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

43 thoughts on “The Deification of Wives”

  1. I see Sunday mornings and blogging suit your schedule as well. Unless you have timed your publishing automatically, we are sharing a coffee and some writing as we speak.
    Have a great day!


  2. A Deflationary Spiral of Godliness, pared with an Inflationary Spiral of Sin. What a horrible place we’ve made for our society.


  3. Reducing this whole scenario to its basic elements, it comes down to
    1 Women who refuse to follow the requirements of Scripture being in rebellion against God and their husbands, and
    2 Pretend Christians who are being conformed to the world instead of transforming it, leading churches and who fail to act as watchmen, as described in Ezekiel. They in fact assist the women in rebellion against both God and against their husbands.

    With church leadership like this, no wonder I Art Laughing sees Sunday mornings at church as something different from a gathering of the saints.


  4. This requires the complete ignorance of the true qualities of women. It requires whitewashing their sins and unconditionally placing them as above reproach.

    One of the hardest things to watch is a man who has been exposed to a woman’s true sinful nature trying to reconcile this with his conditioned belief that women are above reproach. I saw this happen in a church group setting once, in which a man who had been frivorced was desperately trying to take responsibility for it by saying he hadn’t been able to understand his ex-wife’s communication style. He was advising other men on how to “crack a woman’s communication code”. It was horrifying to watch.


  5. I found from another place what Bskillet81 meant by Oprah 3:16 in that graphic:

    Verily, Oprah saith unto thee, “The woman’s heart is pure and lovely, and no defilement hath entered therein. For it is full of niceness and good feelings and rainbows and unicorns. But the heart of a man is wicked and uncaring, for it is always full of meanness, tainted by porn addiction and XBOX. Thy snowflake princess canst not err, excepting that a man hath forced her to it. It be-eth not her fault.”

    Basically Woman good. Men Bad.


  6. @empathologism Sometimes I schedule post, sometimes I live post, it just depends on what’s going on. But I usually blog whenever I get free time and can do it.

    @IArtLaughing: Mine neither.

    @sunshinemary: Indeed. What you see is a blue-pill scenario. It’s a good illustration for when I take up that next post.


  7. I believe this is the reference that you might be thinking of:

    Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. (1 Peter 3:7)


  8. I found this link from this comment:

    Doug Wilson makes this same assessment as I did but brings it out even farther. The view of men being the wild ones going out sowing out the wild oats and then being brought to heel by a woman comes out. Basically he describes all of this as so ingrained that people just can’t help to play it out. Woman as the Holy Spirit, the man as sinner.


  9. Xtian Divorce Machine?!

    Oprah 3:16?!

    I can’t stop laughing… But you’re correct that degenerate xtianity devolves to the goddess worship religion(s) out of which it arose.

    Orwell warned that we’d become like the slave empires of antiquity, where primitive religion like that was widely practised. I think this was why Nietzsche called xtianity a slave’s religion.


  10. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the similarities of the positions of traditional conservatives and the radical feminists is uncanny. Is it more than coincidence?


  11. ” Commenter David gets it right with respect to Dr. Bals:”

    Wow, TGC has flushed all the comments and are now showing 0 Comments for this article. They still are hosting the original article though.


  12. @Bee Outlets such as those tend to flush their articles and comments when people come along to reveal these kind of things for what they are. As I recall, “David” and “SSM” (who was almost immediately deleted when she posted as she stated on that linked blog post) was far from the only ones that called that article for what it is.


Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.