Legalism and Game.

I grew up in a legalistic Church. Think Amish with cars. The rulebook for how to operate in this “fellowship” wordwise was somewhere in the vicinity of Atlas Shrugged. The elders had met over the years and decided upon the propriety of everything from bicycles to how to best hold up your pants and whether photography was “the debil”. Higher education was frowned upon and there was no doubt when the wifely submission verses came up they were NOT glossed over. I’ve really put a lot of my life into realizing what was wrong with all of this. While the rules would always be justified and many made a lot of sense they are reactionary. Worship songs were sung at Alvin and the Chipmunks recording speed in a capella because over 100 years prior people had danced to their singing. Plain was the watchword. They needed a preformatted answer to EVERY situation and the “right” answer could very easily be right because it was the opposite of what everyone else was doing. In short, they reacted to EVERYTHING. (I never joined that church to the dismay of many parents whose sons and daughters looked up to me).

It dawns on me that strict adherence to Game can be very similar. I’ve been reading Dalrock for a couple of years now and seen the pro and anti game arguments and have had something like a pragmatic ambivalence. I’ve been chided for making game-like or even white knight type correlations between a husbands good behavior and a positive outcome on the marriage front and I am better seeing why that is happening. My faith can easily be regarded as determinism, that if you follow the rules that nothing bad will happen. I know better. Tight game AND/OR epic feats of white knightery do not automatically result in a good marriage (quite the contrary); as I have stated even perfect obedience to God is often insufficient to keep a relationship together (Jesus and Judas). Here is the rub as I see it, having an understanding of hypergamy and the basic understanding of human nature is a useful tool as is having all of the verses which tell us to love our wives as Christ loves the Church memorized. The application of those tools is a field where many problems arise.

I suggest that game and white knightery are two sides of the same reactionary coin. They are both the feeble efforts of men trying to take control of an uncontrollable situation. The white knight supposes that he has a Godly blueprint for success with the opposite gender and that all he needs to do is more zealously apply himself to make the system work, following the rules and pressing harder will surely reap success. The gamer supposes that he understands the flesh nature of women and goes about trying to work it to his advantage and like the cocaine addicted monkey he thinks that as long as he keeps pressing the “right” button he will be assured game success. Both of these positions are in an orbit around women, not as it should be centering on God. We seek a rulebook like those plain folks of my youth to evade the facts, we don’t want to hear from God and we want to pretend we can handle it in bite size rules.

Turning to a rulebook to guide us in human relations is a mistake just as turning to God with a rulebook is. Yes, there are rules, but if they define the entirety of our interaction then we have NO relationship. Never fail a fitness test. Display higher value. Utilize preselection. Those can be rules that replace relationship, I’ve even seen this advocated (Don’t share your day to day struggles with your wife). This type of legalism can feel like it has all the answers, a solution for every problem, in our wives the appropriate reaction to every display of fitness testing, in the case of God a way to measure up in our own strength:

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(Mat 15:8-9)

 

Rules don’t replace relationship. That was one of the biggest lessons the plain folks taught me. Does my wife have a sin nature, exhibit hypergamy, test my fitness? Of course and it’s good for me to see that dynamic. Do I want to systematize my interactions with her? To turn my responses into a static “defense”? Absolutely not. I want to relate with her and that is the interaction that is under attack by Satan and his minions in the feminist movement.

If we are not careful we will be pushed into two reactionary tracks in response to this attack. I reiterate, game and man-up. The third way is God, who understands the sinful nature that we are fighting in ourselves and in our wives better than we do, He knows the plans and schemes of feminists and He knows how to beat them before they even show up. God is neither reactionary nor static.

I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
(Php 4:12-14)

 

Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
(2Co 3:5-7)

 

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
(Mat 11:28-30)

 

It’s all about relationship. We turn to Jesus, and that life under His yoke becomes an organic way of dealing with feminism, our wives and each other (without pulling out a volume that rivals “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” for verbosity.) It’s no guarantee of marital success, but in my estimation it is far superior to the rulebook.

I have an analogy that I go to when discussing relationship. Jesus described Himself as “the way”, so I cannot claim originality with this picture.  I have a road map and a set of rules for operating my car, I can use them to envision a trip to Anchorage. For some people this seems like enough, they have the directions, the rules. I want to drive to Anchorage (rarely, but you get the point). I want to go there and interact (buy stuff). I want to enjoy the mountains on the drive. I have to get in the car and apply myself, understand the directions yes, but the trip is always about more than the directions in practice while not in theory. One is rules, the other about experience.

It’s all about relationship.

Amen, Bro…..ahem, Preach It?!

I’ve been doing some catching on the egalitarian front and I was reading over on Shirley Taylor’s blog where I found out she has a new book called “Women Equal-No Buts: Powered by the same Source”

No. seriously. that. is. the. title.

Really.

Anyway, I was reading on her blog and discovered that there is a call for schism. It has finally gotten to the point where churchianity is completely intolerable for some egalitarians. Tony Jones over at Patheos is throwing down his limp glove liner, incensed over the subjugation of women in Churchianity (oh, the humanity). His bullet points?

  • If you attend a church that does not let women preach or hold positions of ecclesial authority, you need to leave that church.
  • If you work for a ministry that does not affirm women in ecclesial leadership, you need to leave that ministry.
  • If you write for a publishing house that also prints books by “complementarians,” you need to take your books to another publishing house.
  • If you speak at conferences, you need to withdraw from all events that do not affirm women as speakers, teachers, and leaders.

Wow, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

That is, we who believe in the full equality of women need to break fellowship with those who do not. The time for dialogue and debate has passed. The Spirit has spoken, and we have listened. It’s time to move forward with full force.

Now all we need is a time machine so that we can send him back 100 years I think we could really solve some issues. Isn’t it ironic how his calling for schism from us makes me oddly united with him? In effect Tony Jones is beckoning his readers to the maw of the matriarchy.

 

Dying Dogs Porn.

(Subtitle: A male oriented argument against porn).

I’ve been thinking a lot about “Manning Up” (TM) since dad died. Specifically, what it means to bear the gravitas of a patriarch. His older brother (my Uncle) is still alive, but suddenly I find myself in a family of women along with a brother in law. It’s sinking in. I started letting my beard grow the day after dad’s memorial, his reached nearly to his belly. Call it a symbol of office, mine has almost as much white in it as it does red or brown.

Anyway, it has had me pondering authority in new and significant ways. Call it an understanding of the dignity of the office of patriarch. That’s one of the reasons that I start thinking about pornography, dignity. I’m glad that as I have aged the fires have died down significantly, that is a mercy.  Another result of my middle age has been young men approaching me on the subject of porn over the years. My advice has started to crystallize along the following lines:

It turns husbands into thieves and sneaks to meet a need that should be fulfilled in the marriage bed. It gives us an escape hatch where God meant for none to exist. Instead of taking the question of our “burning” (as Paul put it) into the teeth of the feminists, our wives, the church and society we slink off like sick animals to lick our wounds and die in the dark. Meanwhile, not learning to meet the legitimate needs of their husbands wives are in a decaying orbit of solipsism, being told by the enemy that they are to serve themselves first, mocking men and their sexuality as they go.

The problem is largely ours, we stopped rightfully insisting that they do their job, a job that they should desire deeply to do. A job that the Bible specifically instruct spouses to do, that is, not to defraud our spouses. Feminism has made it impolite and impolitic to discuss any of this. The modern feminist dialogue has made male sexuality taboo, an embarrassment and told us we should be ashamed of it, inside or outside of marriage, that we need to hide it. The Bible say that we are one flesh with our wives, so as I see it, if we are in a pressure cooker of sexual temptation guess who is in it with us? They need to know and they need to be charged with the shared burden of dealing with it. We need to own our end of it by seeing our wives as God’s sole provision and help them understand that’s what they are.

Many are naked, exposed by our nature’s and instead of going to the Lord’s provision- our helpmeet, we instead turn to the fig leaf of attempting to deal with this problem in the shadows.  The medicine has been making us sick, a lethal morphine drip that anesthetizes the pain of burning when we should screaming for the “nurse”. It enervates us when we should be suiting up and going to war with the those that sent our culture down this path in the first place. If we are burning tell our wives to bring marshmallows, hiding is undignified. We need to stop killing the pain and start using it as motivation to re-enter the fray.

********************************

BTW, I also point guys to: http://yourbrainonporn.com/, specifically pointing out the “Coolidge Effect” (named after Calvin himself.)

Into the Maw of the Matriarchy

The Masai tribe in Africa call hyena’s the “doctors” because they have the ability to diagnose the weak and sick in their prey populations. (Side note: the hyena social organization is a hereditary matriarchy)

Over on my blog I was examining a verse in Isaiah considering the work that the Lord is doing in the world and how to discern what it is we are to identify with. Sometimes the most holy, appropriate, sane way of dealing with the doctrine of demons – the ideology of the insane is to realize that it is meant to perform a Godly function.

Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
(Isa 54:16-17)

Of course, here on Empath’s blog I’m specifically speaking of feminism, of which I am fully convinced is a “waster to destroy” sent by God to perfect the body of Christ; this can be counter-intuitive:

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2Th 2:7-12)

We can see this in the Church today as observed in the “Social Justice Jesus” movement such as with Shirley Taylor’s “Dethroning Male Headship” and the underlying ideas in her particular heresy. Judgement is in fact coming first to the house of the Lord in the form of this other Gospel, this other Jesus.

For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
(1Pe 4:17-18)

I realized today as I was reading Dalrock’s latest post “The Sin of Lacking Moxie” just how much traditional complementarians are getting it from both sides. The feminists despise the principle of headship as much as many Christian men in the manosphere despise the man-up messaging (as seen in “Fragging Christian Headship”).  At issue in this case is the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which Dalrock convincingly argues is embracing feminism. This aversion doesn’t stop feminists from also hating it as we can observe in Shirley Taylor’s call for redress from the Dr. Al Mohler in “No apology yet for the denigration of women”.   Man-up complementarians such as Driscoll and Rainey are sick with the heresy of feminism, and the hyena’s are circling. Cut-off from the truth of Biblical submission while embracing the lies of feminism all of their natural resistance is gone, they are coals being blown by the smith. Watch them disappear into the maws of the hyena matriarchy and remember that as you watch the truth of God’s word unfold:

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
(Gal 6:7-8)

Also, remember not to see this as an attack on the Body of Christ, it’s an attack on a cancerous tumor and God approves. You’ll sleep better at night. Psalm 2:12b reminds us: “Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”

What is the word for divorce in Churchianese?

Maybe someone should mention to Dave Ramsey:

For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts.

(Malachi 2:17 NASB)

And that he can find it in the same book that discusses tithing.

I was listening to what I consider his ridiculous financial advice and got a heavy dose of blue pill on the side. In his post “It’s Our Money” Dave gives some standard advice such as he does to any women that he radio diagnoses as “abused”.

QUESTION: Amber in Tacoma is a stay-at-home mom. Her husband says the money he earns is his, and he gives her an allowance. Amber is frustrated and asks if she should start billing him for what she does around the house.

Dave says they need marriage counseling.

Examine that question, what advice do you give this woman?

Now time to see how the “master” handles it:

Time for Dave to don his Shining White Armor!

ANSWER: No, you need marriage counseling. This doesn’t have anything to do with Financial Peace. This has to do with your husband treats you like a financial twit. Let me just tell you if Sharon Ramsey treated me the way your husband treats you, we’d have a haymaker problem. He’s treating you like a 4-year-old, and he’s an overbearing jerk. I don’t know how you approach that exactly—possibly duct tape and a two-by-four involved. I don’t know.

Scrambling abuse imagery in where none exist, and not just any imagery, graphic violent imagery. Comparing being placed on a budget as something that needs to be responded to with violence is a brilliant stroke by the master. He continues:

The attitude that you’re describing is so unappealing I don’t know how you’ve stayed in it, and I’m not surprised he’s been divorced twice before. It sounds like you guys really do need to sit down with a marriage counselor because this guy is untenable. You’re not going to stay in this situation unless you’re somebody who likes abuse. (all emphasis mine)

This is a verbal escalation, “unappealing” is traded up for “untenable” is traded up for “abuse”. You seriously have to lack imagination to see where this is going from here:

Your son is now learning how to be a man improperly. Your husband is not a man. He’s a scared little boy, but your son is learning how to be a man improperly because he’s going to treat his wife the same way. This is what’s being modeled before him. You have to fix this. This cannot stay this way. You have to get with it. Your husband is obviously a strong, strong personality. I hope that he can learn some humility and agree to work with his spouse because that’s what’s going to be required for your marriage to last and for you to model properly before your 5-year-old the proper way to treat a wife. A wife is a queen. She’s not the slave. She’s not the hired help.

Full on “Defcon 1” shaming language! As well as: “NO! The children!!!!” Note how “she’ becomes solely responsible for fixing that situation, not prayer, not God, her. Also note how the child is “her” child, that means that either it is biologically not his or that we have already stepped into all children are the women’s land (I cannot be sure). Either way she is the QUEEN. You go grrll!

What next? Is there any doubt?

I’ll give you a prediction. If you don’t do what I say, within three years, you’ll be divorced, because in talking to you, you’re not an unintelligent person, and you’re not going to sit there and continue in this level of emotional and financial abuse that you’re under.

Divorce! You knew it all along. Of course the “master” deflects expertly from actually advising divorce but he has led her right down the path. I’m curious if anyone knows what the word “divorce” translates into in Churchianese? Allowance?

Dethroning Male Headship

I have been making the claim that feminism in the Church has been targeting not just husbands but Jesus Christ as the head for some time. My last post concerning the idea that God simply asks too much discussed this at some length. As I started looking for sources that I could point to that could bear out this claim I discovered “Dethroning Male Headship” by Shirley Taylor and stopped looking. In her latest blog post “Mothers Like Sarah” Taylor goes on a very imaginative expedition into the 1 Peter 3:1-6 and strikes feminist gold!

From:

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
(1Pe 3:1-6)

Taylor derives:

We can interpret Peter’s words something like this, “That was the way it was done back in Sarah’s day, but things have changed. We are now under grace by faith, not under the law. You have done what is right in becoming Christ-followers, and are Sarah’s daughters—children of the freed woman—if you do not fear as you keep following Christ, and, like Sarah, you will birth this new nation of God’s people.”

Does anyone else get why she is interpreting what Peter said this way. It’s a head-scratcher to me. The prominent feature that stands out in this remark is that we are in fact looking for a full equality to the point of proof-texting a matriarchy. She muddles along until she get’s to the moral of her story:

Male headship is dethroned when Peter told Christian women that they will be like Sarah, mothers of a nation of believers.

Huh?? What Gospel is this?? Taylor makes the classical egalitarian arguments about equality in Christ that are in fact Biblical but any attempt by anyone to preach verses on submission such as from Ephesians 5 are shot down as “heresy”, as I’ll show.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
(Eph 5:22-25)

If you think this is some stray loon with a blog and a vanity book we need to realize that she is doing her best to promote herself within the Southern Baptist Convention and with considerable zeal. Like Empath she is reaching out to pastors and bending their ears:

(Please bear with me as I repost certain of my previous blogs. This is a repost of May 26, 2010.  In the past few weeks I have mailed over a hundred letters to Baptist pastors. I have reposted some posts that I really want them to see. Things haven’t changed.  What I said 2 years ago is still the same, and many of my new readers don’t have time to read all 270 of my posts.)

Here she is introducing the above passage as she is compelled to sneak her book into the Seminary library amongst the “heretical books”:

Sitting in the Fuller Theological Seminary Library in Houston, Texas, I began twitching. Something was wrong and my eyes went toward the books stacked on the table where I was sitting. They were books yet to be shelved and I picked up the nearest one to me. It was by Wayne Grudem.  The next book in the pile was by some unknown author, at least to me, and it made the same old tired attempt at explaining 1 Peter 3.

I had a copy of Dethroning Male Headship and laid my book on top of those heretical books against women, and thus dethroned them.

Copied below is an excerpt from my book explaining what this passage really means.

(Emphasis added.)

In light of that what do we think: “Dethroning Male Headship” is ultimately driving at? Her blog is a veritable trove of materials about equality and how women must demand it to the exclusion of almost everything else. Typical.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
(Php 2:5-8)

How can “submission” be made to be such and evil word and “equality” be the very vision of heaven on Earth?

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
(Isa 5:20-21)

I’ll end with the same statement as last time:

Remember, the Father asked Jesus to go to the Cross, He asks us to count the cost when He calls us to follow Him there (both men and women).

Love and Alpha

So its closing in on a year since I started getting traces of “red pill” in my water. It’s been a lot to take in as I have tried to separate my “blue pill” concepts from my faith. I slowly started seeing how the lack of restraint on the part of Evangelical Feminists was rotting the bottom out of the “church” and undermining every relationship it came into contact with. For me, it was a stomach turning experience. Even though I had some distinct “red pill” tendencies I still equated those with selfishness and wanted to love my wife into happiness through supplication, the “blue pill” path just seemed Holy (self-sacrificial even). That was the internal narrative I was operating on.

The problem was, it didn’t work. So then what? That’s what I asked myself. As I started digging into what actually seemed to make women happy I started reading about the principals of “Game” and processing that mountain of selfishness, while facing the undeniable truth that supplication never seems to bring a woman contentment (even when they crave it). Taking that into consideration I began to try and wrap my head around what my real obligation was to my wife. The Bible tells me to love her as Christ loves the Church, even giving His life. Evangelical Feminism conveniently converts that language to male supplication, very simply, submission to the wife IS sacrifice. The man must love sacrificially no matter what, no matter how depraved and twisted the woman is or becomes. I agree. With a twist.

It is under no circumstance a loving act for a man to submit, obey or bow down to his wife. That is truly the most selfish act of all in my opinion. It is forcing her into the role of parent, the role of leader, the role of God and she will not and indeed cannot be happy with that mantel (God Himself won’t allow it). It will lead to her misery. So, even when it hurts I must lead. Even when faced with impossible decisions I am the one who must humbly approach the Holy Spirit (and on every day decisions too) and seek guidance and be held to account. By shirking my leadership role (being lazy) I am forcing my wife into the role that God never intended for her.

It is the most loving thing for a man to do, to recognize the order of God’s creation, to express God’s authority into our families at the sacrifice of our own wants and desires. To set down our own will and take up God’s will. In our marriage that means being a strong leader that wins the obedience of his wife thereby establishing God’s order for her. Setting the world aright for her. Short of this, nothing else a man does is actually Godly love. Flowers, dinners, jewelry may be the frosting but Godly submission is the cake. In order to accomplish that a man must first submit to Godand then effect the submission of his wife, out of love and obedience to God.

Everything that I do now I try to filter through this new view. Am I establishing Godly order around me by his Holy Spirit or am I cruelly letting Satan and the world continue to promote chaos in my marriage? Am I winning my wife to the truth of God’s word or am I tampering with it in an attempt to satisfy her lack of contentment? Will I let the feminist sew seeds into my family or will I align myself with God and combat the pretty lies? Even at the expense of my reputation? Even when everyone is calling me cruel? Yes, that is sacrifice. I think that is the sacrifice that Jesus made. In that sense, Godly leadership IS love.

Noah’s Response

I wanted to address Noah’s response to Ham’s behavior.

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
(Gen 9:20-27)

He cursed Ham. How did he do that? Upon what basis would the Old Testament patriarchs bless or curse their progeny? What gave them the right, the authority? In short God honored their words. God gave them authority and he backed up their words. So what? God tells husbands to love their wives as themselves and honor them as the weaker vessel, good deal for the wife. On the other hand the Bible commands wife’s to fear and submit to their husbands, God commands them to do this. Who has God given the authority, the responsibility to? Not the woman.

When a husband abdicates his responsibility he is doing what Adam did, he steps aside and lets the woman chart the course of their souls. He ignores the authority that God gives him to bless his wife and both are going to miss out on God’s blessing for their family, in trade for the feminist dream of equality. Women are buying the lie that it is better to be equal than to be blessed. They are taking matters into their own hands, exactly like Eve did when she decided to make herself “like God”.

As a husband I am absolutely obligated to love my wife, as myself. Would a loving husband allow his wife to follow in the footsteps of Eve? Would a loving husband abdicate his responsibility and meekly follow in the draft of his “powerful” wife. No. Does he buy into the worldly prospect of “equality” and reject what the Bible instructs his wife to do? Does he lead her or poke his toes in the dirt and sheepishly allow her to do what she pleases in the name of “love”? What does leadership look like?

Leadership looks like Noah, he doesn’t hang his head in shame over the exposure of his nakedness, he asserts his authority. He reminds everyone that he is the man God spoke to and that God’s authority flows through HIM. At the end of the day husbands need to realize that they answer to God for how well they love their wives, how obedient they were to God’s voice, we don’t answer to our wives. Ultimately, God is our judge and that is what matters, looking to our wives for affirmation, for approval, for love. That isn’t their job and expecting that from them only causes to make them unhaaaaapy (and us too). Looking to them for something we should only be seeking from God is a sin.

When I screw up I need to deal with God. I need to get straight with Him, my wife is basically my sister in Christ who I’m obligated to love as her husband, she is not my confessor, my accountability partner, my compass to God, or the pure heart of light that should guide all my steps. Treating her as any of those things is not fair to her, it isn’t loving and it isn’t leadership.

My wife used to complain that I pedastalized her as God and I could never understand why she thought that. I get it now. I was forcing her into the place of leadership by constantly abdicating to her judgment. I could never understand how it was possible to lead while being locked in a perpetual pursuit of her feminine approval (as per the feminist prerogative). By doing this I was cutting her off from being blessed by God through a properly delegated husband, one that doesn’t abdicate at the first failure.

Besides hypergamy dictates attraction to a strong man, not a weakling who caves into the feminist culture at the first blush. Noah was a strong man, not a perfect man, but a man who had the authority and the relationship with God to give blessings/cursing and salvation to his family. God instructed Noah in the construction of the ark, how do we think it would have gone if he had listened to the popular culture of HIS day? He and his family would have died with the rest. Noah saved his family because he was a strong man and he had a relationship with God, his wife is barely mentioned.

Something tells me she was glad to have him in her life even though she didn’t receive equal billing.

What is the point of all of this? I think it is our job as husbands to counter the feminist culture, in the world and in our wives. We need to love our wives like Christ loved the Church, and not respond like they are God Himself when the criticize us. Not receive the fruit of the rebellion and validate it as viable and useful behavior. By doing that we are encouraging our wives to rebel and miss the blessing of having a God-fearing husband. I recommend deflecting, ignoring, and dismissing criticism from our wives. We need to prayerfully consider what God might by revealing to us both concerning the criticism and also how to address the rebellion in our wives. That is love.

Mutual Submission and “Phobia”

I was discussing the term “phobeo” as it appears in Eph. 5-33, where it tells the wife to revere her husband, the Greek word is “phobeo”. It is generally humorous to see how the “mutual submitters” like to dodge around that word. One even went as far as to cite Gerhard Kittel, the “Nazi” theologian who dances around the word in a very humanistic way. Into the thread I basically “went off” sometimes my best thoughts seem to come when I’m in the thick of the battle. Here is my main thought as it crystalized:

I used to be a “mutual submission” type and I understand full well how it is supposed to work in theory. I have talked to many women who claim to be egalitarian and I see a theme, they conditionally “submit”, they conditionally “obey”, they conditionally “phobeo”. Whatever that condition is points to the place that they haven’t surrendered to Christ.

Nuts and bolts, I want a child but my wife doesn’t. According to mutual submission I should go along with her. According to mutual submission she should go along with me. Deadlock right? Sure, now imagine she accidentally gets pregnant and wants an abortion, you don’t want her to. A deadlock should result in a baby correct? Not if she conditionally “submits” and decides not having a baby is more important than “submitting”. Her condition gets to overrule her submission. Is this mutual submission or just unilateral disobedience? Should the husband leave her or continue to “mutually submit”? He should stay with his wife right? I generally think so (and start getting his mind around what “mutual” really means)

Reverse the rolls, she wants a baby and you don’t. Again this would result in a deadlock (until one or the other changed their minds). Again, what if her submission was conditioned on her pregnancy? What if she decides to sabotage the birth-control? You’re going to have a baby. Should the husband leave or continue to “mutually submit”? He should stay with his wife right? I generally think so, we are supposed to love her like Christ loved the Church, right?

Okay, the husband wants to buy a boat and the wife is against it (as infamously portrayed in “Firepoof”). A deadlock results in no boat. Say he conditionally submits and decides that it is worth the grief to have the boat he has dreamed about since he was a boy. Now what? Is the wife going to submit to the fact that the boat is now bought and payed for? Will she “mutually submit” or does she feel taken advantage of? If she submits to her husbands will doesn’t it just look like he did what he wanted “acted like a child” and ran her will over? Will he hear the end of it? Should the wife leave or continue to “mutually submit” to her husband who she feels is taking advantage of her? She should stay with her husband right, after all she IS called to submit herself as a co-believer? I tell you what why not pose it to the egalitarian women?

I’ll wager that within 5 posts one woman will declare it “financial abuse”, within 9 posts one woman will start suggesting that she start enforcing a budget and taking over the finances, with 15 posts another will suggest giving him an ultimatum and demand that he sell his boat. In theory “mutual submission” seems applicable to marriage, in practice she is running the show.

So say she has a decent car and wants a new one. Deadlock results in no new car right? What if she keeps insisting, and if he loved her like Jesus loves the church he would get it for her, resolving the deadlock right? It’s his job to love her and avoid any potential strife isn’t it? Finances be darned right? The fact that she isn’t submitting at all compiled with the fact that he is obligated to “love” her has the serious potential in leading to their economic ruin doesn’t it?

“Mutual submission” in a church means that when irreconcilable differences are found between brothers and sisters they can simply part company. “Mutual submission” in a marriage inevitably and logically affixes the husband on the horns of a dilemma. If she doesn’t submit, and never had any intention of truly doing so or doing so only conditionally his obedience to the scripture is required, he must love her and submit to her, even if he knows that the submission will result in harm to her, himself or their family. The rebel and tyrant is in control and there is no means by which to remove her, no scripture to point to that results in her unconditional submission, no call to Biblical obedience to prick her conscience, no requirement of her but to lap up his unconditional love. The man as Sisyphus to the woman’s Persephone, trying to make her feel loved enough so that she will conditionally submit. There is an absolute, unchecked power that resides on the woman’s side when you eject the unilateral Biblical requirements that are directed at her. Meanwhile the loving husband is very often seen as nothing more than a failure for the strife in his house.

If a man decides to not love his wife unconditionally, the heel is roundly chastised by the Church, the wife is practically sainted, the Bible is cited and if he is bad enough even the world will join in scorning him. There are a plethora of checks against HIS behavior. Many of them will come to bear and most guys today will wither bolt or bend. The tyrant is condemned (and rightfully so). What check exists for his counterpart? What is likely to wean her from the insecurity she feels that only serves to deepen her discontent and her lack of feeling loved. She may even feel like she is being stalked by her creepy husband who won’t just give her the space she desires, after tiring of toying with his “neediness” she is likely to move on to a greener pasture (if she can find one).

(Jesus>Husband>Wife) or (Wife>Jesus*>Husband)?

More and more I am convinced that what Eve really did in the Garden was to rebel not just against God but man also, when Adam partook of the fruit he became a follower not of God but of woman. He followed her right of the Garden. Now don’t misread that, he had a choice, he could have said “No” and interceded for Eve with God (and I could make a decent case that he would have succeeded) but instead he chose to go where she led, rebellion.

So what we see in the New Testament is an order established by God once again: Jesus having authority over the husband and the wife submitting to Jesus and her husband. (Jesus>Husband>Wife) and again we are seeing rebellion against God’s order. Again the serpent seems to be saying, “Yea, hath God said?” And again the serpent is promising modern Eve’s that she can once again usurp the God established authority:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
(Gen 3:5)

You’ll have rights, you’ll be “equal”, you’ll be independent and autonomous. *Yawn, haven’t we seen this all before?

Here is something to consider in this age bombarded with Evangelical Feminism, with Joel and Kathy’s “Totally Stupendous Supercalifragilisticexpialidociously Astoundingly Fabulous Marriage” lifestyles being modeled. Where whatever the wife wants the wife gets and her heart is what the husband should be serving:

Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
(1Co 7:27-28)

and this:

But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
(1Co 7:32-33)

I would humbly suggest that any modern unmarried man flee marriage like it was Satan himself (unless God is indicating specifically otherwise). I would suggest that unless a husband is very careful to set God first (Jesus>Husband>Wife) he will inevitably be sucked into (Wife>Jesus*>Husband) wherein Jesus* is nothing more than club for a  “Christian” wife to bludgeon her husband about the head until he learns to lead her in the way she wants to be lead.