Defining Feminism Part 2 – Defining Herself

Functionally, the series of posts to more specifically define feminism (Part 2 onwards) will end up blogging through the book The Feminist Gospel. It will present summaries I compiled from the book of certain basic ideas which I can see readily expressed in modern Churchianity, and then my commentary on those ideas. My commentary will be in red. The book as a whole is much more detailed in both religious and secular interests, and if you can locate it, I suggest it as a good read.

Having described that there are two camps of feminism which have the same end principles, this post will describe the first major principle of feminism which the two camps share. This is the assertion that each woman has the right to define the terms of her own existence irrespective of societal, moral, or Godly standards. Upholding this principle alone is enough in itself to make a person a feminist. As well, this principle alone has caused uncountable destruction both in society and within the Church. In my travels, the best statement that I’ve run into of this principle was written by a woman on Christianforums.com:

Being a woman is how I define it for myself and its AWESOME to be a woman!

Secular Feminism
Feminists of the 1960’s postulate that their perceived inability to define herself represented a lack of autonomy and therefore an inability to transcend and develop herself. (1) They further stated that the world was “defined and differentiated with reference to man and not to her” (2). They believed that to achieve this equality and liberation as they defined it, it would be required to destroy male superiority and refuse to succumb to traditional roles. (3) These were defined as the roles of “mother, wife, and sweetheart”(3), trapped in the realms of “kitchen, church, and children”. (1) It was further maintained that all forms of socialism that pulled women away from their families favored their liberation. (3) The feminist ideal was one where the State “assumed responsibility for maternal functions that burdened women and restricted their participation in the work force”. (3) They held the Soviet Union up as representative of the possibility of the attainment of their goals within larger society (3). They also held up economic and professional independence as the key to attaining equality with men. (4)

In secular feminism, we can see the drive to education, and career by women over family. We can also see the inherent hostility that most feminists have towards men, and women who choose to be SAHMs. It is also evident the roots that feminism has in socialism and Marxism. In the feminist world, freely available divorce is one tool to be removed from their perceived oppression.

Roots of Religious Feminism
Having defined the expression of this principle in secular society, it is time to turn attention to how it is expressed within the religious realm. To look to history in the 1960’s, the events described above were paralled by events within the church. We will see from the beginning that the grievances of women within Churchianity (some valid, most were not) were born out of the creation and administrations of the churches made and built by men. This means the fundamental cause of feminism within Churchianity is that the church of men was upheld over the Church created by Christ. (This is why the label “Churchianity” always appears with “feminism” when I make a post on feminism in the churches.)

In the 1950’s and 60’s, the religious feminists began vocalizing discontent with the different treatment they received within Catholicism. (5) This was due to the fact that “women were not participating in traditionally accepted activities of teaching, preaching, administration, and evangelism”. (5) The fact that women were not ordained into functioning as priests became an issue as well, since the division of clergy and laity fostered by Churchianity created the perception of the pastorate or “the ministry” as a professional occupation. (6) Given time and the influence of the secular march of feminists, other denominations began to concur with the observations of Dr. William Douglas who wrote (6):

Both Judaism and Christianity have incorporated the dominant patriarchal attitude and culture of their origins, and tended to maintain the culture’s superstitious attitude toward feminine “uncleanness” and “wickedness.” Though the Church believed in a “new Adam”, whereby the consequences of the Fall are set aside, it has been slow to accept the possibility of a “new Eve”, free from her companion, the serpent.

These things, along with the influence of the secular feminists, brought the religious feminists to “believe that women should be allowed to do everything that men could do, and in the same manner and with the same status as men” within the churches. (7) This was done by pursuing the ordination of women and the obliteration of structured roles in marriage. (8)

Of course, this was done within the bounds of Churchianity and without concern for God or Scripture.

Justifying Feminism
As is required by the traditions of men, the feminists looked to Scripture to justify themselves instead of seeking to conform themselves to Scripture. They deemed the historical analysis of women as was presented by the early figures of Churchianity as defective, stated the Bible supports the full worth and equality of women, and pointed out the social customs of those times and argued that they should not influence modern Church practice. (8) They argued that there is no basis for role differentiation, and “concluded there is no basis for barring women from ordained ministry or supporting structured roles in marriage” (8). They stated that if women are created in God’s image just as men were, then women are equal to men and just as capable as men to exercise authority. (9) They presented the old state of things as a result of ignoring Bible passages supporting women’s equality and twisting others to serve their own interests (9).

Those who have been following my blog will realize this is the definition of egalitarianism. My full analysis of this argument is here and here.

The increasing involvement of women in theology as a result of their ordination brought many other changes, which served to differentiate and bring importance upon women. The thought was put forward by Valerie Saiving Goldstein that a theologians sexual identity has a bearing on their interpretation of the Bible (10). In other words, a male theologian’s views were considered unrepresentative of women, and therefore non-binding on women. (11) She also sought to redefine the principal sins of men and women. She asserted that to men, the principal sin is pride and grace is sacrificial love. In women, she asserted the exact opposite, that a woman’s principal sin is too much sacrificial love and not enough pride in themselves (or lack of self-esteem). (10)

It is not coincidental to note that we owe the existence of the Evangelical American Princess (as Bskillet81 terms it) to this theology. This is where Glenn Stanton got his ideas for his heresy as well.

Secularism Comes Into Religion
Mary Daly’s work, The Church and the Second Sex, marked the entrance of the secular principles mentioned in the third paragraph into Churchianity(12), as well as the most influential and damaging to the Church. She charged Churchianity with the same things that the secular feminists argued. She stated the churches were responsible for the state of women in society by supporting the moves of society against women (13), and encouraging passivity of women by distracting them from their present condition to a promise of an afterlife (14). She also charged Churchianity with teaching the inferiority of women (14), as well as the sexual control of women by casting her body as sinful (15). Daly noted the double-standard of sexual morality that existed, where men suffered no disgrace for promiscuity, while the woman faced extreme penalties. (15) Daly also maintained as the secular feminists do that women are oppressed to “perpetuate the family and keep the patrimony intact”. (15) These modes of oppression were identified as Churchianity’s opposition to abortion and contraception. (15)

We can easily insert no-fault divorce into this category as well, since it has been championed by the secular feminists and has been readily accepted by Churchianity at large. The double-standard exists as covered in other places because of the men, but also because the women allow the men this access. While I agree this is a valid issue where the standard of fornication is not applied evenly, throwing out the standard (God and Scripture) as Mary Daly suggests is not the right answer.

Theologically, Daly challenged the understanding of the nature of God, as well as the nature of the Bible in her attempts to harmonize feminism and religion. (16, 17) Daly challenged the assertion that God is male (16), as well as the concepts of divine omnipotence, immutability, and providence. (17) She also objected to a “changeless God”, who in the face of man was “despairing and helpless”. (17) “She reasoned that humans would wonder why they should commit themselves to improving their condition or trying to bring about social justice if such a God existed.” (17) Daly believed that such a God prevented women from seeing change. (17) She also viewed images of God as jealous and vengeful as a justification for patriarchal oppression rather than legitimate qualities of God. (17)

Daly places herself in opposition of the Gospel here, as well as redefining who God is. The idea of the Gospel is that man is “despairing and helpless” to change his/her own moral plight and needs a Savior in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Also, God’s qualities that she assails are the very ones that guarantee salvation, and enables us to have faith to depend on Him. A God that changes is an undependable God who is not worthy of placing one’s soul into trust.

With the Bible, Daly brought her opposition of a “changeless God” to it. (17) She contended that a static view of Scripture was not open to development or social change, and called it damaging to healthy human development. (18) Daly claimed the Bible demonstrated the unfortunate condition of women, and claimed it would be dubious to construct an idea of “the feminine nature” or of “Gods’ plan for women” from Biblical texts. (18) Daly’s solution was to discard the static worldview and consider divine relevation a dynamic event that responds to changes in culture and reflects contemporary experience. (18) Daly believed that women had as much a right to dictate theology as Apostle Paul did in his day. (18)

This is the declaration which has been carried into much of the rest of Churchianity today that states that Scripture is an advisement and not a commandment. This is the source of much of the modern philosophy to lean on one’s experiences, thoughts, and interpretations of society at large equally or more than Scripture. It gives free license to people to pick and choose the Scriptures they like, feel applicable to them, and what they desire to follow. A true disciple of Christ submits himself or herself wholeheartedly over to the teachings of Jesus the Christ. The saved person in Jesus follows after God. The lost person in the world and flesh follows what is right in his own eyes. Without a shadow of a doubt, the acceptance of Mary Daly’s theology into the wider churches has been one of the more destructive influences of the last century.

The Liberation of Women
Feminist thought in Churchianity eventually led them to see a need to replace the current theology entirely. (19) They fastened on duplicating Peruvian Gustavo Gutierrez’s book, “A Theology of Liberation”, which saw the job of the Church and the Christian message as creating freedom from oppression. (20) This involved destruction of the oppressive political and economic system and all distinctions of the poor and rich are abolished. (20) This was to be done by Christians through political and social praxis (action). (21) Liberation theologians believe that socialism constitutes the highest real value of life, and to say otherwise reduces the gospel message to nothing. (21)

Feminists adapted this theology to them. They believed that sex discrimination is the root of all forms of oppression, and that liberating women would end poverty, racial discrimination, ecological destruction, and war. (22) They argued that it would usher in a new era of world peace and begin the birth of a new humanity. (22) Their picture and goal of their theology was pictured in Romans 8:22-23 (22):

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Liberation theology chooses to define liberation and freedom as the entire goal of the Bible, and is presented as a theology for the liberation of women when it comes to feminism. (23) The problem comes in the definitions of liberation and freedom. (23) This is left up to the individuals who defined it and not Scripture, but it was designated that all Biblical interpretation needs to align with their vision for the liberation of women. (23) They also claim that the Bible supports social and political action for the goal of the liberation of women. (23)

Liberation theology completely scraps the Gospel and replaces it with another goal. The application of the Scripture that they base themselves on is wholly faulty (it speaks to the state between accepting Christ and being glorified in Him – the whole relevant section is Romans 8:18-30). The redemption and liberation that we need from Christ is over sin and the decay of this world, NOT anything that is in this world and of this world.

In total, feminism represents the liberation of the individual woman from the authority of anyone, rightful or not. This includes the removal of a religious feminist from the authority of God. In removing herself from the authority of God, she also removes herself from faith before God. This person was never saved (salvation implies laying down of arms or hostility against God and His ways).

(1) The Feminist Gospel by Mary Kassian p 18 (2) ibid page 16. (3) ibid page 19.
(4) ibid page 20. (5) ibid page 25. (6) ibid page 26. (7) ibid page 27. (8) ibid page 28.
(9) ibid page 30. (10) ibid page 32. (11) ibid page 33. (12) ibid page 35. (13) ibid page 36.
(14) ibid page 37. (15) ibid page 38. (16) ibid page 39. (17) ibid page 40. (18) ibid page 41.
(19) ibid page 51. (20) ibid page 52. (21) ibid page 53. (22) ibid page 54. (23) ibid page 58.

Misvalued Creation

As mentioned here, religious feminists tend to justify themselves in Scripture by throwing out certain parts of Genesis that are beneficial to them in trying to justify themselves as being completely equal or superior to men in the sight of God as it relates to roles and functions. However, they do not consider the entirety of Scripture. In doing that, it paints quite a different picture than the one the feminists wish to paint. The feminist will justify their position by a Scripture such as this one, presented alone:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27)

Note that the Scripture does not paint any equivalencies, just states that God created man and woman. This issue is made clearer by looking at the rest of Genesis and the Scriptures in the New Testament which shape the teachings of Genesis. We start out by noting that Genesis 1 is a summary of the entire process of Creation which God underwent.

As we go into Genesis 2, we will find more specifically the story of the creation of man.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)

Now we have man being formed of the dust of the ground, and became a living soul. To go on, we note how woman was created:

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Genesis 2:21-23)

Now what we need to note in the following is that man was created of the earth and woman was created out of man. Now God identifies her as a help meet even before The Fall, which means this woman (Eve) functioned as Adam’s wife (see also verse 24-25, God’s definition of marriage is pre-fall and hasn’t changed):

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Genesis 2:18)

Now let us look at the way the New Testament informs us on the Creation:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (1 Corinthians 11:7-9)

Paul informs us that the order and way in which man and woman were created matter. The woman is the glory of the man and the man is the image and glory of God. But what of Genesis 1:27? We can apply a little bit of logic to understand. A man is the image and glory of God. A woman is the image and glory of man. It follows that if man is a copy of God and a woman is a copy of man, that they both are in the image of God. However, they are both not direct copies of God and therefore are not exactly equivalent before God. For a woman to say she was made in the image of God is accurate, but not entirely accurate. The order of submission as illustrated in 1 Corinthians 11:3, therefore is explained by the order of Creation, and not anything to do with the Fall.

The prohibitions placed on public prophecy and teaching by women are instructive in another way, as it relates to the question of equivalence in Creation:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

These are parallel passages (the 1 Cor 14 one is in a section that relates to prophecy, v29-35). The 1 Timothy passage is telling. He gives this passage with the justification that Adam was firstly formed and then Eve. He further justifies this position by noting which one was deceived. Again, we see that the hierarchy that God has laid out was based on Creation and was before the Fall.

Again to go back to the previous post, both men and women are valuable and valued before the sight of God. But they were created differently and have different roles and functions in the sight of God. Feminists want to rebel against God’s ordained order, and will use any means of justification to see themselves as something different than what God ordained them to be.

Defining Feminism Part 1 – Religious vs. Secular

This is the first part of a series intended to shape the definition of what feminism is in terms of the realm of Churchianity. The intention for this part is to more fully define what feminism is. The other parts will define in a sharper way how it is expressed in modern society.

The first problem we encounter in calling feminism out is that people tend to judge things based on the expression of principles and not the principles themselves. So in accounting for calling out feminism where it exists, we have to be able to sort these principles out in the different ways that they are expressed. In this sense, we can notice that there is a secular expression and a religious expression of these principles. While these women and men have the same goals, their interests are different, and expressed differently.

This leads to the second problem we encounter in calling feminism out. You will have the religious feminists comparing themselves with the expression of principles by the secular feminists for their definition of feminism, and then identifying themselves as “not feminist”. This is primarily due to the difference in politics. While the religious feminist is for religion and against abortion, there is agreement on most of the other expressions of principles.

For example, while the secular feminist cries about “equal opportunity in the workplace”, the religious feminist cries about “being barred from active ministry such as teaching, counseling, and pastoring”. (1) But both perceive this identically as an inequity between men and women, and both equally see it as an “equal rights” issue. We have a totally different expression of the same goal in terms of the differing interests of the parties. Podles points out from about Chapter 5 onwards that the roots of female influence within Churchianity have grown from a time long before the first secular feminists appeared. So given the feminine control of Churchianity, it is not a surprise that religious feminists took a cue from the secular ones and began their assault on God-given gender roles at the same time the secular feminists made their assault on society.

It is also not a surprise that both groups began making their successful assault on the sanctity of marriage at this same time. The religious feminists make the assaults in their realm against their perceived “inequities” while acquiescing to what the secular feminists have done (for example the woman getting to have her career before she marries). They’re both fighting against their own invention that they named patriarchy (as developed by Simone deBeauvoir and Betty Friedan and named by Kate Millett) (2).

While we are provided with many sterling examples of religious feminists, the comments at Dalrock provide us a sterling example of this difference of expression:

I actually don’t consider myself a feminist at all. Or really any kind of “ist.” Obviously, that’s not how I come off.

Whether Melissa or anyone else considers herself or himself a feminist or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether she subscribes to the doctrine or not. As other commenters have pointed out, she has beyond all doubt proven herself to be one in her drive to obliterate God-given gender roles instead of submitting to Him in them.

This post will serve as an adequate Scriptural rebuttal against the entire slate of feminist principles, which are defined by Kassian’s research as the right to define herself, the right to define her world, and the right to define God. Future parts, as they appear, will focus on these principles as they are expressed by the religious feminists, as well as examples of them within the modern culture.

(You will notice the book that I used as a source. If you can locate this book, it is a brilliant description of modern feminism as it has been expressed through the literature she has found in her research. I understand it’s been revised and republished as The Feminist Mistake, but I can’t say whether this is as good as the other.)

(1) The Feminist Gospel by Mary Kassian, page 25.
(2) ibid, summarizing page 16-24

The Marriage Impulse

In looking at the state of marriage, let us remember that it is a commitment as stated before God. In the sense of the word, a commitment is dedication to a pledge. When it comes to marriage, a pledge or promise is made in the sight of God and men towards that commitment as God has dictated marriage to be in His sight. This is part of the average marriage ceremony. For example, some of the generally accepted marriage pledges made on the wedding day by different denominations are:

____________, I promise with God’s help to be your faithful husband (wife), to love and serve you as Christ commands, as long as we both shall live. (1)

____________, wilt thou have this woman to be thy wedded wife, to live together in the holy estate of matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and health; and forsaking all other keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live? (2)

I, __________, take thee, ___________, to be my wedded husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, and thereto I plight thee my faith. (3)

As one can see, these are promises which are parallel to obligations that people place upon themselves in contracts. We should note that marriage brings it up a level from regular contractual agreement since the pledge is spoken before God. As Scripture says, we should be very careful of being faithful to any of our promises:

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. (James 5:12)

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. (Ephesians 4:25)

Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; (Colossians 3:9)

But what of being in love? Let us remember that being in love is a feeling. So many, especially women, are taking marriage as something prompted by a feeling, and dropped as easily as gotten when the feeling went away. This is especially true if she perceives her perfect romance going away or her sexual thrills go away. Feelings of fleshly lust, or being in love are parallel to being in the mood for a steak or a beer or other appetites. If being in love is nothing different, then why should it be treated any different?

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (Galatians 5:16-17)

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Ephesians 2:3)

Fleshly appetites are fleeting things opposite the intention of the Lord, both in the picture of marriage and before Him. Love is not a feeling but an action. Would you want the Lord to not be committed to you because He simply didn’t feel like it? Now, granted, most of us can recognize that feeling in love is what propels one towards the decision of marriage. But as most genuine adults can tell you, feeling in love never lasts. So marriage is held together by promises and actions, not feelings. The commitment to love one another in reverence to God’s pattern despite what happens is the whole point of the marriage pledge. Feelings add nothing to the marriage promise.

What does it serve to treat the marriage promises flippantly, or treat them as a mere formality, never intending to actually take the promises seriously, as so many do today? Does it honor God in the picture of Christ and His Church to not love despite the costs and circumstances? Does it honor God to cease the union whenever it stops becoming convenient or stoking feelings of whatever nature?

A broken promise and deception serves no one in a positive way. Trying to deceive God by sinning before Him is unwise. Making a promise in public to a husband or wife and their family without seriously doing everything in your power to fulfill despite your feelings is treachery in its purest form. Unfortunately, people treat the breach of a business promise made in a contract more seriously than the breach of the marriage covenant with others, the public, and God.

So we come to the answer: Marriage seems to be entered into a majority of the time by those who aren’t serious about the promise to raise the respectability of the deceiver in the eyes of the public. With the push in Churchian circles for people to be married despite maturity and commitment level, and the concerns about fornication that are continually voiced, is it any wonder that people are getting into marriage and treating it so disrespectfully, and making marriage into a profane institution and perjuring themselves in the sight of God?

(1) The Worshipbook as prepared by the Presbyterian Church 1975 Page 66
(2) The Methodist Hymnal 1939 Page 546
(3) ibid. Page 547

Marriage 1.0 (#6) – The Noble Wife

In studying Scripture, it isn’t hard to notice that there are a lot of Scriptures relating to the proper character of a noble wife. This is because the burden of making a wise choice of a wife falls on the man who marries her. These verses offer good guidance to women on making themselves attractive wives in the sight of Godly men of wisdom and discernment. They also offer guidance to men on selecting a good wife as well as guidance in headship of a wife after she has been selected. It should be no surprise that these Scriptures focus on the inner beauty of a woman and not the outer beauty.

Let us remember that Biblically, the first act of Biblical headship for the man is the initiation of the marriage. The ones that are doing the man-up shaming rants tend to lean to Proverbs 18:22; and 1 Corinthians 7:9 (out of context of the chapter) in trying to promote marriage as an obligation instead of a choice made out of wisdom.

Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD. (Proverbs 18:22)

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. (1 Corinthians 7:9)

Unfortunately, they don’t look at the full counsel of Scripture and do very many sermons about how women can be good Biblical wives. You won’t hear any of the following verses which directly address women, among many others (not even counting the Proverbs 31 Idol that’s been twisted into knots):

1 Peter 3:3-4 and 1 Timothy 2:9-10 illustrates the proper value a woman should seek after:

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. (1 Peter 3:3-4)

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

This lesson is as applicable to Rome as today. Women are seeking after ever flashier clothing, more revealing clothing, working on their bodies, and seeking to look good and sexually attractive in whatever way they can. In other words, they are chasing after outer or fleshly beauty and not beauty of character. On Page 292 of Winter, he distinguishes the proper modest dress of women with the dress of the “new” Roman Woman that both Paul and Peter have in mind:

First, there is the reference to the way a wife should not dress. Their immodest dresses, outlandish hairstyles, and lavish jewellry including gold and pearls distinguished the hetairai from wives in society.

Second, by contrast first-century wives, both in statue types and literature, wore a distinctive dress which was made of a considerable amount of material. It was meant to convey the modesty that
epitomised the married woman. In addition, they wore the marriage veil in public to distinguish themselves from others.

On 288, Winter identifies hetairai as those who are prostitutes. In essence, Peter and Paul are both teaching that women, especially those who are wives or want to be wives, should cultivate their character instead of their appearance. This is stated in the qualities of modesty, sensibleness, and a meek and quiet spirit, all of which are valuable in marriage.

It could be stated that in the drive to create a good appearance in women, that many of them have abandoned character entirely. And with no guidance from her parents or society, we get the feral women that are all too common today, both in Churchianity and without. It is not a coincidence that these feral women make poor marriage prospects for men, and many men are responding to the lack of worthy choices in women by simply choosing not to marry at all.

The fact that the husband is to select his wife as the first act of headship has naturally led to the inclusion of several texts in Proverbs (and this isn’t an exhaustive list) relating to relations with a wife, and imparting wisdom in this regard:

A gracious woman retaineth honour: and strong men retain riches. (Proverbs 11:16)

As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion. (Proverbs 11:22)

A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones. (Proverbs 12:4)

Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands. (Proverbs 14:1)

A foolish son is the calamity of his father: and the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping. (Proverbs 19:13)

House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the LORD. (Proverbs 19:14)

It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house. (Proverbs 21:9)

It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman. (Proverbs 21:19)

A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike. Whosoever hideth her hideth the wind, and the ointment of his right hand, which bewrayeth itself. (Proverbs 27:15-16)

For three things the earth is disquieted, and for four which it cannot bear: For a servant when he reigneth; and a fool when he is filled with meat; For an odious woman when she is married; and an handmaid that is heir to her mistress. (Proverbs 30:21-23)

The ones doing the shaming would take the choice away from men of whether to marry as well as any standards. This is not a coincidence since women are likely deluging the offices of these proctors complaining about how there aren’t any good men. But the existence of all these verses about the proper character and actions of wives in marriage should be no surprise. How many sermons on any of these verses have you heard, ever? Marriage can be a good choice or it can be a bad choice for a man. For such a heavy commitment, it does take a lot of wisdom, discernment, and deliberation. Using these things is prized within Scripture (Ephesians 5:15; Proverbs 4:26; Proverbs 14:15). Especially with something with such life-changing results, much pause and much thought should be given by the man in considering marriage with any woman. It should be no wonder that Gillis Tripplett suggests the book of Proverbs as a first step:

I’m talking about training that prepares you to know the difference between a virtuous life-giving woman, a matrimonial dud and a vicious vixen.

The best way to begin the training process is by reading the entire book of Proverbs until it’s drilled into your brain! Starting with chapter one you’ll learn how the aforementioned females ensnare good men.

My suggestion for those that are reading this (married or unmarried, men or women) is to think on these things and know them. By now it should be abundantly clear that a woman’s character is absolutely paramount if she wants to be married or is already married. If you are a woman wanting to be married or are married, you should be willing to use some introspection and be willing to work on your character. If you are a man, you should be willing to look at these things in your standards for selecting a wife, or calling your wife to standards. Your woman can be a perfect 10 in looks, but if she’s morally corrupt, she can be literal hell on earth to be married to in very short order.

Marriage 1.0 (#5) – The Submissive Wife

In doing this series on defining Biblical Marriage 1.0, it’s become time to attempt to explain each of the roles (husband and wife) in God’s definition of marriage (Marriage 1.0). Given the amount of twisting and changing that people have done to these Scriptures in the name of Marriage 2.0, it’s a task that requires a good amount of thought, prayer, and meditation in the hopes that the entire truth is present and tradition or a mistake has not crept in. I write this in the thought of the verse quoted in the byline of this site, to obey God and not men, and not the feminist line of thinking which brought Marriage 2.0 to life.

This said, this post has to do with the Biblical mandate laid upon wives in the New Testament. Much of what has been given us by the symbolism that a husband and wife is like Christ and the Church. We revisit those verses as it relates to the analogy.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22)

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (Ephesians 5:24)

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. (Ephesians 5:33)

As we can observe from the analogy, Christ is the head and the Church is the body. As we know from anatomy of the human body, the head (the brain) controls the rest of the body when everything is functional and the body’s parts can submit to the brain. An impulse from the brain travels to muscles, which moves the limbs. The different parts of the body serve the will of the brain. If we consider 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, Christ and His Church works the same way when the members of the Body are submissive.

In a Marriage 1.0 that honors God, the wife submits to her husband as she does to Christ. I made the qualification that if it is something that would come from Christ as it relates to His Church. In this case:

1. Submission is not debasement.
2. Submission is not absolute control.
3. Submission is not setting your own thoughts and opinions aside when dealing with your husband.
4. Submission is not dishonoring God by honoring your husband’s wishes.
5. Submission is not a Driving Miss Daisy kind of submission (which is no submission at all).
6. Submission is not looking to your husband for things that you should be looking to Christ for, such as your strength or your faith.
7. Submission is not done just when you feel like it.
8. Submission is not conditional on whether you think the husband is leading you properly.
9. Submission is not conditional on whether you think the husband is loving you as Christ loved the church well enough or not.

However, submission is the honoring and supporting of the desires of the husband as it relates to the family, including unconditional reasonable sexual access (1 Corinthians 7:2-5). This involves the currency of respect. While a certain amount of love is involved, genuinely respecting your husband will always carry the day.

I mentioned another issue in a couple of places regarding the Boundless article calling men to lead. The fallacy in any call to leadership is self-evident. The stress is not placed in the above Scripture and Colossians 3:18 on husbands to lead their wives, the stress is on the wife to submit to her husband. Anyone can lead all they want, but if there is rebellion against the leadership, the leading is fruitless. And as we know from general sin nature, women will naturally rebel against the leadership of their husbands (Genesis 3:16). The pressure is not on men to lead in the wording of Scripture. However, the pressure is on the wives to submit. So it is more proper, especially given the current environment of marriage to put out calls for women to submit to their husbands and not for husbands to lead their wives.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. (Colossians 3:18)

You submit out of love for your husband. Let us remember that love is not a feeling or emotion, but an action. Love is a verb in Scripture and not an adjective or adverb. I’m sure Jesus didn’t feel like going towards the day He knew He would go on the cross, but He did it anyway. Out of love. All of these things about submission are illustrated in 1 Peter 3:1-2 & 5-6.

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)

The first major thing we notice is that submission is called for anyway, even if the husband is an unbeliever, or in Churchian terms not leading his family before Christ (not doing things that the wife or Churchianity is expecting of him). This can also be taken to be if the husband is failing before Christ in some way.

The call is for wives to win their husbands to Christ by their submission, both to Christ and to her husband. This is done by her actions and words in the face of such things, providing a witness to Christ through what she does. Her proper Scriptural response is to provide the proper example of character according to her value despite what happens around her. As someone sinning against us doesn’t give us license to sin in return, there is not license for a wife to refuse to submit to her husband if he is not doing something in his life to her satisfaction.

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. (1 Peter 3:5-6)

Peter gives Sarah as an example recalling Genesis 18:12, but we can mine good examples from several other Biblical wives. Even in Sarah and Abraham both being imperfect before God in different ways, we can mine several good examples of her submission to Abraham (Genesis 12:5; Genesis 18:6), even going along with Abraham twice as he tried to pass Sarah off as his sister twice (Genesis 12:13-19; Genesis 20).

Peter then mentions that the wives reading this are daughters and follow in their footsteps as long as they do good and do not fear. It is very understandable if a woman fears submitting to her husband as his wife. It can be fearful to follow the unknown as we can see many times in the life of Sarah. But remember as it takes following any word of the Lord, it takes a measure of faith. We fear the unknown and we fear not having control in our own lives. Taking heart before Christ in faith that your proper example will further the testimony of Christ that your marriage will have to others should go a long way in helping you move past your fear of submission. Of course, this assumes you are not rebelling against God in this matter as many women are these days.

The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same

For the last two weeks, I’ve been researching history as it relates to the Roman world and marriage, to illustrate certain things as it relates to feminism and the Scriptures. I ended up with five pages after I got done. That said, when I got done and reconciled all my sources, I found this document covered most all of what I had in all the different resources. Rather than to copy five pages of this (and deal with the problems thereof), I present a link to the original document, which is a PDF file.

THE ‘NEW’ ROMAN WIFE AND 1 TIMOTHY 2:9-15: THE SEARCH FOR A SITZ IM LEBEN by Bruce W. Winter

If you want to know about the Roman environment of marriage and family that Paul and Peter were addressing in a concise way (for example, what the head covering means in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, to see the principle behind what he was teaching), you would be hard pressed to find anything better. Even if you aren’t directly interested in the interpretation of the relevant Scriptures, you should find the read pretty fascinating, especially in how many different parallels there are to the current environment. You can pick out all the different facets and items we know today in the lessons of then.

I also put this link in a group called “Recommended Reading”. The intention of that block of links is to put things which aren’t blogs, but are text resources and books which are worth reading for their insight into culture at large, uniqueness compared to the other material out there, and are generally truthful and consistent according to Scripture.

I referenced Leon Podles work in a previous blog post. I added the link to his book in this block as well:

The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity by Leon J. Podles

Of course, any suggestions regarding texts of this nature are welcome. Please feel free to suggest anything you are aware of in the comments.

Marriage 2.0 Wife = Unquestioned Head of Household

In browsing the comments of one of the Boundless articles, I found a link to a good study (H/T Wudang) relating to marriage and how the balance of power works itself out. While this study relates to Scotland it is a good picture of how marriages stack up in the Western countries. If there is anyone that has any doubts or ridicule for those of us who are pointing out that Marriage 2.0 exists, is the predominant marriage model in Churchianity and without, and the women are the heads of household and the men are the ones who submit, this should go a long way to end it. Its conclusion shouldn’t be a surprise to most in the androsphere:

While in the past it was the swaggering patriarch who called the shots, new research has found that women now make three-quarters of all important household decisions.

The worst part of this seems to be how the men have taken to such developments. It’s not much of a surprise to me, but it is to the commentator:

Yesterday, Larry File, a spokesman for Ginsters, said: “It seems men are no longer the domineering head of the household, and they know it. We were surprised by how honest and open men were about their lack of say in their day-to-day lives. But most men didn’t seem to mind having to ask permission before doing things. The idea of a man heading up the house is clearly a thing of the past, with most couples agreeing that the woman is now the key decision-maker.”

The report also found that six out of ten men admitted their partner had “complete control” over when and how frequently they have sex. Women also take responsibility for running the house, ensuring chores and housework are done and making decisions about the children.

It should be disgusting to the average man, and especially the average Bible-believing Christian man. The idea of being the head of household is one thing, but to give up entirely any say over your life and willingly besides is a terrible thing. That this is not Biblical was clear for most all time. The Rabbis even had a saying which explained the moral of the life of Ahab well: “Whoever allows himself to be ruled by his wife, shall call out, and no one will make answer to him.” (1) This misfortunate turn of events in the average life of the husband is further illustrated:

Men had no say in the choice of baby names either, and it is the female sex that decides what the children wear and where they go to school.

Two-thirds said they were “completely reliant” on their partner for decisions on when and what they eat. Half even said they regularly ask permission before eating certain foods or deciding on takeaway options. It also emerged men take no responsibility when it comes to their health, leaving their diet and choice of food up to their partner.

To leave your well being up to a wife is a terrible thing, and to leave the rest of your life up to a woman is a further terrible thing. I highlighted the first thing because this was considered one of the prime Biblical blessings that a husband was to partake in. That the name and the blessing were important is extremely hard to miss in several sections of Scripture (the story of Issac, Jacob, and Esau as well as the naming of John the Baptist in Luke 1:57-66). Before God, this is the responsibility and blessing of the husband.

In looking at these things, is it any wonder that we look at these things as single men and see marriage as something to be avoided? In reading the specific points (I suggest you do), it notes the average man got to decide on two of the points (the car to drive and the TV show). The average woman, however, got to decide 14 points of the marriage (the list is repeated) including how the money is spent, what household tasks gets done by whom, where they live, whether they have sex or not and when, whether they have children or not and what to call them, and numerous other things?

And is it any wonder we respond to the way we do to the man-up shaming rants that we seem to get continually? Man-up, and give up control of your life to a woman, and become her slave? Why would any sane single man jump on that deal? This is the sales pitch we are getting. Is it any wonder it’s not working, and wouldn’t work even if you cast aside the divorce culture and all the other consequences out there against men?

For all the man-up rants when it comes to Father’s Day or any other time, I have come to agree with them on one point. Why a man would agree to such little control over his own life is unconscionable. If there is a man-up that needs to happen, it’s recognizing this open rebellion that women are undertaking against God all over and taking control back over his own life. They are right in this regard, husbands need to lead their own lives, nevermind their families. Of course, the women involved won’t go quietly so it will be a struggle. But the fact that husbands (and most all men) have gone down to defeat so easily in the face of feminism’s initial march should be disconcerting.

(1) Sketches of Jewish Social Life by Alfred Edersheim page 135.

Random Boundlessness

I had a couple random things I wanted to comment on from Focus On The Family’s Boundless webzine, but not enough for a usual blog post, so I’ve thrown them all here. I thought it good to highlight a couple of things, one good news, one bad. Starting with the good:


Adam R. Holz correctly points out that there is indeed such a thing as female-oriented (non-visual) pornography:

Pornography, then, is not just a men’s issue. And though some might be tempted to dismiss or wink at a “naughty” story such as Fifty Shades of Gray because it trades in degrading words instead of degrading images, it’s potentially every bit as destructive in the lives of women who might be tempted to entertain E.L. James’ twisted sexual fantasies.

Of course, the first comment comes right out and tries to redefine it away, as it has with many other things. “Erotica”, “chick-flicks”, “romance novels”, or whatever it might be called, it is all still pornography which produces unrealistic expectations in marriage. To see it in any different light as visual forms of pornography is a mistake. To not think it doesn’t have an effect on women is a mistake, as we are reminded by Crystal Rae Nelson‘s experience with “Christian” romance novels:

Several years later, having allowed these influences to permeate my perception, I realized (painfully) that I had indeed misshaped my convictions, and distorted my idea of a courtship relationship, and what it should be like. My very attraction toward these things was exactly the encouragement I should have avoided. Instead of allowing my focus to rest on finding a perfect, ideal, romantic relationship, I should have instead turned my eyes and heart to seek God’s will for me, and my future husband.

To see an admission like this on Boundless is a worthy milestone, given the other things that they usually write about. Speaking of which:


A new writer named James Eldridge writes:

Quoting “Jeff”: “Too much consumption [of Boundless] will reveal a ‘men you’re bad, man up; women you’re hurt, we sympathize and help’ attitude.”

I wish I could sit down and have a conversation with Jeff. “Jeff”, I’d say, “I completely understand where you are coming from.” I grew up in a church culture where the mindset seemed to be that men were the animals with the problems and all women had to do was not feed the beast inside the man. The women were the innocent victims of man’s inability to “live right.”

He seems to state that he understands the issue “Jeff” brings up. However, we continue and see that he doesn’t have any understanding whatsoever:

I, however, don’t want to deny the truth that God created men to lead and take responsibility of their families. Therefore, changing men’s hearts and lives is the most effective way to shot block our culture’s high divorce rate. Here at Boundless, our passion and dream is to see men rise up to their full potential as leaders, filled with the Spirit, putting aside their own desires, and passionately sacrificing for their families. If men will lead well, women will follow.

Unfortunately, we get the same old stuff that we’ve heard time and again on Boundless and other places in Churchianity. The new voice is the same as the old. As we know, women initiate divorce much more than men, often are frivolous divorces, and are encouraged by the church. This is known data to us for a very long time, yet the double-down on the same old tired thing is presented in saying that changing men is the most effective way to deal with the high divorce rate.

Also, the same old dismissal of the agency of women is presented. As implied, James Eldridge is echoing the heresy of Glenn Stanton in saying that girls grow up into fine upstanding women without guidance, yet men need to be pushed. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. To suggest that “if men will lead well, women will follow” is ludicrous in the face of Scripture as well as cultural evidence – women are afflicted with the sin nature and as such will actively rebel against any kind of leadership.

In trying to communicate this to our readers, however, some guys seem to receive a nagging and condemning rant, rather than an inspiring and encouraging call to arms.

This statement is absolute proof of how clueless James Eldridge is about what he is writing. Such language is received as feminist shaming language because it is. There’s no counterpoint against the women. Women are treated as if they have no choice or agency in the things that they do. There’s no call for “women [to] rise up to their full potential as helpmeets for their husbands, filled with the Spirit, putting aside their own desires, and passionately submitting to their husbands”. It’s not an “inspiring and encouraging call to arms”, it’s a “nagging and condemning rant” with no basis in fact because we know better. At least there are commenters that get it posting there. Hopefully James will learn, but probably not. If he does learn we might not see him there much longer.


This said, the prior post I mostly made reference to here was made before Mother’s Day in reference to what usually happens when it comes to the sermons and events. Father’s Day is coming up, and we know in many places that the condemnations of men to do better so they can re-re-re-re-commit to Marriage 2.0 will happen. You’ll see some kind of rant in the pattern of Courageous, where good husbands and fathers are shamed for not doing well enough.

Let me encourage you if you are a good father, that you know well enough where you are falling short and don’t need anyone to tell you that you are. This is especially true if women and the pastors are going to rail on you for being a good father anyway, as will happen. This is the whole idea of Courageous as a movie and what will be said in many houses of Churchianity this Sunday. If you are indeed a good father, keep it up and know that the Father in Heaven sees the truth and rewards those who are doing right by their children.

You Serve What You Follow Part 2

In Part 1, a discussion of service was begun. To summarize the first part:

1. Instead of serving Jesus, we can serve our own fleshly appetites. (Romans 16:17-18; Matthew 6:24-25)
2. Instead of serving Jesus, we can serve other men or women. (Galatians 1:9-12)
3. Instead of serving Jesus, we can serve God’s creation. (Deuteronomy 4:15-19)

This continues the text:

4. Instead of serving Jesus, we can serve the works of men’s hands (Deuteronomy 4:28-29, also see Psalm 115:3-8 & Isaiah 44:6-22)

And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. (Deuteronomy 4:28-29)

This is a particularly demonstrative thing in Churchianity. Often people are worshiping (giving reverence to) the works of men’s hands, which with Churchianity are the buildings, the organizations, things inside it. These are lifeless, senseless objects made of the works of men’s hands, yet they are made to stand as representative for God. To say that we are in the “house of the Lord”, when the church and temple that He has made is His people is to place the building into reverence as an idol.

In fact, it could be said the major problem with Churchianity is exactly as the term suggests. Christ and the things that He has created (His Church is created by Him alone and is His – Matthew 16:18) are replaced with the things that man has created. Man’s church is not equivalent to God’s church, and serving one is not the same as serving the other. This is clear in the lesson of Jeroboam’s sin (1 Kings 12:26-33), which plagued Israel when he set up an alternative temple to the one that God established.

But this can go to any thing or any item as well. Putting a car or a house or any other man-made item before Jesus is idolatry. For example, I knew a man who had a rather nice car as his regular car he drove. He worried about the car all the time. He always parked it far away from other cars in the parking lot. He always kept it clean and obsessed over doing so, even making sure not a single spot or scratch occurred to it. While regular prudent care of the things God entrusts us to is good stewardship, it is always important to remember that we can easily over-value things (as this man with the car did), or obsess over these things way too much and not leave the rest to God. And finally:

5. Instead of serving Jesus, we can serve sin. (Romans 6:1-7)

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Romans 6:1-2)

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Romans 6:6-7)

As Romans 6:1-7 implies, we are servants to sin without choice (slavery) before we accept Christ. When we accept Christ, we have the grace given us of forgiveness by His blood. We are freed from the slavery to sin that we are under. Why should we continue under it? If you claim that you are saved and not seeking to put the sin out of your life each and every day. This often means putting certain things out of our lives which bring us to the point of sin.

The fact that this is required is lost in Churchianity, and the general impression given is that God loves you just the way you are and doesn’t want you to change. Jesus died as substitution for your sins, but Jesus died to free you from this slavery as well. Jesus loves you enough to see you removed from the condition you are in. If you believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again in the flesh for your sins, leave them on the cross and walk away from them! We are given a list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 where Paul says those that do them will not inherit the kingdom of God. But Paul promptly says in verse 11 that this is what some of you were. If you are saved in Christ, you can always walk away from these things. Do it.

In conclusion, as we should gather from the second commandment, it is important for a proper walk before Christ as a disciple to remove all the other things that are in first place in your life before Christ and make Jesus and His words the most important thing in your life. That examples of violations of the first and second commandment fill the majority of Scripture is not a coincidence, it just shows exactly how important it is to deal with all the things that are in our lives which hold prominence over Jesus.
This might require getting rid of an item (like the car in the example above, trade it for something less likely to be obsessed over), redefining a work or family relationship (and taking the potential consequences), stepping away from sin, stopping certain activities or other things. If you identify something like this, the answer to deal with it will usually become obvious. These things will be more difficult than following after the world, but that is what God calls each and every one of us who desire to follow Him to do. This comes out in a number of the admonishments that He gives the Israelites:

And Samuel said unto the people, Fear not: ye have done all this wickedness: yet turn not aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart; And turn ye not aside: for then should ye go after vain things, which cannot profit nor deliver; for they are vain. For the LORD will not forsake his people for his great name’s sake: because it hath pleased the LORD to make you his people. Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way: Only fear the LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done for you. (1 Samuel 12:20-24)

Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Joshua 24:14-15)

And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the LORD, and serve him only: and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines. (1 Samuel 7:3)

We are given the choice to fear and serve the Lord out of love, for it is not truly love without having a choice. But to do that, we need to put aside all the other things that compete with Him and make Him the first priority. Hopefully the Holy Spirit has spoken to you in some way in thinking on these things.