A Woman’s Only Glory – Her Beauty

In reading and preparing my notes for commentary of Wild At Heart, I realized that I skipped addressing something important in the course of the Captivating commentary on what Christian women are being taught (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3), since the idea is brought up repeatedly in Wild At Heart.

This is the idea of beauty. Captivating devotes a section to the definition of beauty. Beauty speaks. Beauty nourishes. Beauty comforts. Beauty inspires. Beauty is transcendent.

All these things are true for any experience of Beauty. But they are especially true when we experience the beauty of a woman–her eyes, her form, her voice, her heart, her spirit, her life. She speaks all of this far more profoundly than anything else in all creation, because she is incarnate, she is personal. It flows to us from an immortal being. She is beauty through and through. (1)

Justification of vain efforts aside, what is woman? In the name of beauty, woman is the pure reflection of God. After all, God speaks. God nourishes. God comforts. God inspires. God is transcendent. Yes indeed, woman is the full reflection of God’s glory. Woman is the Holy Spirit. But she is not fully realized because of “the long and sustained assault upon your heart by the one who knows what you could be and fears you.”

Eldredge reminds us that one is Satan and quotes Ezekiel 28:12-14, 17 in the process.

Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. (Ezekiel 28:12-18)

Whether you believe this an allegory of Satan or not, we are reminded of this and given a comparison (note what wasn’t quoted):

Satan fell because of his beauty. Now his heart for revenge is to assault beauty. He destroys it in the natural world wherever he can. Strip mines, oil spills, fires, Chernobyl. He wreaks destruction on the glory of God in the earth like a psychopath committed to destroying great works of art.

But most especially, he hates Eve.

Because she is captivating, uniquely glorious, and he cannot be. She is the incarnation of the Beauty of God. More than anything else in all creation, she embodies the glory of God. She allures the world to God. He hates it with a jealousy we can only imagine. (2)

So it seems we are being told that woman in all Her Glory is attacked by Satan because she has a glory he does not. She is Queen. She is Princess. She is Beauty Incarnate. She is even…God incarnate? When a woman, who shares God’s desires, is frustrated in her will, it’s not that she is prideful and arrogant (the world doesn’t orbit her), it’s that Satan thwarts her because he hates her.

Put those two things together–that Eve incarnates the Beauty of God and she gives life to the world. Satan’s bitter heart cannot bear it. He assaults her with a special hatred. History removes any doubt about this. Do you begin to see it?
And most of you are living with the guilt that somehow it’s your fault you aren’t more deeply pursued now. That you do not have an essential role in a great adventure. That you have no beauty to unveil. The message of our wounds nearly always is, “This is because of you. This is what you deserve.” it changes things to realize that, no, it is because you are glorious that these things happened. It is because you are powerful. It is because you are a major threat to the kingdom of darkness. Because you uniquely carry the glory of God to the world.

You are hated because of your beauty and power. (3)

Projection much? The irony is almost too delicious here, if it wasn’t for the destruction that comes to mind from the pride of these women. One could almost imagine Satan using this exact rationalization for his plight before the Lord. In fact, one could read Ezekiel 28 and apply the qualities stated there to Prideful Woman. It’s not that woman lifts her heart up in rebellion against God, saying she will be like the Most High (Isaiah 14:14). It’s not that woman has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It’s not that woman is receiving her just due for her thoughts and actions. It’s not that woman is just like man, and just as bad as man.

It’s because she is beautiful. She is powerful. She is glorious. She is the glory of God incarnate.

How nasty is the rebellious heart against the Lord God?

(1) Captivating by John & Stasi Eldredge p 41. (2) ibid p 85. (3) ibid p 86.

Book Review: A Christian Man’s Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century by Don Riefstahl

A Christian Man’s Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century: Why Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong. Don Riefstahl. Don Riefstahl, 2014. Also available for free via Creative Commons license here. 2.02 revision reviewed.


There’s been many men that have grown up with the same advice being given to them regarding women. Be nice, defer to them, work hard and get a career and you’ll have your choice of women to marry, they say. But as many men are finding out, those things are failing time and again. And time and again the same advice is given with the encouragement to keep trying because “God has the right one for you out there”. This dynamic is what Don Riefstahl aims to address in his book A Christian Man’s Guide to Love and Marriage.

Riefstahl begins by explaining the common Red Pill analogy. He then explores the question of whether the Bible is relevant, and then explains the Biblical order of marriage. The author then moves into sociological factors, describing the progressive view towards the sexes and the complimentary nature of men and women. From there, he describes the changing view of chivalry, or the idea that men are to unconditionally protect and sacrifice themselves for women. Then, the author explores the movement of women into the work force. Next, Riefstahl moves into Game concepts, describing the alpha and beta male, frame, and the sexual market place for men and women. Then, the author describes the difference between Biblical and civil marriage, and the implications that holds for marriage. Finally, the question of selecting a wife is addressed.

By the scope of his book, Riefstahl aims to provide an introductory view into the issues. He functions in doing this well throughout the book in keeping things brief and to the point. As a result, you will find this an easy and quick read. The author formulates much of what he has to say with a decent amount of research, adding well to the discussion of modern sociological factors. His list of summaries and resources towards the end of the book are very good, rounding out a summary introduction.

However it is not thorough enough in a number of things. For instance, while correctly calling the concept of modern love folly, he neglects to address the proper definition. Also, the use of secular materials (Married Man Sex Life for instance) as an aid for the Christian in defining marriage has a certain troubling quality, namely the indulgence of the flesh that many of those sources supports.

Furthermore, a number of passages indicate a latent Blue Pill mentality that will be off-putting, including neglecting the role of Christian women and the church in messing dating up (e.g. “The Red Pill about women”). For instance, while “be a free agent, always dating casually” is good advice (p80), it will fall flat before the average arrogant Christian woman who demands a man have “eyes for her and her alone”.

Overall, this book functions as a wonderful first introduction to the world of the Red Pill for the traditionalist believer. However, those who are more experienced in the Red Pill world will find this text disappointing.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Related: The Gift Of AdviceReader Book Plug: A Christian Man’s Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century

Image Source: Amazon.com

Book Review: Radical by David Platt

Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream. David Platt. Multnomah Books, 2010.


It’s easy to note that in an area of prosperity that there are very few that understand how the gospel has been manipulated to mean something that it hasn’t meant. The idea that following Jesus fits our cultural preferences, via the so-called “American Dream”, and doesn’t involve sacrifice seems to be a common one in this day and age. The idea that Jesus wants our best life now, instead of a life where He would demand us to take up the cross and follow Him is common. The possibility that Jesus might demand security, money, convenience or family never crosses the minds of people, even as they read those words in Scripture – or that He might demand them to depend on Him instead of their things to get through life.

This is what David Platt aims to address in his book, Radical. He begins with a description of the abandonment of the old life to the new by framing his experience of visiting a poorer church overseas with what he witnesses in the United States. He notes that following Jesus has a cost (leaving the nets, seeking the pearl of great price), and not following Jesus has a cost as well.

Then, he notes the materialism that is common in the modern church. Could people stand to worship without instruments, lights, sound systems, and in general…comfort? He again contrasts the relative disdain that the average Christian has for the Scriptures with the hunger he found in the poorer church overseas. He points out the common false gospel is at issue. The false gospel as Platt puts it: “God has a wonderful plan for your life. Therefore follow these steps and you’ll be saved” (p32), misses the whole point of the value of this life versus the next.

Platt then speaks of the idea of depending on God’s power instead of depending on the wisdom, power, and security behind the things of men, noting that this is the way of many of the “comfortable churches” today. Could it be God’s power that moves things and not “creative communication, first-rate facilities, innovative programs, and entrepreneurial leadership” (p50)?

The author then addresses the view of grace in the modern church. He notes that there is a tendency to “disconnect the grace of God from the glory of God” (p69), pointing out that grace is often self-centered. In other words, it’s something to be enjoyed, not something to be extended. He notes that this view moves the obligations behind following Christ to a select few while moving the privileges to all involved. Next, Platt addresses discipleship, pointing out that it is often just considered something that happens through the church’s programs, instead of happening through the people and that the involvement of people is often pushed to the sideline.

Next, Platt addresses the issue of greed (“how much is enough?”), and the tendency of the modern church to overlook the poor. Noting that it is a huge blind spot, the author goes on to describe how affluence is the model of prosperity and success in the modern church (look at how big that building is!) and the view that material success is a measure of faithfulness before the Lord. These ideas are contrasted with Scriptures such as the story of the rich young ruler.

Platt then talks about how an equality of ideas waters down the facts of the Gospel, presenting the facts of the Gospel in a way to disprove that there are many paths. The idea that the only path of salvation is through Christ is a threatening one to the modern church that likes to ingratiate itself to the world.

The author then goes through Matthew 10, contrasting what is found there with the common attitudes of the modern church. He illustrates that it is a much different life it is lived as if death is the reward of something greater. Finally, Platt proposes what he calls “The Radical Experiment”, where he proposes for one year that you would pray for the entire world, read through the entire word, sacrifice your money towards a particular purpose, spend your time in another context and commit your life to a multiplying community.

This book has much in it that I found thought-provoking, as the description above indicates. It gives many opportunities for the individual believer to pray and consider their thoughts and their paths before the Lord. However, the anecdotes that Platt provides, coupled with some of the language, can turn some of his suggestions into compulsions, and turn this book into a “do you measure up?” enterprise – in other words making salvation a matter of works.

Furthermore, the tone of the book has a “do what I say, not what I do” mentality to it. In that respect, it can be too “radical”, especially in trying to mold people into what they are not before Christ, or can not do before Christ in the case of those of us who are more concerned of “getting by” in the US than traveling on mission trips and worried about what their next luxury car will be. That David Platt does not recognize many of us are not “living the American Dream” as he is brings a hypocritical tone to much of the book.

This book, while a more mature presentation than Not a Fan, offers much to take into consideration. Much of Platt’s description should not be taken literally, as it falls short in much of its prescriptions, smacking more of socialism at times than of Scripture. While he touches on topics that resonate as problems in the modern church, it still falls very short in addressing them.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Image Source: Amazon.com

Book Review: Standing Strong by John MacArthur

Standing Strong: How to Resist the Enemy of Your Soul. John MacArthur Jr. David C. Cook, 2012.


It’s hard to not see that in some circles there’s an intense interest in supernatural matters. While many have ignored the presence of the spirit world entirely, others have indulged the idea to the point of ridiculousness. This is what John MacArthur aims to address in his book in the process of presenting a number of Scripture lessons. Specifically, John MacArthur addresses the spiritual warfare movement and its ideas.

MacArthur begins by addressing the figures of the spiritual battle: The fallen Satan and his army, and on the other side, Christ, the holy angels, Israel, and believers. Then, MacArthur discusses Satan and examples of how he is both used by God and limited by God. Next, the focus is placed on the Church via a Scripture lesson of the seven churches in Revelation. Next, the believer’s place in the spiritual battle is discussed, with detailed lessons on the pieces of the full armor of God. Finally, MacArthur discusses 1 Corinthians 16:13-14 and the general idea of being alert.

In the Scriptures he presents, MacArthur presents some formative and useful lessons for thought. He is very thorough and gives much to offer in the passages involved, including much for further study and discussion should people undertake it.

However, as many preachers are wont to do, MacArthur is a believer in cessationism, an unfortunate belief that God ceased His work after the time of the original disciples and just idles about (the polar opposite extreme of the spiritual warfare movement he chastises in his book). In other words, miracles are restrained to the “approved” apostles (the twelve and Paul), and prayer does not have any power to effect change in any respect. In other words, the cessationist faith is a dead faith, where Christ is not alive in His divinity.

Such a belief flies in the face of numerous Scriptures, which were never of the cessationist approved parties. Is the book of James addressed only to the twelve or to all? Somehow it ceases to be true in their minds that “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” If Elijah and the prayer for rain is an example for us, why does it cease to be after all of the twelve die?

Does the Lord change that the prayer with the faith of a mustard seed will move mountains? The question comes whether the faith is present or not that the Lord would answer such prayers in His will. Could it be that the lack of miracles indicates that lack of faith of those who profess a form of godliness but deny its power via replacing the power of God with the doctrines of men?

One can understand cessationism as a natural response to the movements which have blown the spiritual and supernatural out of proportion. But it goes too far in the other way and denies the power and might of the Lord. While a decent study book, MacArthur endeavors to take the spiritual tools away from the believer that allows him to stand actively in the battle. Such doctrine is unfortunately one of the reasons the lack of awareness and passivity of the average believer commonly exists in the Church today. You can learn well from this book, but be very careful with what doctrine you adopt out of this book.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Image Source: Amazon.com

The Church: Missing The Script

Having dealt with the marriage chapter of I Never Thought I’d See The Day! by David Jeremiah, this leads into the church chapter. While Dr. Jeremiah misses the essence of the marriage problem, he misses the Church problem almost entirely to the point of vacuousness.


Confusing The Church
After providing some anecdotes about paintings and his perceptions about the increased use of technology and media within the churches, Dr. Jeremiah correctly points out the confusion (deliberate) between the Biblical church and the buildings that people call churches. (1) The Church or ekklesia literally refers to “any assembly of people who were called together for a particular purpose”. (2) After a few more anecdotes, Dr. Jeremiah comes around to the position that it’s not the buildings or institutions that set agendas and make decisions, it’s the people. (3) The problem that Dr. Jeremiah misses in seeing the appearance instead of the essence of the problem is this:

The agenda and the decisions of the people are the whole issue.

There are two tendencies of people that have come out very early in the Church. First is the desire for pre-eminence or prominence. In other words, there are men who would seek to be masters, ceasing to be elders or guides to others but to be rulers, forgetting who the true Master and true King is, ruling in His stead.

This is a tendency of the world and not of the Spirit, as many other things are. As Dr. Jeremiah rightly points out the Biblical Christians did not obtain buildings. He also rightly points out that Constantine provided money, resources, and direction to build temples for the Christians of the fourth century (3). He points out translation issues in the Victorian era (4), but misses the decision of these Christians: They desired to be like the world. This is made evident much earlier by the writings of Clement of Alexandria (190 AD), who popularized the idea of going to church as opposed to being the church. (5)

They became like the Israelites, who desired a king to reign over them. As the LORD stated: “they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” The Christians of that time forsook the Name, choosing to have men over them as kings instead of the one true King. The only religion on the planet that had no sacred objects, places, or people was Christianity. The people who formerly worshipped in spirit and in truth, desired all three and fell to the worldthey were conformed and not transformed.

Instead of being light to the world and salt of the earth they became like the world.

The problem was compounded by the Christian adoption of the pagan reverence for the dead (6). These buildings were often built on top of the graves of the martyrs. This gave the buildings the character of being considered “holy” – worship of Christ became worship of these buildings. The building, in other words, became an idol. People tend to think of idols in terms of statues that represent gods, but is well to note the power of tradition in that men can not see buildings in this way. There is no image of God – to use an idol to even worship Him in any fashion is idolatry. Can the people not see that they put some of their money to food, some of it for shelter, some of it for warmth, and then some of it to a thing to reverence as “the house of the Lord”? Men love darkness.

As do many Churchian proctors when addressing this issue, David Jeremiah begins down the road of calling out the sin against God, but rationalizes it. He says that the church building is needed to gather for worship, instruction, and fellowship. (3) By contrast he says the church “scatters” into small groups for Christian influence, discipleship, and accountability (7). This duplicity is common. I’m reminded of a church that proclaimed again and again that they wanted to “become a church of small groups” and “be like the First Century Church”. Yet they never put their money where their mouths were and put up the church building and land for sale. Interesting. Let us not forget that where two or more are gathered, there I am in the midst of them. Most of modern Churchianity has forgotten this, finding justification for something the “first century church” never did. They knew that they were “the house of the Lord”, not any building.

The Church Is Irrelevant To Whom?
With a tendency of being like the world, there’s also a tendency to please the world. As Paul reminds us, whoever seeks to please men is not a servant of God. The modern church is doing the same thing, out to please the world, serving its own agenda, instead of pleasing God and serving His agenda.

Dr. Jeremiah illustrates this in asking the first part of this question. He talks about a Barna survey about “Christianity’s contribution to society”, and then cites three examples of second century literature (Justin Martyr, Epistle to Diognetes, and Apology for the Christians) about how the Church was perceived in the world. Then, Dr. Jeremiah points out of the “economic and spiritual impact” on communities. Finally he puts forth the Religious Right’s position that the United States was founded as a “Christian nation” with Biblical values. So who are you really looking to please?

Are you looking to be pleasing to the world or pleasing to God?

This is illustrated in Dr. Jeremiah’s section on what makes the Church relevant. While the section headers are Biblically reasonable, his answer comes out. In stating that the purpose of the church is to glorify God, Dr. Jeremiah spends most of his time talking about…steeples. As a traditional evolution in the architecture of churches, the steeple was created by Christopher Wren in 1666 using the spires of Gothic architecture as an inspiration. Given the fire of London and how crowded the buildings were, the steeple was the only opportunity for a point of emphasis. The idea reminds one of the Tower of Babel, but to equate it to the “glory of God” reveals a worldly mind, especially contrasting with his last paragraph.

Dr. Jeremiah is more solid in stating that “the Church’s priority is the Great Commission” How can one fulfill Matthew 28:19-20 with a worldly focus? What good is it when the blind leads the blind into the ditch or compassing sea and land to make a convert twice the child of hell as them?

Dr. Jeremiah finally states that The Church’s Program is the Great Commandment. You might think of this as I did, but what is it he says instead? Good works. He quotes some Scriptures relating to good works in Scripture, but they are far from paramount as loving God and loving others. The love for the brethren is especially important as a testimony, especially since Jesus identifies this as the method people will know they are Christians. The witness of this was good, as Tertullian writes: “see how these Christians love one another!” Instead of serving God and glorifying Him, the church is there to serve the world. “See how we’re there for the poor, the widows, the downtrodden, anyone that comes with hat in hand? See how useful and worthy we are? Doya? Doya?”

To summarize, the reason the Church has become irrelevant is that love has waxed cold in it. People struggle to find a true love of God. People struggle to see a true love for the brethren in the Light in any of them. In short, the Church does not stand for God anymore. It has ceased to reflect the Light. The world looks upon it and sees a pandering pathetic entry trying to please it and be it. It sees nothing different or pleasing. The Church has become the supplicating beta, not worthy of respect but of scorn and derision. The parallel to the average state of marriage today should not be missed.

It certainly should be no surprise that the Church is not attractive anymore, but disgusting. Not relevant, but irrelevant. It offers nothing different or refreshing because it isn’t different. Because it has left Jesus. It seeks no longer to do the glory of God, but to please men in their own glory. May the proctors repent in sackcloth and ashes!

(1) I Never Thought I’d See The Day by David Jeremiah p 188. (2) ibid p 189. (3) ibid p 191. (4) ibid p 190. (5) Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna p 12 (6) ibid p 15-16. (7) I Never Thought I’d See The Day! p 192. (8) Pagan Christianity p32.

Marriage: Appearance and Essence

Previously, I reviewed a book called I Never Thought I’d See The Day! by David Jeremiah. While I can’t say too much about most of what he talked about from a place of knowledge, he stepped into a couple of areas that are more the arena of this blog. To that end, I’ll be discussing the marriage and church chapters.


David Jeremiah, sees the appearance of the problem, but not the essence (or the cause) of the problem as do most traditional feminists. Dr. Jeremiah has the appearance of getting something right, but he is proven wrong when the matter is searched out more thoroughly. The author identifies the problems with marriage as cohabitation (what they call premarital sex), and divorce. But let’s dig deeper.

The Destruction of Marriage
Jeremiah begins with an alarm story about the approval that William and Kate got over choosing to live together before marriage and the approval that was given to it. He then points out, using statistics that marriage is being adopted lesser.

Having established that the idea of marriage is in trouble, Jeremiah points out that prosperity, reinterpretation of the Bible to support homosexual marriage, and the cessation of the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Premarital Sex
Next, Jeremiah discusses the issue of cohabitation. He expresses alarm with the acceptance of “living together without choosing to be married”, pointing out that more and more couples are treating marriage as optional. The author then quotes most of a Newsweek article, and uses that to conclude that “the raising of personal autonomy to the highest priority in life” (p103), “a resistance to conformity to convention” or “to avoid the complications of ending the union should they fall out of love” (p104) contributes to the destruction of marriage. In other words, “choosing a nonbinding union over a commitment in marriage” (p104). Jeremiah then dismisses these choices as “cynicism” and “lack of purpose” instead of “careful consideration and commitment”. Finally, he notes that marriage isn’t about happiness, and provides an anecdote where Art Linkletter was asked about the secret to longevity of marriage: “I always say yes to everything she says.” (p105) How does Art stay happy? “She’s happy–when she’s happy, I’m happy.”

Rampant Divorce
David Jeremiah then addresses the high divorce rate in America. He begins by pointing out the Scriptures regarding the lifetime permanence of marriage and vows, and that people break their vows on the basis of “convenience or preference” (p106). The author then speaks of the economic, emotional and psychological hardships caused by divorce.

The author finalizes the chapter by providing his talking points on what a Biblical marriage is. According to Jeremiah, God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman, a permanent union, provide spiritual unity, to be for the purpose of procreation, a principal building block of society, and a picture of God and Israel / Christ and the Church. While unimportant for the purposes of this post, what the author selects is an interesting window into his view-point about marriage.

Appearance and Essence
Most of Dr. Jeremiah’s views seem pretty reasonable on reflection, right? It takes digging deeper to see the essence of these things and see that Dr. Jeremiah lost the script on these things. It’s like observing the ripples in the water and having no idea of what caused them. The ripples are incidental, what caused them is what is important.

The author’s position is very consistent with the political agenda of the Religious Right. Everything is focused on homosexual marriage and fornication while a token mention of divorce is given. It seems that they are incapable of seeing outside of these walls, likely with good reason.

As Dr. Jeremiah relates in his text, two of the three reasons that he relates that marriage is in trouble have to do with homosexual marriage. He makes himself into a hypocrite by summing up the destruction of marriage in this fashion, when much larger and obvious reasons are evident. In the end, it presents a bad witness to all concerned. Do you worry about straightening the picture that is crooked? You don’t, because the house is on fire! Dr. Jeremiah fiddles while Rome burns on this issue, as do many others.

Ironically, “government laws” sum up the whole problem behind divorce. Marriage commitment is rendered to being a “piece of paper” by rendering marriage to Caesar. While there are many laws that have redefined marriage, limiting the ability to have a full Biblical marriage as designed by God, the institution of no-fault divorce 45 years ago is the match to this fire. When you have rendered marriage to Caesar, and then even support his definition within the Church, do not be surprised when you start seeing divorces being initiated for convenience and preference.

This is more true in considering the trend of the society and the Church to deify the desires of women, then destabilize marriages by placing those emotional desires of women as central to the marriage instead of the vows. Mandate has been changed from the Bible to say that the husband is to submit to his wife by making her feel loved and when he inevitably fails in pleasing his wife (she gets bored or unhappppy), she can divorce him with the full support of supposed “Christians”. It’s always the man’s fault!

The Church has also contributed to the problem by allowing women to be in rebellion to God, lifting up the same feminist doctrine presented to Eve in the garden. What Dr. Jeremiah writes about marriage requiring selflessness is valid, but unfortunately it is only applied to the man and not to the woman. Dr. Jeremiah tips his hand towards this position by relaying the typical traditional feminist view in the guise of the Art Linkletter quote.

Cohabitation (as the author puts it) is the ripple in the pond. People are recognizing what happens in the course of marriage, recognizing the material traditions behind marriage for what they are, and recognizing how meaningless the idea of vows are in this age.

They are seeing marriage for what it is. They see the divorce. They see the involvement with the family court. Men, especially, see the poor quality of wives present in the feral women presented before them. Why bother with something like a “commitment in marriage”? The marriage itself is just as non-binding, to the point of it being another level of boyfriend and girlfriend. And as a man, why bother with something that is not only not beneficial to him, but also harmful?

Ultimately, Dr. Jeremiah renders himself into a cheerleader for the legal recognition of marriage – in other words getting the license and entering into the polygamous marriage with the State. In stating that people have a “resistance of conformity to convention” (in other words the kids have their own wishes, imagine that!), he makes an argument for the ring and the wedding day itself. While the Newsweek article has its problems, it is very enlightened in this respect. Are material things represented by these crass traditions really important to the success of a marriage? Many women are in it for these things and not the marriage. They commit to marriage for “the big day”, not the marriage itself.

Ironically, Davis Aurini handled the last three paragraphs in his video in the course of dealing with a different topic. This is how common the blindness (willful?) to the cause of the marriage problem is in those that should be speaking for God’s design in marriage instead of the counterfeit that is in place.

Marriage won’t be saved until people like Dr. Jeremiah can see and act on the essence of the problem instead of the appearance of the problem. Let us pray that day will come soon.

Related: How To Destroy Marriage (my treatment similar in scope to David Jeremiah’s chapter)

Four Hundred Pounds of Killing Fury Locked In A Box

One thing that’s prompted my thoughts as of late is the typical condition that men are under when it comes to being in marriages. It’s something I touched on before, but another illustration comes to mind from the movie XXX:

You ever watch lions at the zoo? You can always tell which ones were captured in the wild by the look in their eyes. The wild cat. She remembers running across the plain, the thrill of the hunt. Four hundred pounds of killing fury, locked in a box. But after a while, their eyes start to glaze over, and you can tell their soul has died. . .

It’s the same with house cats and hunting birds. You can’t help them from being what they were made to be. You can cage them. You can keep them inside. But those eyes glaze over and life becomes lesser than what it was meant to be.

The Godly Christian Husband
The Godly Christian Husband

Men are literally the same way. Deep down we know what we need to be, yet the script promptly gets written for us. Men get put into that cage, immediately from birth. That cage is marriage. That cage is societal expectations for men to be the nice guys, training them into white knights and manginas who have no rights but be chattel for the pleasure of women. The Church has even become the cage, teaching that all men are bad and all women are good, supporting women in every instinct that goes against God. Men, we get made into something different than we are meant to be.

Gentlemen, there’s is power in asking the why question when it comes to all things. It comes out if you are watchful. What drew me to that movie quote wasn’t the cage part, but the choice of animal: lions. Hmmmm… As men, we are created in the image of God to the glory of God. It’s well to note that the Son of God gets referred to by that name:

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. (Revelation 5:5)

Other references to the Lion in metaphor are contextually interesting to note. But it should go without much saying that the Lion is in us, gentlemen, as the image of God. You know that feeling when you watch certain movies. That moment when William Wallace screams “they may take our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom”. That moment Maximus reveals himself to Commodus claiming vengeance. That moment Lee stands before Han. The moment that Frank Dux faces Chong Li. That’s the Lion coming out. Heads will roll. Wrongs will be righted. And. it. will. be. glorious.

There’s a certain element of persecution that exists simply for being men. There’s not so much anything from God, but from Satan. Satan knows what the Lion represents for him. It represents his end:

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords. (Revelation 19:11-16)

He has no power over God, but he has power over us. Men are controlled so the powerful can do what evil they want – after all, look what one man did in the world! Then twelve men! It turned the world upside down. There are numerous more examples, but the Lion is what does this. This is dangerous to those who love evil, and to lord it over men.

The man as husband in the cage.
The man as husband in the cage.

People even seek to control the Lion of Judah and put Him in a cage. They forget things such as this and other things, instead remembering the cage that He has been placed in. The words that come out with the commentators with the idea of the Lion is power, authority, courage, and strength. It’s no wonder everything to do with men in these areas are under attack.

Jesus is caged into two places by people, and they even celebrate them. An infant, and a beaten broken dead man. The infant is what is remembered for this season, even though there is no mandate to remember the infant. In fact, there are troubling Scriptural implications when the red pill truth of Christmas comes about. The beaten broken man is Jesus on the cross. Notice what these things have in common. Weak, pitiful, without power. It defangs the Lion and denies Him.

While we are told to remember via the bread and the cup, it gets distilled to a single day. Again, it becomes troubling in light of red pill truth. While the Gospel is important and the fact of the death, burial, and resurrection is important as the key to get into The Kingdom, the focus on the death and not the resurrection as important is telling.

If the resurrection is the important and true part, Jesus is powerful. Jesus has authority. Jesus as the Son of God is to be feared. He is the Lion that will return and bring all to account.

C.S. Lewis understood this lesson in his allegory by making Aslan into a lion. He is not a tame lion, but he is a good lion. He is only safe when we are good. One final illustration of the Lion brings this out:

And when he came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions? Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. Then was the king exceedingly glad for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God. And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den. (Daniel 6:20-24)

The Lion reveals the wickedness in us. The Lion reveals the deviance in us and awakens the conscience. We fear when we recognize the Lion and the fact that He can’t be controlled. The Lion is marginalized for our sinful impulses before the Lord – He is made into something different. That’s because the Lion puts us into our proper place. He is made into other things when men want to claim authority and power instead of Him. Women fear men for these same reasons, preferring to emasculate them and then wondering why their natural selves aren’t attracted to them. The Lion in a husband is not safe for a wife for what he might do against her – she can not be Queen in the face of the Lion.

Denying the Lion denies the nature of Jesus and puts you on shaky ground. Denying the Lion denies the submission justly due Him. Denying the Lion denies the Day He will come and deal with all evil. Denying the Lion denies the power of God over self. And that’s the good message for any day and season.

Book Review: I Never Thought I’d See the Day! by David Jeremiah

I Never Thought I’d See the Day!: Culture at the Crossroads. David Jeremiah. FaithWords, 2011.


In writing on the culture, most published spiritual leaders represent very interesting reading. If anything, it puts down in print the things the Religious Right have made their concerns politically, along with the official “party line” of Churchianity. David Jeremiah’s series of books on the culture are no exception. This book represents one of those books of that series, representing changes in the past as referenced to the present.

Jeremiah begins this book by pointing out that the culture tends to drift in the wrong direction and people can tend to not notice these changes. The metaphor of the frog in the pot is useful in dealing with culture at any point, illustrating the power of tradition to warp the perceptions of people, both in the church and in the culture.

The author then describes the typical things that alarm the Religious Right, which are of no surprise to those familiar with their political agenda. Jeremiah describes the increased anger of the atheists, the lack of awareness of the spiritual battle, the increased profaning of Jesus in the world, the decline of marriage, the decline of morality, and the decline of the Church. He then turns to international politics in decrying Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and their theocracy. The book then turns to the decreasing support of Israel as evidenced by the United States. Finally, Jeremiah concludes the book by a discussion of Romans 12:1-2, relating to his previously discussed topics.

David Jeremiah, in his writing, presents well-researched and reasoned arguments in these topics, whether you agree or disagree with them. He is off in certain ways with his views and theology (his views of the end-times are a bit questionable), perfectly illustrating Davis Aurini’s point about seeing the appearance but not the essence of what’s going on in the world. Otherwise he does a good job in presenting a number of things to think about in a well-researched way. Jeremiah’s writing suffers, as the work of most pastors do, from being long-winded and boring at times, obfuscating the points that he is trying to make.

Overall, this offers a decent presentation of these topics and functions as a good introduction to these things. But it also requires further thought and correction in a number of respects, along with patience in waiting for the author to get to the point in a few cases.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Image Source: Amazon.com

God Save My Hamster, Part 3: Hamster Is Lord by BSkillet81

Another repost from the now defunct Christian Men’s Defense Network blog. As I continue to get clicks on my links to these (and have them saved), I figure it might be useful to repost the material, which will not include hyperlinks or comments (unless linked from here). I don’t know what happened to the original author (BSkillet81) after the last two years, so I would have liked to get permission to do this beforehand. If there’s an objection from the author, feel free to contact me and I can take this down.

Christian Men’s Defense Network
God Save My Hamster, Part 3: Hamster Is Lord by BSkillet81
Posted on May 24, 2012

I recently shared an email from Cindy, who claims to work with Joel and Kathy Davisson of God Save My Marriage. In Part 2 of this series, I dealt with that ministry’s support for un-restricted frivolous divorce by Christian wives. But there is something else wrong with Cindy’s email that is the source of all of the rest of Joel and Kathy’s corrupt teachings: Like much of modern Churchianity, they have twisted the Gospel of our Lord.

Read the following little selection from Cindy’s crazed hamster. I originally left this part out, because I wasn’t sure it was germane to the discussion, and on top of that, I wasn’t sure what to make of it. But after some thought, I realize it is the central problem. Here it is now:

A man is instructed to love his wife as Christ loved the church. If we look to Him for our example, we can pick out a few main behaviors that a husband should exhibit toward his wife. To start with, Christ went first. He came to earth and lived among us without anyone (except God) asking him to. Long before he ever hung on the cross, He gave up His comfort, His will, and his rights as part of the Trinity. Then he died. The church then responded to what He did – we love him because He first loved us. So if that is our model, we can see that the husband goes first – he initiates love to his wife, and then she responds with love, and it becomes an endless loop. It becomes mutual love and mutual submission. … If a man is truly loving his wife the way she needs to be loved (not simply giving her what he has decided she needs), it is extremely unlikely that she will ever have an affair.

Now, apart from the obvious errors in what is present in her synopsis of the Gospel, did you notice that something is missing? If not, read it a gain. I’ll admit I didn’t notice it at first, either.

Still don’t see it? I’ll give you a hint: Shouldn’t there be something between the sentences “Then he died,” and “The church then responded to what he did”? Now do you see it?

That’s right. Cindy leaves out the Lord’s triumphant resurrection and His return to the Father, at which time He was crowned with glory and honor and dominion over all things. This was central to the teaching of the first century church. For instance, note what Paul says to the church in Ephesus (Eph. 1:20-23):

He [the Father] raised Him [Jesus Christ] from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

There are other texts that speak of this. For instance, Colossians 1:18, Romans 1:1-3, Revelation 5, and Hebrews 1.

This next snippet from Cindy tells us why she (and Joel and Kathy by extension) chose to leave this part out [emphasis mine]:

I have just as much trouble with teaching our young women to find a perfect man as you do. I do think that many girls have standards so high that only Christ could meet them. However, I’m just as concerned that men are being taught to be selfish, to put their desires ahead of their wife’s because they are the king of their castle and their wife must submit. When God called man the head, He didn’t mean it as in military authority. He meant it as in the head of a river – the source.

This is why Cindy left out our Lord’s triumphant resurrection and ascension: It means Christ is the head of the church, one who has complete dominion and power, and under whom all, especially the church, are subjected. In contrast to Cindy’s statement that He is head of a river, the Bible presents Jesus as ”the head over all things to the church, which is His body.” All things are in “subjection under His feet.”

But if Christ is head of the church in terms of authority, then the husband is head of the wife in the sense of authority, and Cindy can’t have that. After all, later in Ephesians, Paul writes:

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Just like in the first chapter of Ephesians, Jesus is described as head and the church is described as His body. Not as a river whose source is Christ. In Ephesians 5, we then read again that the church is subjected to Christ, and this is the model for the Christian wife.

Obviously, all this stuff about Jesus’s authority, power, dominion, and rule has to be taken out of the Gospel in order for Joel and Kathy’s teachings on marriage to make sense. For instance, read what Joel writes on their official website:

In 1994, someone said to me that God has equipped every woman with a marriage manual in her heart. Most, if not all, marriage problems occur because men choose to ignore this gift that God has put into his wife’s heart. We men can be clueless on how to treat our wife. So guess what? God gave us an instruction manual! It is in our wife’s heart! The marriage manual in a wife’s heart is custom designed to instruct her husband on how to be the husband of her dreams!

Yes, you read that right. Your wife’s emotional state is what tells you what to do as a husband. Regardless of how Cindy framed it, this isn’t even mutual submission. This is a man being ruled by his wife’s feral hamster. Thus, Joel and Kathy have to remove all the references in the Gospel to the triumphant, resurrected and ruling Christ. They have replaced “Jesus is Lord” with “your wife’s hamster is lord.”

Joel and Kathy Davisson have re-written the Gospel. What does God say about them (Gal. 1:8-9)?

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

But, on the upside, their new personal hamster lord would never curse anyone…

Unless he committed the unpardonable sin of being a husband.

God Save My Hamster, Part 2: God Loves Frivolous Divorce by BSkillet81

Another repost from the now defunct Christian Men’s Defense Network blog. As I continue to get clicks on my links to these (and have them saved), I figure it might be useful to repost the material, which will not include hyperlinks or comments (unless linked from here). I don’t know what happened to the original author (BSkillet81) after the last two years, so I would have liked to get permission to do this beforehand. If there’s an objection from the author, feel free to contact me and I can take this down.

Christian Men’s Defense Network
God Save My Hamster, Part 2: God Loves Frivolous Divorce by BSkillet81
Posted on May 22, 2012

[Update: Since writing this, I had a chance to check the ministry’s teachings on their forum. Despite my hope that Cindy had gone off the reservation, it appears she was only regurgitating the vomit that Joel and Kathy Davisson feed to feral hamsters. In particular, the idea that female-initiated (but not male-initiated) divorce is always justified for any reason, is taken directly from an article by Joel Davisson.]

As I mentioned in the original God Save My Hamster post, I received an email from Cindy, who claims to be affiliated with the group God Save My Marriage. Cindy’s rationalization hamster wrote me a long and meandering email full of equivocation and justification for a woman’s right to disobey clear Biblical teachings regarding marriage. I gave a very broad response already, but I’ve decided to deal with several of her points in greater detail. First, her twisting of Malachi 2:14-16 in order to justify female frivolous divorce. Writes Cindy [emphasis mine]:

And speaking of that, I’m curious about whether you believe abuse is grounds for divorce?

God hates divorce has got to be the verse that is most often quoted out of context – well, it’s in the top 10 anyway. If you read the paragraph leading up to that sentence, you’ll see that God is talking to the men here. (Malachi 2:14-16) 14 You cry out, “Why has the LORD abandoned us?” I’ll tell you why! Because the LORD witnessed the vows you and your wife made to each other on your wedding day when you were young. But you have been disloyal to her, though she remained your faithful companion, the wife of your marriage vows. 15 Didn’t the LORD make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his. And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard yourself; remain loyal to the wife of your youth. 16 ”For I hate divorce!” says the LORD, the God of Israel. “It is as cruel as putting on a victim’s bloodstained coat,” says the LORD Almighty. “So guard
yourself; always remain loyal to your wife.”

There is nothing in this verse that even speaks to the wife, much less implies that she must remain with her husband no matter how she is treated.

I guess it’s up to you whether you interpret the word loyal strictly or not – as long as the husband does not have physical sex with another woman, he’s good? Personally, I don’t believe that was God’s intent. In my opinion, if a man puts work, church activities, his friends, sports, TV – you name it – ahead of his wife, he is being disloyal.

One of the difficulties when arguing with a woman’s hamster is that the “logic” is very hard to follow. Still, I will do my best to summarize her argument: 1) Malachi 2:14-16 was written to men. 2) These men were disloyal to their wives. 3) This text says nothing to women about being loyal to their husbands, but focuses only on men. 4) Somehow (no clear reasoning here), this means women are not required to be loyal to their husbands. 5) Instead, if he does anything–”you name it”–she deems to be disloyal (like, for instance, sports, church activities, or watching TV), this constitutes grounds for her to divorce her husband.

First, note that she insists “God is talking to men here.” Her statement is technically correct but intellectually uninteresting. Of course God is talking to men here. A bit of history:

Malachi was written to the post-exilic Jewish community in Jerusalem. One of the problems in this communitywas that the priests, Levites, and others had intermarried with pagans. We see this in Ezra 9:1-2 and Neh. 13:25-27, the histories of this community. Malachi echoes this in 2:11.

Not only had these men married pagan wives, but they had frivolously divorced their Jewish wives to do so (vs. 14-16). This practice was strictly and unequivocally forbidden by the Torah. Deuteronomy 7:3-4 cannot be clearer on this.

Beyond this, the Torah did not allow wives to divorce husbands, only husbands to divorce wives. So Malachi 2:14-16 couldn’t have been written to women. It was a legal and cultural impossibility at the time.

So of course this text is written to men. Men were the ones frivolously divorcing in that situation, and women were not allowed to divorce anyway. But it is a total non-sequitir to argue that this text extends to every Christian husband on earth. This isn’t just bad exegesis. It isn’t exegesis at all. It’s professional-grade hamster-batics.

Cindy then claims this passage absolves women of their marriage vows. But the passage has nothing to do with freeing anyone–husband or wife–from the duty of marital loyalty. Rather, the point is the exact opposite: These men had a duty before God to remain loyal to their original Jewish wives, a duty they shirked, thereby incurring God’s severe displeasure.

Clearly, nothing in this text indicates the disloyalty of the Jewish men had anything to do with spending too much time playing sports or staying too long at the synagogue on Shabbat.


But Cindy claims–without any support whatsoever beyond her personal opinion–that this text really means that if a man works too much, spends too much time with friends or in church activities, or is too involved in sports or watches too much TV, his wife is free to leave him. Apparently, biblical grounds for divorce are whatever the wife says they are… “you name it”.

The Lord, on the other hand, is suspiciously narrow when He talks about justification for divorce (Matt. 19:9):

And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

Cindy’s hamster completely re-writes Malachi 2 to make it carte blanche for female-initiated frivolous divorce. Why should this particular instance of hamster-batics bother us? Because someone who claims to work with a ministry dedicated to saving marriage, also claims that anything can constitute biblical grounds for a woman to leave her husband.

Anything. “You name it.”

[I linked two comments from this post as well as the original post]

Comment #1055
bskillet81 says: May 22, 2012 at 11:01 am


I’ve been doing some research on this “ministry.” They actually, literally teach that all problems in a marriage are caused by the man. The woman is never responsible. That’s why they seem just fine, in the stuff you quoted, with a wife having a boyfriend/cheating on her husband.

Note, for instance, this nice little video:

Comment #1058
Artie says: May 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm

@rockthrowingpeasant “If my wife divorces without cause and I most definitely do not want to divorce (call me beta/whipped/old school, there are some extenuating circumstances that I can’t look past and feel I need to stay in the marriage), am I committing adultery if I re-marry?”

No. By her unilateral action in dissolving the marriage, *she* commits adultery and you, the husband, are perfectly justified in going on with your life. The men she takes after you, however, are as guilty as she is.

Your preacher seriously couldn’t work that one out?