” and “loving” is commensurate with controlling/nagging/harping their husband or S.O., and the hamster that allows them to so enthusiastically justify it, I am reminded of this quote by CS Lewis:

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

    Contrast this method of eliciting change with 1 Peter 3:1.

  24. Here is the problem:
    “if she respectfully submits he will more likely servant lead”.
    THAT is a lie. It just doesn’t happen. Men are selfish bullies. There is no learning curve for them and with some churches so eager to promote total male dominance in direct opposition to biblical instruction, arrogance and abuse of women and children runs rampant. As a human being with a brain, (I am assuming that you have one), do you not see how ridiculous it is that anyone should have to teach you to be kind and considerate of the of the person in the world you have permission to have sex with? can tell you right now that you don’t get the connection. You could look like Addonis but If you don’t treat your wife as your equal, if your ego is so fragile that you can acknowledge that I she is a valuable asset to your life, Forget sex! A man who must dominate is repulsive! What kind of idiot thinks it is in his best interest to treat his wife, this fellow child of God , with disdain and arrogance?
    Having lived a good long time on this earth, I have observed the ignorance of many a man who thinks that he is more important to God than any woman. You betray your ignorance in your behavior and words. You need a woman to teach you how to be a decent human being but certainly don’t deserve it. I wouldn’t waste my time.

  25. Susan

    Thank you for demonstrating something i write about all the time. Your response has no basis, yet it serves as a reflexive workaround and it keeps you in the comfy chair of your confirmation bias.

    If you seriously posit the notion that even a quorum of churches are teaching men to be controlling ogres, you are merely parroting having read comments similar to yours at some time in the past. This assertion is utter bunk. Find me one example of a big mainstream church or family ministry that is encouraging brutish domineering behavior in men. Please, find me just one.

    Women run around these blogs and drop these basic beliefs as proof text when its an artificial reality…it doesn’t exist. The overwhelming majority of what any church or ministry has to say to men is corrective. Contrast with what they have to say to women is encouragement. The encouragement they dole out even carries the subtext that she needs encouragement because the man is brutish and they are therefore trying to correct men. Ive sat in church for 30 years and never once heard a teacher telling men to lead as aloof commanders and not be caring of their spouse. Ive heard mealy mouthed nonsense that approaches an apology for the very Word of God. Ive not heard anything close to an analog that would call women to any accountability on ANYTHING, let alone submission.

    You are the poster woman for precisely why men need to lead. You no doubt will substitute “dominate” for “lead” because my statement messes up your version of reality if it doesnt include some manner of harshness.

    I do not care about the statement that if she submits he will servant lead because the term servant-lead is corrupt. It has a basis in scripture, that if handled with care has real meaning. But there is no term “servant lead”….for good reason. Servant lead now means defer, submit, render no decision, come under…..

    Oddly the man who models the servant leader behavior that is the mainstream teaching ends up divorced because he isn’t leading. The term needs to have “servant” in blinking bold font, and ‘leader” like the bottom row of the eye chart. because that’s what is being taught…..not brutish dominance.

    Fact is neither one , not servant leader not brutish oaf has a wit to do with what is stated in Ephesians 5. Both are feminine driven emotionally birthed concepts that have utility amongst evangelical feminists who cannot rest in trust of the Lord.

    A man who must dominate is repulsive!

    Inverse of truth. Watch what women do, not what they say. They are repulsed by weak men, and go weak around men with social dominance. Social dominance is not necessarily an ogre thing, but whiny men asking wives how high to jump are repulsive to their wives. You don’t know yourself, and from that false basis you attempt to know others. Live by the truth of Gods Words, not by anger born of cliche and rumor based urban legend type perceptions of reality. Test me on this. Compare what YOU SEE to what you are told by ten of your like minded cohort. Do this with fervent prayer for revelation. Do it humbly not haughtily.

    See the near blasphemy of thee wife who Evans quoted above saying “One wife once told me, “If he ever starts acting like Jesus, I’ll be happy to treat him like Jesus!”. Read the imperatives of scripture as if God speaks them at you and to you. You will find zero conditionality in them, as I do not when I read those directed at me to me.

    Or

    Enjoy your bitter divorce

  26. Well, dear, I guess that you have been zoned out wondering what is on the buffet at your local Golden Corral instead of hearing the drivel which regularly passes for sermons here in the Bible Belt. Totally not your fault, sweetheart, you’ve been programmed to do so from birth, you have no notion of reality! We certainly cannot expect more from
    your poor tiny excuse for a brain. Males are simply not equipped. They have no capacity to grow., Zero growth curve, poor things. You might as well simply accept that you will never be worth the dirt that the two soles of your feet occupy unless you learn to LEARN. From women. God put your mother here to teach you because your father is nothing but a sperm donor.. If God gave you a wife it is because you are so screwed up that even your mother couldn’t straighten you ourt, probably because your sperm donor dad was such a mess! Carry on and please try not to stumble upon your own stinky feet.

  27. It just doesn’t happen. Men are selfish bullies.

    LOL!

    They have no capacity to grow., Zero growth curve, poor things. You might as well simply accept that you will never be worth the dirt that the two soles of your feet occupy unless you learn to LEARN. From women.

    LOLOL… please stop …LOL …. I can’t take anymore LOL …

    What are we going to learn from women today? Don’t we already have a multitude of kids that grew up learning from women like you. How did that turn out? These kids became gang members, drug addicts, prostitutes, and committed suicide much more often than kids with fathers. But, I guess they were still better off then the 56 + million unborn babies that never saw the light of day because their own mothers couldn’t be bothered to finish what they started.

  28. Dear Empath, et. al.:

    Not to spoil the fun, but Susan Sandridge is certainly trolling you all. It’s a hilarious spectacle, too.

    I guess that you have been zoned out wondering what is on the buffet at your local Golden Corral instead of hearing the drivel which regularly passes for sermons here in the Bible Belt. Totally not your fault, sweetheart, you’ve been programmed to do so from birth, you have no notion of reality! We certainly cannot expect more from your poor tiny excuse for a brain. Males are simply not equipped.

    Feck’n LOL! Troll on dude!

    Regards,

    Boxer

    [you are surely correct, or….the alternative is nefandous -my new favorite word]

  29. @Susan Standridge,

    “with some churches so eager to promote total male dominance…”

    Please provide a link to the websites of three churches that teach this.

  30. Susan—
    Your post is yet another great advertisement for avoiding Anglobitches and going to other cultures for worthwhile women.

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