In the last post, the average religious feminist idea of marriage was described. In this post, the husband’s responsibility to the marriage will be described. As you might recall, the average feminist woman views Jesus as the perfect husband for her, and the journey with Jesus as the ideal romance. For example, godzgurlz.com states the gospel of Jesus this way:
This means that to be born-again, you have to believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and confess it with your lips. Once you do this sincerely, you start a real connection with God and change will start taking place from within you.
Having a real relationship with Jesus Christ is being intimate with Him. It’s like being married for real. You just don’t have a marriage contract but you honor the contract by spending undivided time, alone with Jesus everyday, in prayer and study of His Word. Intimacy with Jesus is falling in love with Him … more and more everyday. This love will keep the believer faithful to God and His Word.
The writer likens the walk with Jesus Christ as being married to Him. She defines Jesus as the ideal husband in her eyes, which means He will provide whatever she wants perfectly, and will accept her no matter how sinful she chooses to remain. This includes the provision of a husband, which in her eyes should be perfect and provide the ideal romance to her in the flesh.
The average feminist expects her husband to provide all she desires materially, emotionally and spiritually. She also expects her husband to be accepting of all of her sins, ignore them, and absolve her of all temporal responsibility for them. This means she places her husband in the same position as her personal Jesus. In other words, her ideal husband is a well-behaved slave who is her personal Jesus in the flesh and provides her the ideal romance in the flesh. He is placed as wholly-responsible for the marriage, as well as her happiness and any of her sins. The wife becomes the head, and the husband becomes her helpmeet, provider, and emotional center.
This is draining and destructive on the husband involved as well as any children involved, if he chooses to accept the mold the wife has placed on him. And he will if he is a feminist, too. To see this mold, let us look again at Ephesians 5:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (v22)
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (v25)
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. (v28)
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. (v33)
The average religious feminist will tie any reverence or submission she makes to her husband to her definition of “love your wife as Christ loved the church”. She supplies her own definition of Jesus to this and says that her husband should sacrifice everything he is and who he is to satisfy her every desire, carnal and otherwise, including any spiritual shows that she desires to see out of him. She will then condition her Biblical submission and reverence towards his willingness to be everything she desires out of him. These things are not conditionally based! A quick perusal of 1 Peter 3:1-2 will dispel this notion, especially when tied to spiritual activities:
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. (1 Peter 3:1-2)
An example of such things is given by (who I gather) is the husband of the writer that was quoted in the previous post. Neither post on godzgurlz.com is too constructive on identifying the perfect husband or wife in the way of qualities to look for that are pleasing to God. There are better places to look for such advice than in feminist dens. But this post is particularly devoid of useful advice and lacks in specificity as well. But it is useful to illustrate the divide and fallacy held upon the husband by feminist wives. The author writes, no doubt with approval of his wife before it can see the light of day on her site:
Don’t limit God’s plan by making shallow demands over your blessing.
I gather he is speaking of the blessing of a woman to be a wife upon a man. Most interesting is the term “shallow demands”. This term will be more fully developed in a future post, as there are many traditional conservatives and prominent pastors who are repeatedly handing out “man-up and marry” diatribes these days. They are unable to see that there are men who see what marriage has redefined to be, see the poor ungodly character of many of the women they encounter as evidenced through their histories and actions, and see the culture within the church and country which wholeheartedly supports this definition of marriage as well as frivolous divorce. Men see these things and reject them, if they are wise. No doubt, it is a “shallow demand” in the sight of the writer and many prominent pastors to expect a woman for a wife that hasn’t committed fornication with more men than there are on a basketball team. After all if she has “accepted” Christ she is a “born-again virgin”. I’m sure it is also a “shallow demand” for a woman to demonstrate an ability to submit, too. The truth is most upstanding men are wise enough to not sign up for what marriage has become. The author continues:
Many guys probably think they need to be married because it’s better than burning with desire. Yes, but you forgot, a man who finds a wife finds a good thing (from God) and if she is from God then her price is far more than rubies, and where much is given, much is required.
The author reflects some of the common teaching in Churchianity which supports this kind of marriage. He forgets as many pastors do in their pronuptualist teaching that Paul also wrote “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.“ (1 Corinthians 7:8) and “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.” (1 Corinthians 7:32-33) Paul paints a much different picture of marriage than the quote, along with all the numerous other Scriptures that paint wives with certain characteristics as less than a “good thing”. To be truthful with Scripture, a more balanced view of all of Scripture is required rather than a short statement like that. The phrase “much is required” would be useful to define. The author goes on:
Empower your Queen. She is your helpmeet, but she is also your covering. She knows you like no one else, and God will love to use her to address you, amen.
It seems this is a natural definition as any, and says it all. If she is “your Queen”, then he must be the well-behaved slave to her every whim. This leads naturally into his wife’s definition of a perfect man. 1 Peter 3:6 reminds us that Sarah called her husband lord, yet this kind of terminology is used here instead. This is befitting a feminist marriage.
Women: yes your husband must submit to you as well, but don’t expect him to unless you can first submit to him.
This is a common misinterpretation of Ephesians 5:21 used by the feminists to justify the husband submitting to the wife. This verse is reconciled to be in the previous section having to do with Christian worship and the Christian walk and occurs in the sentence begun in verse 18. If this is applicable to marriage, then all husbands and wives should be “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;” (v19). This verse relates to the use of music in Christian gatherings, as well as the falsely interpreted verse 21.
There is nothing more convicting than being out of pocket or out of order towards an anointed woman of God, a righteous woman of prayer and discipline in Him the Most High.
And we have the typical warning of consequences before God for failure of the husband to submit to his wife as her picture of her own personal Jesus. The phrase “out of order” is very telling as well, and also points towards the feminist thought that in marriage God demands the husband to be the slave of the wife. The wife has both the Churchian environment and the culture to enforce her husband’s conformity to her personal Jesus, and this is depicted here.
As the religious feminist woman demands a husband to be like her own personal Jesus who never fails her and always provides for her everything she wants in her ideal romance, inevitably she grows bored and unhappy. What happens then, along with the support of Churchianity and culture is frivolous divorce. This phenomena will be explored next.