BD #1 – Women Are The More “Spiritual” Sex

As part of my blog posting hiatus, I did a handful of blog comments. It turns out that I developed part of a post I intended in responding to this post, entitled Why Are Women Better Christians than Men?.

Garage Sale Blog Bait.

In attending a garage sale, I happened to see a book by Dr. James Dobson entitled “Straight Talk to Men and Their Wives”. The price was right (15 cents) and the opportunity to parse a number of statements representative of the founder of Focus on the Family for the blog was hard to resist, so I jumped on it. This post starts a series I’m calling “Blogging Dobson”, which will discuss the statements I found interesting within the book. It should present the fact clearly that the current representatives of Focus on the Family aren’t very far from the original tree.

As sunshinemary’s post denotes, the idea of the woman being the more “spiritual” sex is a very common one that’s lasted for a very long time. As the Christianity Today article explains, women are better Christians than men are. But we have to look at the measure they are using in their judgement. This leads into Interesting Statement #1 from the book (1):

Why do I place such importance on the involvement of men in determining the survival of a culture? Because no modern society can exceed the stability of its individual family units, and women seem more aware of that fact than their husbands. Consider the evidence. Who reads the books on family living? Eighty percent are known to be women. Who attends seminars on meaningful family life? The majority are women. Who enrolls in Bible study classes devoted to Scriptural underpinnings of the family? Women outnumber men by an incredible margin. Who listens to family radio programs and cassette tapes [My Note: this was a book written in 1980] on marriage and parenthood? Once again they are likely to be female.

We clearly see the judgment that is being placed here, and it’s pointed out in Podles as well. Women are more “spiritual” in the eyes of these people because they are more likely to consume their offerings. Women are more likely to buy the books, listen to the tapes, listen to the radio shows, attend the conferences, frequent the church meetings, and so on. In other words, they play along with the Churchian proctors. They play along with the laws that men judge other men by and support them much more vigorously than the average man. The tone of the book is nothing different than what we find online from Focus On The Family and their ilk, and nothing different than we find from any other Churchian source. Women are the ones that run the churches and push the doctrine where ever they feel like
. It is no surprise, the women are the ones being heard, and the doctrine of the personal Jesus comes to the forefront and the objective Jesus goes away (see also Isaiah 30:9-11).

What of these pastors? It should not be a surprise that they have chosen to please these women instead of pleasing God in this process. They have gone the way of the world, seeking after their own appetites and profiting by warping the word of God to please these women.

And pleasing these women has turned into a very profitable enterprise, as can be seen by walking into the average Christian book store. The doctrine has changed to suit them, and the environment has changed to suit them, so much so that it is considered effeminate in many circles to be fully involved in Churchian activities. (2) It is not surprising that everything is done to create a feminine environment in these places, since 75% of the purchases with Christian bookstores involve women. (3) Women authors also outnumber the men by about 13 to 1. (4) Christian music stations draw an audience that is 63% female. (5) K-Love, America’s largest syndicated Christian radio network, explicitly targets everything they do to females aged 18-45. (5)

It is also not surprising that given the number of women who are single or are in “loveless marriages” that the industry of the Christian “romance novel” has cropped up, (4), causing a reflection and change in doctrine towards marriage. Murrow writes (4):

But not everything is so chaste. Christian self-help books are prodding women to become lusty — toward Jesus. Many famous authors vigorously encourage women to imagine Jesus as their personal lover. One tells her readers to “develop an affair with the one and only Lover who will truly satisfy your innermost desires: Jesus Christ”. A well-known Christian author says to his female readers, “at times, Jesus will be more of a husband to you than the man of flesh that you married. And while your husband may wonderfully meet many of your needs, only the Bridegroom can and will meet all your needs.” Another offers this breathless description of God’s love: “This Someone entered your world and revealed to you that He is your true Husband. Then He dressed you in a wedding gown whiter than the whitest linen. You felt virginal again. And alive! He kissed you with grace and vowed never to leave you or forsake you. And you longed to go and be with Him.”

What is the result of these “traditional” teachings that deviate from God’s will? Most men who are not hoodwinked into Churchianity will see these things for what they are and reject the entire system since Churchianity is choked with it. Van Rooinek wrote in response to my original quoting of Dr. Dobson:

Because men —
(a) don’t need those stupid books,
(b) correctly recognize that much of what’s in the books is [bull dung], and
(c) work 14 hour days to feed their families, so they don’t have the time to read that crap.

Nearly everything I need to know about family living, I learned from my conservative but nonreligious Dad (he was raised in church, but angrily rejected it as a young man… and I’m starting to understand why.) But he never “taught” me any of it; I just WATCHED him, and copied him. And it works.

Jesus spoke to such things as well:

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Matthew 15:3)

And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. (Matthew 15:6)

Jesus said these things to the Pharisees regarding their question of hand-washing. (Matthew 15:1-9) We ultimately have an environment now, where “faith in God” is measured by doing all the works. Churchianity is a work-based faith, where those who are doing the right things in the eyes of the Pastors and the Women are considered “pleasing before God”. It should not be a surprise that what was said here is true of those today.

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 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. (Matthew 15:7-9)

It’s not hard to suggest that the Churchian proctors and women are the Pharisees of today!

Dobson continues in writing (1):

What I’m saying is that Christian women, to a large extent, are already motivated to preserve their families. And though I hate to admit it. women often know more than their husbands about the role God ordained for men.

This is complete and utter garbage, proven false time and time again. In fact, it could be argued that Dobson’s Focus On The Family and his colleagues are contributing to the problem by their traditional false doctrine, set out to please women and not please God.

As it has been proven, women are indeed the more “spiritual” sex. But that “spirituality” is reflected in the judgement of pastors and Christian media by the fact that women are consuming their “Christian product” – in fact, they are measured in how “Godly” they are by the degree which they consume these things. Churchian spirituality is not the same as the God-honoring Holy Spirit – in fact it is a much different spirit entirely. This spirit should be avoided at all costs!

Image Source: Scanned by myself.
(1) “Straight Talk to Men and Their Wives” by Dr. James C. Dobson page 22
(2) Why Men Hate Going To Church by David Murrow page 60.
(3) ibid page 64. (4) ibid page 65. (5) ibid page 66.

Drawn Away By The World From God

The question of the separation of Church and State came up and I thought it would be a perfect topic to explore, since it has a huge bearing on the state of the Church has it has existed throughout history.

One of the chief enemies of the true Christian to go along with the flesh, which we are to deny and the devil, which we are to resist, is the world.


Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. (1 John 2:15-17)

This does not specifically address direct matters of the flesh like sexual matters or gluttony, but things in the world and pursuits of the world. This can include the accumulation of things, status and favor in the world, money, and the like. The love of the world puts the glory of God and service to Him aside in favor of other things. The answer that we are given is to flee such things. Ecclesiastes serves to further reinforce this answer.

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (Matthew 4:10)

But there are temptations and fallacies in the minds of people that will cause them to be drawn into such things. These have been both obvious and not so obvious. As this relates to the issue of Church and State, there are a number of good Scriptural examples of which to go by. Unfortunately, the Church has fallen repeatedly and has chosen not to go by these examples that have been given in Scripture and in history.

Follow the Will of The Lord, Not The Will of Men
One of the common mistakes has been to follow after the dictates of men and not after God. There are a number of examples at all levels of authority, but the chief of which is that somehow people are swayed to depart from the Lord by the dictates of governing authorities. It is true that Scripture dictates following the government and not being trouble-makers, for the government officials are those who have been set in authority in those places by the wish of God:

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. (1 Peter 2:13-17)

There was a tendency to use Christianity as an occasion to rebel against the governments, which is why these things were written. But as people in churches are fond to do, they do not present a complete picture of such things. This is especially unfortunate since such things in the hands of worldly authority will be the cause of persecutions.

The reality is that Christians are to follow after God first and foremost, and any service to government comes out of righteous outgrowth of such things. The obligation is clearly planted to refuse obeying authority when that authority disobeys Godly will. We are given examples in both Daniel and his three friends. We are also given examples in Peter and John, who were brought before the governing authority after healing the lame man (Acts 3:2) and preaching the name of Jesus:

But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Acts 4:17-20)

Do they cease from building the Church or furthering Jesus? We are told that they prayed at the end of Acts 4 and we get the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) Then we are told the answer:

And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.) (Acts 5:12-14)

They were then put into prison and then the angel of the Lord released them with the direction to preach some more, which they did. They were eventually brought back:

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:27-29)

You will recognize the by-line of this blog at the end of this quote. The same Peter who wrote the text above, also said to obey God rather than men in the face of a governing authority. Unfortunately, when the hard times come, so many will be astray as they already are, choosing to obey the world instead of obeying God, especially in the face of consequences as the apostles will be facing down. It will take a solid faith to follow after God at the expense of all in the world. Churchianity at large has already failed this test.

Do Not Be Enticed Away By The World’s Benefits
One of the other common mistakes is to be enticed away to desire to be just like the world or have benefits in the world. This has happened in the Church numerous times throughout history as well as to the Israelites. Rather than to hold the Lord as King, and to follow out His patterns fully within His people, those in the Church have chosen to desire after things in the world and follow after the world:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

These favors the world hands the people of Christ or these desires for the people of Christ to be like the world and follow after the world (not holy or set apart for Christ) have always come with costs. The costs are always extreme in the face of the Lord. The best known example of such things we have in Scripture is the one before Samuel and the Israelites:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. (1 Samuel 8:4-8)

They had a king, and that is the Lord. But they wanted a man to stand before them as the other nations had. They looked at something in the world (for they were to be set apart for the Lord, too), and desired it more than they desired the Lord. They desired to be like the world and loved the world more than they loved God (back to 1 John 2:15-17), so they didn’t have the love of the Father within them. The Lord had Samuel explain to them what it would be like to have a king (which was fulfilled under Solomon), but the people responded:

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. (1 Samuel 8:19-20)

They were saying they would rather be the world’s than the Lord’s. They looked back to Egypt instead of looking ahead to the Lord’s promise. This is nothing different than what the Church has done many times throughout history. Instead of recognizing the true Church is the people of God who were called out (ekklesia), the true Church has been replaced by buildings because they wanted to be like the other pagan religions. Instead of recognizing the priesthood of all believers, men have been set before other men just like the world. The world was definitely fond to help mold the Church in its image and not in God’s image, but it is definitely the people that have been complicit in such matters all throughout the history of Christianity time and time again. It can definitely be easy to take Christ’s words and explain this:

They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. (Matthew 22:21)

Many things that are God’s have unfortunately been rendered unto Caesar willingly by those who proclaim the name of Christ. Marriage is a prime example among many others. In the end the people and the church in question just becomes a State church that serves the interest of the governing authority and not Christ, which is what is addressed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

(when I talked about having lots of research to go through, I meant it (about 425MB worth). I’ll pick up on this topic again when I get the chance to go through all this stuff.)

Serial Monogamy (Hypergamy) is Polygamy

Much has been made of the tendencies that men have when it comes to marriage relationships. The idea of a husband cheating on his wife is almost universally derided. It’s almost universally accepted that part of the sinful nature of men is the tendency and temptation to go fornicate and commit adultery (if married). But what of the women? I described the situation here:

Unfettered hypergamy (otherwise known as serial monogamy), a base flesh instinct of women in relationships that includes fornication, rules marriage. Relationships and marriages become a series of temporary things, the woman failing to commit to a man for a lifetime as Marriage 1.0 dictates. When the perfect romance and heady feelings ends for her, she can divorce without blame or cost for any and every reason. Society or the church offers no penalties for a woman to break marriage. Rather the church acts quickly to absolve her of blame and encourages her to divorce, placing all the blame on the husband.

This moral blindness goes to all things that women do in the sight of God that are sin (quoting common boiler-plate Driscoll), such as fornication. As the script goes, the woman’s inherently good heart doesn’t lead her wrong absent the sinful influence of those evil menz, and as a result it is to lead the marriage and make the right choice.

However, when this plan of religious feminism goes awry in the face of the women’s fleshly sinful urges, they must blame the men to keep the illusion alive. The concept of the perfection of women before God must be upheld. So the church in general holds this up by being blind to the wickedness of women as it comes out. This concept is perfectly illustrated in the mass Churchian acceptance of the movie Fireproof, where the wife in the story starts chasing after a doctor when her husband dissatisfies her.

As the Churchian story goes, it’s not these women that are frivolously divorcing, it’s the men pushing them to it because they fooled the innately good heart of the woman. It’s not the women that are committing adultery, the husband pushed them to it. And it’s not fornication, it’s simply because a man just wouldn’t man up and marry her.

The fact that Churchianity at large fails to see this as a problem at all while it represents a major assault on the sanctity of marriage is extraordinary. It’s a testament to the power of how Jesus spoke about tradition destroys the word of God before men. As Dalrock writes:

The problem is the feminine imperative is much more insidious than simple moral indulgence. The feminine imperative has warped our very ability to think morally.

To return to the specific topic of a woman’s unrestrained hypergamy because she is not held to her marriage vows within the church, the fact that the common practice has turned into hypergamy or serial monogamy in place of true Biblical practice is completely ignored.

The truth in Scripture is that serial monogamy to fornication, even to marriage, is the exact same thing as polygamy. In other words, a wife frivolously divorcing her husband is doing the same thing in the eyes of God as the husband who keeps a mistress on the side. This meaning can be found by digging into several Scriptures, primary of which are the following phrases:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (1 Timothy 3:2)

Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man. (1 Timothy 5:9)

In digging into the Greek and cross-referencing those words with the rest of their occurrences, they best correspond with “one woman man” and “one man woman”. To take these as simple prohibitions against having more than one spouse at one time would be a mistake. They extend to taking on another man or another woman in any way shape or form in the sight of God. This includes frivolous divorce. Scripture bears this out as well, as we may recall:

So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (Romans 7:3)

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

As Scripture plainly illustrates, anyone who marries a person that has been involved in frivolous divorce in the sight of God is committing adultery! A wife who marries then frivolously divorces her husband and then marries another still has two husbands in the sight of God. Marriage is clearly depicted as an “until death do us part” proposition in God’s sight:

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. (Romans 7:2)

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:39)

So what is the remedy in God’s sight in the way of frivolous divorce?

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

As illustrated, the church as it exists today seems to be completely blind to such things. It befits the church to let women go through marriages like boxes of tissue, the tradition has been set, so the blindness to the word of God takes hold. As I mentioned before, the church has given widespread acceptance to Marriage 2.0, which allows the wife to divorce for any and every reason. This blindness exists because of that acceptance – Churchians can’t accept that they’ve already corrupted the sanctity of marriage, even as they cry about homosexual marriage using that phrase. The feminine imperative has blinded them, indeed.

Evaluating Marriage Ministry

Text: 1 Timothy 2:11-14; Titus 2:3-5

In the topic I linked to, it seems good to point out the Scriptural standards regarding such activities. As highlighted here, the way marital headship shows up in the greater Church has been well defined. As it is written women are not to teach (or prophesy) before the men in the church gathering. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 speaks to this issue too, but the clearest Scripture for the purposes of today is:

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)

But in the Scriptural sense, women are given a teaching responsibility. To take on such a responsibility is parallel to the men taking on such responsibilities in the eyes of the Lord (James 3:1; Hebrews 5:12; Revelation 2:20). That responsibility is dictated in our main text today Titus 2:3-5:

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (Titus 2:3-5)

The chief responsibility of teaching women in terms of marriage itself and the activities relating to marriage falls on the aged woman in Christ who teaches. This can be the woman towards her children or the woman that attains a goal of teaching before other women in the church environment.

1. The women who have an effective marriage ministry before God set a proper holy example of following God before other women. (Titus 2:3)

The effectiveness of any kind of ministry a woman undertakes relates to the example that she sets out in marriage as well as what she allows before the women she is discipling. As it relates to the teachers, these things are the goals that all women in Christ need to be attaining to, and should be bringing up the younger women in. It is much like the case of those men that aspire to be elders, deacons, or teachers (Titus 1:5-9; 1 Timothy 3:1-13). The ones that are in these places should be there only for the reasons of their spiritual maturity in Christ, not because of the need of a warm body. The things that are spoken of with regards to women in Scripture (Romans 16:2; Ephesians 5:3; 1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Timothy 3:11, 1 Timothy 5:5-10, 1 Peter 3:3-5) should be more true than false of her in example. She should aspire to be holy in her standards before God and her actions should follow that out in every way.

These include what is listed in the verse as well – a woman should not be a slanderer, or enslaved to wine or any other thing. She should be apt to teach in both her words and actions and have a superior understanding of what it means to live the commandments of Christ out in truth. Such a woman is required in maturity to be a master of all the things she is to teach in her own life towards her own husband. Hence, the things she is to teach apply equally to her own behavior as to the behavior of those she disciples.

2. The women who have an effective marriage ministry before God teach other women to be sober and temperate in all things. (Titus 2:4a, 2:5a)

Sober as it appears here means to be temperate of mind (Titus 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:6). The comparison of the state between a drunk person and a sober person can be useful for understanding this concept, as the idea is similar. A sober person is not heated by their passions or emotions to the point where he/she is ruled by them and act out in them. A sober person exercises sound Godly judgment in all things despite what he/she is feeling at the time. A sober person is a self-controlled person in all things.

A discreet or temperate person engages moderation in appetites and desires. She recognizes what is honorable and good and engages in those things, but does not reject good things or overindulges in those things. We can get a good definition out of the issue of alcohol again. A temperate person does just enough without overdoing it. A temperate person is not extreme in their speech or actions to be loud or violent. Moderation in everything they do is the goal.

3. The women who have an effective marriage ministry before God teach other women to love their husbands and children. (Titus 2:4b)

These points should go without saying, but unfortunately we live in times where there is a difficulty in understanding these things. A good wife is out for her husband’s best interests and doesn’t seek to tear him down at every opportunity. She seeks the best honor and interest for her husband before him and others through her actions. She is not wanton in the things she does. She sympathizes and helps when distress and afflictions of all kinds comes upon the family. She is not of ill-nature towards her husband or her children in anything she does, including having sex with her husband, and seeks peace and harmony in all things as it relates to her family (1 Timothy 5:14). As it relates to children, she is not loose or over-indulgent with them, for not giving proper discipline in raising them is hating them (Proverbs 13:24).

4. The women who have an effective marriage ministry before God teach other women to be chaste or pure. (Titus 2:5b)

This is one that will relate to most of us today, since the evidence is all around us it’s not happening. The aged woman is to teach the younger women to be restrained so to keep the marriage bed undefiled. This goes for how modest her dress is in public and actions in public towards other men of any kind. A pure chaste woman doesn’t flirt or do anything sexual with men who are not her husband. In less genteel language that most will know, the older women are to teach the younger women to not be sluts in either appearance or action.

5. The women who have an effective marriage ministry before God teach other women to be keepers of home, or to not neglect what she is to attend to at home. (Titus 2:5c)

She is not to be out and about doing other things at the neglect of what needs to be taken care of or bettered at home. The passage of Scripture colloquially referred to as the description of the Proverbs 31 woman (v10-31) speaks clearly about how this is to come to pass. 1 Timothy 5:13 and Proverbs 7:10-12 speaks of the opposite in regards to the result of the neglect of proper focus on the home.

6. The women who have an effective marriage ministry before God teach other women to be good or to do good works. (Titus 2:5d)

This is self-explanatory. (1 Timothy 5:10) She is to do good works and become known for them.

7. The women who have an effective marriage ministry before God teach other women to submit to their own husbands. (Titus 2:5e)

Talked about here in more depth.

8. The women who have an effective marriage ministry before God are concerned about the witness that those involved presents for Christ in the world by how they are as wives. (Titus 2:5f)

I preached this part of Scripture here.

In conclusion, Scripture gives us the criteria by which a marriage ministry is judged on whether it is of God or not. In looking at these points, it is easy to see that (most?) all of them are courting the work of Satan instead of the work of God. This is especially true in seeing the results of Churchianity in the character of women.

Men are seeing these women fall short in these areas as well, and are finding these feral women distasteful for marriage consideration. When all that is available are women who are odious in some way, is it any wonder that single men aren’t marrying these women (see pt 4)?

Marriage Is a Grievous Commitment Taken Flippantly

(or Men Only Truly Commit to Marriage Today)

In reading the discussion of before, as well as one of the linked posts, we can easily see the pattern that Churchianity and the world takes with regards to the idea of marriage. It seems clear that marriage is something that is taken lightly before God. It’s something that society just expects young girls and boys to do in order to grow up. This leads to the typical man-up rants that we see portraying men as children and women as victims because the men won’t marry the single chaste wonderful women sluts up.

Overall, we can see in the wholesale advocation of marriage in Churchianity as a pure expectation of adulthood and not a serious choice made before God. Marriage is indeed a grievous commitment which requires maturity and steadfastness in one’s life before God and men. Given the environment that society and Churchianity has put upon men, this is especially a given, even more so than the recognition of what true Marriage 1.0 requires of a husband. However, women have not been pressed equivalently on what the true costs of a God honoring marriage are. As I quoted here, Deborah Watkins seems to relate to what is going on in the culture:

Yes. Women are more eager to connect with their future spouses. Marriage is the next big step that our women look forward to! They have successful and rewarding careers, higher education and marriage is the next logical evolution.

Women are into the wedding, dress and concepts associated with marriage and sometimes downplay the real deal (character and incompatibility issues) associated with relationships.

Men are much more cautious of marriage because of the high divorce rate. Men scrutinize every aspect of marriage because they want it to last forever and they believe that most people marry too quickly. One person said “that they would rather remain happy and single than be married and miserable.”

This is one thing we do see in the culture. Part of gaining the feminist merit badge involves going out and getting the higher education, getting the career, and then marriage. In other words, the perfect man for her is supposed to materialize, not criticize her or hold her to any standards in any way (his own or God’s), and the whole experience is supposed to be the perfect fantasy that she dreamed of since childhood.

Now, women are focused on one thing as it relates to a marriage – the wedding. This is readily apparent by the amount of wedding planning literature, dress shops, and the like, as well as the thread of all the female-oriented porn such as romantic comedies and romance novels. There always seems to be a wedding fantasy out there for women, even when they are little girls:

It’s weird how we get wedding fantasies set in our heads when we are little girls. Everyone always says that they never thought about their wedding until they got engaged, but I’m not going to lie to you. I started dreaming about my wedding as soon as I could talk.

So, it should be readily clear, if it wasn’t before, that:

It seems that women are committed to the marriage day, while men are committed to the marriage.

Given that the churches are run by women, the stress and blood lust for marriageable men gets to the extreme. These women, who have a fundamentally good heart that is Godly by itself, are directed into marriage by her righteous heart. So it’s not necessary that the church ever stress what it means before God to be married. She is to step up and her heart is to lead the marriage, and she is to be the Holy Spirit to her husband. When things go wrong, it is never the wife’s fault for not living up to what Godly marriage is supposed to be, it’s always the husband’s. If the wife cheats on the husband, it’s his fault. If the husband cheats on the wife it’s his fault.

The Churchian proctors know that their plan is going wrong so they push on the men and be lenient on the women. They could never actually hold women to Godly standards (i.e. not Marriage 2.0), because it would offend their delicate feminist sensibilities and the women would call for the pastor’s head as a result. When they do push on the men, it’s often extra-biblical and way beyond what God meant him to be as a husband.

Even though, men more inherently understand the idea of taking a commitment and what it means. This is readily apparent by a number of recent posts demonstrating women who lack understanding of commitment much less covenant.

That such views are prevalent in society today indicates that there was no real understanding of that wedding, why it took place, the words they said, what they mean, or any serious intent on committing or following through to their words in the sight of God and men. To think that agreeing to what God has laid out can be pulled back and made conditional based on feelings, whether you feel okay with the marriage or not, or whether the husband has submitted to the wife well enough is going back on the words. Think of the effect that borrowing $20 from your friend and saying you would pay it back next week would have when you respond to the friend’s request for the money back with “I don’t feel like it.”

One distinct problem with marriage today is that a woman’s word is far from her bond when it comes to marriage, and the church and society supports her in this.

One can go through the posts here to gain a definition of what Marriage before God entails. Unfortunately, it is dark knowledge to many. It’s just not taught because people would then expect women to uphold their words in the sight of God, and we can’t have that now can we?

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. (Matthew 19:10)

This was said by the disciples when Jesus put down the practice of frivolous divorce in that society (and that alone!). Marriage is indeed a serious commitment, but the Churchians don’t teach it as such. It’s just (meh), another thing people do, and all this frivolous divorce? Them men just aren’t worshipping her well enough.

You mean: I have to stay with this one person as my spouse? For the rest of my life? I can’t go divorce my spouse when things start getting hard and it stops feeling good? I can’t go sexually fool around? I can’t willfully refuse my spouse sex for any reason and provide access unconditionally? You mean as a husband I got to lead and provide for my family unconditionally whether I feel like it or not? You mean as a wife I got to unconditionally submit to my husband in everything as if it were the Lord, whether I feel like it or not?

The church doesn’t drive home the seriousness of such a thing. It doesn’t drive home the witness of marriage, and the very real wrath that God has in befouling the things of His witness. It doesn’t make it clear that there are a number of people (mainly women, but men too) that have no business being married whatsoever and keep them from doing it outside of repentance unto maturity.

The Pressure Of Corrupted Ministry

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. (2 Corinthians 2:17)

The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us. (Micah 3:11)

Last time, I wrote of Sheila Gregoire and her resistance to interpret 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 correctly. As well, I agreed with Dalrock’s observation (*) about the erratic nature of what Sheila Gregoire writes. By the necessity that has been put on her ministry to make money and create demand for her personal services, her products, and her web sites, she is required to draw people in and please them in order to make a purchase. As I indicated last time, the reason she is discussed here is not because she is a woman or a feminist or anything else of that nature. It is because she contradicts the word of God. This may not warrant the attention of three bloggers (the ones I’m aware of) who have addressed it alone, but as Dalrock writes:

This is astounding because Sheila isn’t just another blogger; she and her husband hold Christian marriage seminars and she has written five books aimed at women on the topic of Christian marriage. In fact, she not only considers her work a ministry, but she teaches other women to start their own ministries as well. She has been doing all of this for many years, yet there is no consistency in her writings on the core topics she claims to be an expert on. Some of her advice sounds fairly good one day, but then not long after she comes along and directly contradicts herself.

Ultimately she is nothing different than the average pastor, who has machinery to run and keep up. So her goals are as the other Churchian pastors out there: 1. Increase attendance. 2. Increase offerings. 3. Provide an appearance of “spirituality”. The plan she has to accomplish these things seems to be well established, since the pattern was discernable after a number of her posts on core topics of her ministry. There are things that she holds dear to her feminist sensibilities that she won’t compromise, but it seems she has found that she has to muddy the waters and provide enough sweet sounding words to scratch the ears of her customers to keep people buying and keep people thinking that some good truth rests with her.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Corinthians 14:33)

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

As you may recall, Sheila started out by claiming 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 to be a “hard question to wrestle with God” (really rebelling against God). In light of that alone, we can find that she is following her feminist self in using her tradition, reason, and experience over Scripture. In doing this, it is no wonder she is so erratic, as well as rebelling against Scripture. But in using this tactic, she gets the chance to send all her readers away with something that itches their ears. If this passage is not clear-cut in her mind it is because she chooses to make it so:

1. “Do Not Deprive” Means Sex Can’t be a Weapon

I would argue the same thing applies when it comes to our sex life. This isn’t something that is optional in marriage. And it isn’t something that should be minimized or used as a weapon, either. This is something that is part of an “abundant life”.

Playing this “hard question” game gives her cover when her real positions are questioned as they come out. They are obvious to those who follow her enough, but for the uninitiated, her or her adherents can point to this post and say “see she saying to not use sex as a weapon right here!”. The problem is that she argued much more forthrightly in the last part than this one, and many of her other posts are consistent with that part. Hence, the amount of discussion here that centered on her first part and not the other two. Continuing:

A healthy relationship is only possible when both spouses believe that sex is important.

And what of Sheila Gregoire herself and her adherents that believe sex isn’t important, and for whom sex is not mutual with their husbands? That is the first step towards sex as a weapon. Next, point #3 really melds into point #4:

If sexual release were the only need, and if sex had nothing to do with anything else, God could have designed a different way for us to get that release. After all, our other physical needs can be met on our own: we breathe on our own; we can eat on our own. And it is possible to obtain sexual release on our own! That, however, is not what God designed us for. That’s what God designed marriage for.

This is a restatement of her men physical, women emotional meme, ultimately wrapping back to an argument parallel to the Cheetos one. She states here that sexual release (the physical) plays a part here, but claims no such thing in other places. No “come get me hubba-hubba” tells me that she is physically repressed. She simply doesn’t seem to relate to physical sexual desire.

Moving to part 3, Sheila Gregoire spends about the first half of the text talking about how people are different. This may have some bearing in her mind, but it is ultimately wasteful for her position:

Our response to this problem must always be to look at God, not to try to change our spouse. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that we should demand our rights if we’re not getting what we deserve. That’s why “Do not deprive” should never be used as a weapon; it goes against everything Scripture is for. Scripture focuses on servanthood, not on tyranny.

It is another restatement of part 1, establishing sex as a weapon in the hands of wives. Coupled with the standard Churchianity line in Marriage 2.0, where a woman has the perfect right to change her husband at every opportunity and not respect him in any way, she is literally again advocating for use of sex as a weapon. Holding to this position gives the wife complete and full license to sin against her husband without repercussions. Sure Sheila suggests in a very slight way that it doesn’t justify not changing, but given her other writings it holds no force in a world where women are not held to account for their sins against God.

To assess the parts of her final position in bold:
1. Looking at God will cause you to see the imperfections in yourself as well as those around you.
Especially when husbands are being sinned against, as Sheila teaches wives to do in this case.

2. Sheila treats the issue of sin in terms of “getting the rights we deserve”.
As has been pointed out, the issue of unconditional sexual access is part of the marriage vows made in the sight of God. He sets out this condition of marriage in 1 Cor 7:1-5 and is implied by Genesis 2:24. To not follow Scripture is to sin, and sin has redress in Scripture:

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matthew 18:15-17)

3. Sheila Gregoire teaches the women of her audience to sin!
Sheila Gregoire views the use of Scripture in the life of a Christian towards a wife as a weapon, and holding a wife to Scriptural dictates as “tyranny”. So in her mind, rule of the family by Scripture is tyranny, so in essence, Christ’s rule is tyranny to her! When she writes “servanthood not tyranny”, she is talking the servanthood of the personal Jesus and the butler Father, and her supplicant husband to her. Scripture clearly speaks of servanthood but to Christ or God and not to her personal Jesus:

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:10)

Marriage 2.0, woman worship, and feminist Churchianity are only out to please men and are not servants of God! We know clearly where Sheila Gregoire stands.

(*) – I include links to this post so much in this part and the last because it brought up statements that Sheila used in Part 1. As well, it has much discussion involving that part, including several comments from me and others I wished to reference here.

Churchian Sexual Fraud Advocacy

Dalrock’s brilliant description of Sheila Gregoire is spot-on. Her hyperactive hamster is probably the most annoying part of reading her ministry, as Dalrock writes:

I’ve been reading through blog posts by Sheila Wray Gregoire for an upcoming topic, and the thing which strikes me the most about her writing is how painfully inconsistent she is.

She’s all over the place in her positions, as I’ve chronicled before. As I wrote there:

I’ll say from my own experience the hyperactive hamster stuff gets tiring. But it’s not hard to see through her act and see the destructive influence that Sheila Gregoire has on all marriage, not to mention Christian marriage. She’s a rebel against God through and through who’s sole goal is teaching women to rebel against the pattern of Godly Christian marriage.

As I wrote here about my life induced blogging dry spell, I could provide links to other posts that would adequately give examples of the method to her madness. What I put in bold above is my chief concern and why she comes up here. The dry spell is over, so time to take up that particular topic.

Sheila Gregoire decides to take up the verses of Scripture that indicate that sex is a mutual obligation of love in a marriage that is not to be willfully refused by either party. Saying yes to Marriage 1.0 means saying yes to this. As most men know, making sex into a conditional activity (“I will do it if you…”) or willfully refusing it turns sex into a weapon. We find out that this is ultimately Sheila’s intent. One of the basic teachings of her ministry is predicated on turning sex into a weapon and putting it in the hands of wives.

Gregoire starts in in terms of feelings as all good Churchians do, relating a couple of stories. In doing this she satisfies point #3, trying to paint the normal access of the marital debt for the husband as disgusting and repugnant. “How dare you would make your wife feel this way! How dare you would make your wife do it (after pregnancy/menstruation)!” Moving on, Sheila shows her attitude towards objective Christian faith and affirms her rationalization hamster, worshiping her personal Jesus. She writes:

I believe that most things in the Christian life are not cut and dry. We live in constant tension, and indeed, the Bible is in tension. Is it grace or works? Is it justice or mercy? Is it free will or predestination? None of these things has easy answers; the truth is always found in the middle, after struggling. And that struggling is important, in and of itself. We’re supposed to wrestle with God on the hard questions.

This isn’t a hard question, and there are no sides to it. Our God is not a God of confusion, and He is very clear on this. Sex is not to be a bargaining chip in marriage! Sheila Gregoire is like most other feminists, following her own god. This Scripture offends her personal Jesus (#1), so her goal is to rationalize it away into something she can handle:

He wrote do not deprive.

Deprive is not the same as refuse. I believe many people interpret this verse to mean refuse. Are women obligated to have sex every time a man wants it? Are we ever allowed to refuse?

She uses word semantics to bend things so this Scripture fits her will (#2), conforming Scripture to herself instead of herself to Scripture. Paul actually wrote apostereo there, but there’s enough here to see what is going on for us English speakers. From the dictionary, we can see no difference:

Deprive: to remove or withhold something from the enjoyment or possession of (a person or persons): to deprive a man of life; to deprive a baby of candy.
Refuse: to decline to give; deny (a request, demand, etc.): to refuse permission.

She goes on to compare a husband who wants sex from his wife to a well-fed child tugging at its mother’s apron for Cheetos (the animal comparison I used is similar to what she is doing here), saying this is what Paul means. It fits her outlook on sex, given the impressions from the other writings she has made. Sex is not a physical need akin to hunger to her, so she doesn’t see the difference. It also fits her view of what a husband should be to a wife – submissive to the wife as a child would be.

But we are fortunate to have Greek references to see that Paul uses the word apostereo there as well as see what it means as well as compare it to other Scriptures. You can read those on that link, but here are other Scriptures with the word in it. So what is Paul really saying? The NIV, which Sheila used, proves itself to be The Feminist Bible again in this case. The KJV uses the word defraud, which is more consistent with the way the word is used in the other Scriptures (my hermeneutic rule is always to let Scripture define Scripture if a definition is needed):

defraud: to deprive of a right, money, or property by fraud: Dishonest employees defrauded the firm of millions of dollars.

So we have a conclusion to the matter. To paraphrase Paul in simple terms we can hopefully all understand: “Wife, your husband has a right to your body. Husband, your wife has a right to your body. Don’t rob one another of what is rightfully theirs!” This right of unconditional sexual access given to each spouse was understood perfectly, before feminism took root (as an exercise to the reader, look up the historical definition of rape versus the feminist definition, you’ll find it interesting). Willful sexual denial, as Gregoire repeatedly advocates on her site to force submission of the husband to the wife, was considered rightful grounds for divorce traditionally. However, women rebel against God in this, as they have many other things.

Sheila Gregoire then twists the preceding two verses (#2, #3) to assert a right of submission of the husband to the wife:

If her husband’s body belongs to her, then she has the ability to also say, “I do not want you using your body sexually right now with me.” If she feels sick, or is really sad, or is exhausted, then her having ownership of his body also means that she can say, “I just can’t right now” without needing to feel guilty–if she is at the same time not depriving him.

Gregoire’s twisted falsehood in this section sounds good, and for me it’s not hard to agree with certain points she makes because there are truths there in light of other Scriptures. By the husband’s love for her, it’s reasonable that he would willingly not follow certain desires for sexual access if he knows his wife can’t do something for whatever reason. And to not lose perspective in this, these verses go the same for the wife’s access to the husband. But Sheila wouldn’t tolerate a husband’s willful sexual refusal at all, like she does wives. In any case, the issue of what each partner genuinely can and can not do, opposed to Sheila and most wives’ will not (stamp foot), is always up to reasonable negotiation and not blackmail. Marriage should represent a whole and healthy intimate relationship where this happens in a selfless way to find what both parties can do, right?

But in this case, Sheila Gregoire is speaking against this Scripture because she is asserting the right of wives to use sex as a weapon against their husbands to gain their submission to them! This is further accentuated in the attitude on her site towards porn use, especially when it results out of the willful sexual refusal of their wives. Her and her followers incapability to see the willful and protracted sexual refusal of wives as a contributing factor of blame in the porn use of husbands drives this point home with certainty (along with the proof of the hatred of men that drips from her site)! Doing this would take the sex weapon out of the hands of wives. Continuing:

I believe that the admonition “do not deprive each other” refers to the relationship as a whole, not to each individual moment. So if, in the relationship as a whole, you are having regular and frequent sex, then if one of you says, “not tonight”, that is not depriving. That is simply refusing for right now.

In other words, “I believe as long as a wife throws out a treat to her dog husband when he performs the tricks the wife wants him to perform to her satisfaction, she’s not violating the Scripture as given.”

Anyway, this post got a little longer than I planned. I’ll pick up on her other two posts later, if I see anything worth commenting on them about.

Off topic from this post:

Yep, some of the comments you read by men on these marriage websites are precisely why Christian women are beginning to advise each other not to risk marrying a Christian man! (I’m not kidding).

This was what I referred to in the other post. The bitter seething hatred that these women have for Christian men should be appalling! In other words, the whole quote was basically “How dare you real Christian men expect us to act like real Christian women! Don’t you know that we are special snowflakes with pure and wholesome hearts endowed by the personal Jesus with niceness and good feelings! How dare you want us to do such icky digusting things!” Basically, Churchian women who are completely unfit for real Christian marriage in any way. Real Christian men don’t want you either.

The Deification of Wives

One constant that seems to come out when I’m reading about relationships between men and women, specifically husbands and wives, is that husbands are debased and wives are lifted up. This has shown itself in the widespread culture and within Churchianity in the form of Marriage 2.0. Wives are lifted up into the position of headship and the one to be respected. This is done through various methods, such as routinely cutting the men down publicly to make them fail, not allowing him to stand up for his interests in marriage when the wife is in the wrong, setting conditions up for a husband to fail in his marriage, predicating sexual access on whether the wife feels sufficiently loved, and other methods.

Ultimately, the conversation relating to wives are driven to a level of worship in several circles. They are put into a position by the false doctrine of feminist Churchianity where they can possibly do no wrong in the sight of God and man, and set up their own Personal Jesus in the place of the true Jesus. The uniform enforcement of this false doctrine allows them an out from following any of the objective doctrine laid out. The women follow the Personal Jesus, and the doctrine follows her, demanding the Church and the men involved to follow as well. Hence woman becomes her own God.

This comes out most notably in the attributes that Churchians place upon women. In this graphic Bskillet81 originally posted to his blog (RIP), we have:


We see the net effects of the evolution to Marriage 2.0, and the results, which is the free and total support of divorce outside of Biblical guidelines in support of this deification. While much has been addressed regarding the specifics of this graphic here and elsewhere, of interest is the lower-left hand corner. The bottom of the graphic has already been addressed above: The Personal Jesus is YOU, when he is worshiped. So in reality it becomes “Christian men aren’t loving their wives in a way that she feels loved.” In not enforcing objective standards on women and allowing them to be feral, this turns complete control of the marriage over to her emotions, whims, and desires and completely casts the true God aside.

Marriage 2.0 stems from this required reframing of marriage to allow women this illusion of godhood, placing her at the head of everything. The left hand side of the graphic is where things get interesting. The solution is not putting Christ as the head of the marriage, but putting her Personal Jesus (her) as the head of the marriage. In effect, the wife is to supplant the role of the Holy Spirit in the Christian man’s life.

There are numerous examples of language that deifies women into godhood. Numerous authors have described the “inner beauty” of women, assigning many different attributes. John Eldredge describes Eve (and by extension the sisters of Eve) as “the crown”, “high-point” or “climax” of creation (1), while others describe women as the “height of creation”. A review of Eldredge’s book explains the problem well with such an outlook, though fails to see the seriousness of such claims:

A final little nitpick which I might point out is Eldredge seemingly placing Eve on a higher level than Adam, with Eve as pinnacle of creation, almost as if she were made of a higher quality than Adam.

Another example provided us in a more direct fashion is Gordon C. Bals writing here (H/T Sunshinemary, by all means read this too):

In fact, whenever I began to talk about the quality of love in the marital relationship, most husbands began to act ashamed. They were like Isaiah when he saw the Lord sitting on his throne, “high and lifted up” (Isa. 6:1). It seemed like their wives were so good at love.

It’s true. In almost every case, a wife approaches marriage with a deeper understanding of and passion for loyal love. I consider this a God-given gift, one way she reflects the image of God (Gen. 1:27). I began to identify this as an aspect of a wife’s inner beauty.

This inner beauty exposes areas where a husband is lacking. Just as Isaiah encountered the Lord’s beauty, I heard husbands echo his response: “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of sinful race” (Isa. 6:5).

But unlike Isaiah, who was reduced to humble contrition in the presence of such loveliness, husbands tend to fight back. “My wife wants too much from me,” they declare. The wives counter with a long list of their husbands’ failures. This tension increases because neither the husband nor the wife responds well to her gift of inner beauty.

Dr. Bals compares this “inner beauty” of a woman to the effect that the holiness of the Lord had on Isaiah. In effect, Dr. Bals invents this unbiblical idea of “inner beauty” in a woman, then replaces the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian husband through the Holy Word and personal sanctification with his wife’s “inner beauty”. Thankfully, a number of the sites’ commenters saw through it (the ones that weren’t deleted like SSM), and Dr. Bals tried to clarify himself, but only took up more rope to hang himself. While backing away from indicating that women are sinless or near sinless, he continues on pushing that this part of her dignity is a gift that “reflects God’s image”. Commenter David gets it right with respect to Dr. Bals:

This article seems to be an attempt to window dress some secular therapy-speak with a few out of context quotes from scripture.

In the article the author uses this as a comparison where the husband is the prophet and the wife is God. This is virtually blasphemous.

1st Peter 3 isn’t about telling wives to “rest as their husbands learn how to make room for the ongoing conviction of sin that comes with marriage”. It is instead telling wives to submit to their husbands. It is interesting that this act of submission is the nearest to “inner beauty” that you will find in the Bible.

I am quite unpleasantly surprised by the entire tone of the article above which seems to assume that wives are some higher form of spiritual life. God commands both men and women to repentance.

Ultimately, we have women being built up in their feral natures, and placed into the position of gods by such language, paired up with things such as Glenn Stanton’s pronouncements. This requires the complete ignorance of the true qualities of women. It requires whitewashing their sins and unconditionally placing them as above reproach. It requires placing them into a position where they are the head, conscience, and Holy Spirit.

In raising up women, it also requires the complete denigration of men and the laudable qualities that they possess in order to make it passable to the uninitiated, along with enabling compliance to the new order of Marriage 2.0. The methods involved have been chronicled above, as well as in numerous places as the standard operating procedure of feminism. The effects of such things will be chronicled next time.

(1) Wild At Heart by John Eldredge, p37, 38

Fem-Porn Watch – Yes Men Are Bad, Women Are Good.

It’s already been covered previously that pornography is considered just a men’s issue in Churchianity and not an issue for women, too. It was discussed that men’s porn is demonized, and any man using it is immediately treated like a leper. Any husband that does this to a wife is immediately considered the most vicious and foul person walking the earth, and the wife is portrayed as having every right to cut off sex from the man as well as his freedom, or frivolously divorce him.

This is consistent with the goals of Marriage 2.0 when it relates to sex and sexuality. It’s no wonder then, that women can’t clearly communicate against the female-oriented pornography and advocate the similar vicious no-tolerance prescriptions that men have to bear by their suggestions. Note it’s husband’s porn addiction, never the wife’s. And also note that her definition of “addiction” is any porn use at all.

Since I’ve written about this, I’ve tried to locate instances of major evangelical Churchian figures addressing female-oriented porn, and encouraging husbands to treat their wives pornography as adultery and divorce them if they do not comply. What do I hear?


This is because porn is an integral part of Marriage 2.0, wherein the wife can use it as a tool along with willful sexual denial (sex as a weapon) to gain his submission to her. It takes a lot of conditioning for women to not give into their sexual desires and think that any sexual desire whatsoever, even in the context of marriage, is somehow evil. Amidst the conspicuous silence on women using porn and even more conspicuous lack of condemnation of it, I did find an interesting voice. Let’s let Pat Robertson tell us all about porn use in women:

I had to listen to this a few times (he rambles a lot) to see if he manages to flatly condemn feminine-oriented pornography. He doesn’t manage that at all, but he does prove one thing of evangelical Churchianity:

Men are indeed evil and women are indeed good.

After all, they have a lot to measure up to in fitting the Churchian mold, where all women are chaste, good, wholesome, and virginal creatures not spoiled by sin or anything of the flesh in any way. Meanwhile, men are vile base creatures no better than dogs, especially when it comes to sexuality. So only men use porn and women don’t use porn in the world of Churchianity. To summarize what happens in the video, as far as I can tell it:

1. Robertson turns to his co-host (relatively attractive I might add), calling her “a sweet Christian girl…lady” and asks “do you see anything in porn that attracts you?”. Given her reaction, I’m sure the question wasn’t planned. The question was pretty crass to be asking on national television, and she shouldn’t have been asked it at all. Regardless of how she answers it, I’m sure the truth is in a place that she can’t admit it freely and be accepted in Churchian circles. The commentator in the video below sees this same thing.

2. Robertson points out the typical Churchian line, that pornography is “a male thing, a boy thing, a guy thing”. He then points out that 30% of women are involved in pornography (Huffington cites this, but it 404’d). My guess is that this number seems to be the “typical” kind of porn and not the feminine-oriented porn. Given the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey, Magic Mike, and other forms of pornography (lifetime television, rom-coms, and so on), this number is likely much much higher. It is interesting to find that women who deal with the problem of pornography taking over their lives (i.e. real addiction and not Sheila Gregoire’s faux addiction) find no rest, aid, and comfort in the houses of Churchianity just like men dealing with marriage problems their wives create. They don’t fit the feminist Churchianity Marriage 2.0 script, so they are not recognized. How can an innately good woman be bad? As a result, these women are like the co-host, who couldn’t go off of script without losing her Churchianity cred.

3. Robertson then repeats things I’ve said both here and here regarding Fifty Shades of Grey. He then segues off into this stat that a 1/3 of all porn users are gay men. I don’t know how the 700 Club presents things and how much Pat Robertson knows of what will be on the teleprompter before he sees it, but this is definitely weird. I guess when he’s presented with something uncomfortable to his world view, which reflects religious feminism, he returns to what he knows.

Having seen a famous evangelical feminist Churchian express shock and disbelief that pure, chaste, and wholesome women can be into porn and asking his attractive female co-host out of that disbelief whether porn is attractive to her, we now come to some reaction:

I don’t know where these particular commentators lie in their belief systems (whether they are Christian or not). But the video expresses the testimony that the “man bad, woman good” mantra brings into the world. We shouldn’t follow the world by publicly wallowing in sexuality, but to carry this whole philosophy into practice brings a bad testimony into the world. The world knows that women are just as sexual as men and just as tempted as men. To portray women any different is hypocrisy.

The world can read Scripture and know what you claim to represent, especially if there are those searching for something better than the world. In simple terms, there are things of God that people of the world even know and know better not to do. Doing them, especially if those in leadership do them, drives people away from the Lord and leads these people to brand the Churchian group as hypocrites. There are those who place themselves in leadership that are trying to double-talk people out of looking at such things that exist within their environments and basing their actions upon them. These are indeed the hypocrites. Jesus had something to say about such people:

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye. (Luke 6:39-42)

Churchianity is blind to the fact that women are sinners just as men. This is true because the proctors of Churchianity are as blind to this as the rest. This is why the crickets are resoundingly loud when it comes time for them to renounce this sin in women the same as they do in men. Do you not think that the world sees this blindness for what it is? Their Personal Jesus is just alright with them, though. Unfortunately for them, the day will come that the real Jesus will have something to say about all of this. May repentance come to all those who are willfully blind to sin before that time comes!

Edit: The link I mentioned above that 404’d seems to be reflected in this link, which works. It does seem that the 30% of women speaks specifically of Internet porn (i.e. visual stuff).