Month: October 2018

The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Rule

/ biblicalgenderroles / 27 Comments

Are men never commanded to lead their wives in the Bible? This is the recent conclusion that Cane Caldo has come to.  Cane Caldo has been a warrior against Christian feminism for many years. But recently he has come to the belief that he fell into a trap in response to Christian feminist arguments on this subject and that he now realizes he was “fundamentally wrong” in telling men that the Bible calls them to lead their wives.

In his article entitled “CoE V: I Am Not Called to “Lead” in the Bible” Caldo states:

“Our age’s focus on a husband’s leadership is a clever redirect away from the Biblical command for wives to submit and obey. Every instance of Biblical instruction to husbands and wives say the same thing: Wives submit to and obey your husbands. Husbands love and care for your wives. That’s the instruction in 1 Peter 3, Titus 2, Ephesians 5, and Colossians 3; in every instance where the Christian home life is addressed

…

I’ve written many posts and comments about a husband leading his wife, and I was fundamentally wrong. Over the years it has come to be that the liberal progressives proclaim the right thing for the wrong reasons and the traditionalists fight back with nonsense, and I fell into it also. Christian Feminists (both overt and those undeclared and unwitting) are quick to point out that it is a wife’s duty to obey and not a husbands right to force her to submit. Traditionalists have tried to fight this by demanding husbands lead better, and by stealing the glory of obedient women for themselves; such as when a man says his wife follows him because of his good leadership.

And all of it–the progressive tactics and the traditionalist response–is meant to tangle us up so that a wife’s temptation to rebel and abandon is never the topic of discussion; so that no one says, “Wives, obey your husbands.”

Building on what Caldo said here, Dalrock on his blog wrote in his article “Headship Sleight of Hand” the following comments:

“When I first read this it was obvious that Cane is right.  But I initially struggled to put all of the pieces together.  Scripture says the husband is the head of the wife.  We can then deduce from this that if he is the head, then he has an obligation to lead.  The Bible doesn’t state that husbands have this obligation, the husband’s stated obligation is to love his wife, and the wife’s stated obligation is to submit to her husband.  But leaders clearly have an obligation to lead.  The specific nature of this obligation is another question, but the basic deduction is solid.  However, modern Christians don’t stop there.  Next they turn the deduction around and run it backwards:

If the husband leads, he will be the head.

The reversed deduction is then substituted for the plain meaning of Scripture.  This is a masterful sleight of hand. From here, submission is likewise reworked:

If the husband leads well, the wife will submit.”

Dalrock then displays a nice graphic which basically shows this progression:

The husband is the head; the wife is to submit to him becomes leaders have an obligation to lead.

Leaders have an obligation to lead becomes if the husband leads, he will be the head.

If the husbands leads he will be head becomes if the husband leads well, the wife will submit.

I Understand Where Caldo and Dalrock Are Coming From

Let me first say that while Caldo, Darlock and I would have some disagreements in various areas we are all three would agree on the need to fight against the scourge of feminism and specifically Christian feminism in the churches.  In this regard I consider both these men brothers in arms and I have respect for their work.

And I can see where they are coming from on this topic.  Darlock painted the Christian feminist twisting of headship perfectly and showed how they arrive at their false conclusion that a wife only needs to submit to her husband if he leads well.

Caldo writes “Likewise, a husband cannot be thwarted from loving his wife. Even if she does not obey him that is no bar to his God-given ability to love and care her despite her wickedness. If he loves and cares for her, and she refuses to obey he is clean. He did not fail to lead.”

And here is

The Call to Love is a Call to Rule

Caldo points out that in every instance of the Scriptures where the husband wife relationship is addressed (1 Peter 3, Titus 2, Ephesians 5, and Colossians 3) that we find the formula of “Wives submit to and obey your husbands. Husbands love and care for your wives”.  And he is right in this regard.

But what he and Dalrock are failing to see is what kind of love husbands are called to?

Each and every time the Bible calls husbands to love their wives it uses the word “agape” in the Greek. 

Agape love, unlike phileo love, is not based on an emotional connection with or affection for someone.

Agape love, unlike storge love, is not like the instinctual love a parent has for their child or a child has for their parent.

Apape love, unlike eros love, is not based on sexual attraction to another person.

Agape love is love based on a commitment or choice to love another person. It is the choice to perform certain actions toward that person not because of how they make us feel, that they are family, or that we are sexually attracted to them. This is why sometimes Agape love is rightly referred to as an “action love”.

The minimum actions of Agape love are described for us in the Bible below:

4 Charity [agape] suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity [agape] vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity [agape] never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 (KJV)

And God commands men to have this agape type of love toward their wives in Ephesians 5:25 when the Bible says “Husbands love [agape] your wives…”.

Men are not supposed to base their love for their wife on their feelings toward her at any given moment. But instead, their continued love for their wife is based on the choice they made to enter into a covenant of marriage with their wife.

But this agape love that a husband is called to have toward his wife is not just any agape love.  It is NOT the same type of agape love that we are to have toward our fellow church members, or even our children. 

The specific type of Agape love that men are to have toward their wives is described in exact detail in the passage below:

“25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;  26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”

Ephesians 5:25-29 (KJV)

So a husband’s agape love for his wife includes all the actions of 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 but it is also includes some additional actions not required in all forms of agape love. Husbands are to agape love their wives “AS” Christ agape loves his church.

So here are key attributes of how Christ loves his Church that are given to husbands as a model in how God requires them to love their wives in Ephesians chapter 5:

  1. The call to love one’s wife is a call to sacrifice one’s self for one’s wife.
  2. The call to love one’s wife is a call to wash one’s wife, to wash her spiritual spots and wrinkles with the Word of God.
  3. The call to love one’s wife is a call to provide for(nourish) her physical needs.
  4. The call to love one’s wife is a call to protect(cherish) her.

It must be pointed out that the first two attributes in this list are tightly coupled together and the last two items in this list are tightly coupled together.

Christian feminists love that husbands are called to “give themselves up” for their wives as Christ did his Church.  Myriads of Christian feminist books and blogs have built false doctrines around the phrase “and gave himself for it”.  Basically, they twist this phrase into saying Christian men should give up any desires or ambitions they have in a life long quest to make their wives happy.

But what they fail to do is realize that God describes WHY Christ gave himself up.  It was to wash the spiritual blemishes, spots and wrinkles of his wife, the Church, to make her holy, not happy.

In fact, in the book of Acts we find out more about why Christ “gave himself up” for the Church”:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

Acts 20:28 (KJV)

Christ did not “gave himself up” to appease or make happy his bride, the Church, but rather to purchase her with his own blood so he could then wash her and make her the glorious bride he intended her to be to him.

Now one of the mistakes that Caldeo makes that a lot of people make on both sides of this issue is that he confines the definition of the role a husband to “where the Christian home life is addressed”.  That is an exegetical mistake.  When Ephesians 5:25 tells husbands to love their wives “as Christ also loved the church” this tells us we can look to any part of the Scriptures where Christ is interacting with his church collectively or churches individually to understand how a husband’s love and interactions are to be with his wife.

To that end let’s now look to the book of Revelation.  Here we find Christ rebuking and threatening to discipline(chasten) six of his seven churches for disobedience in various areas.  At the conclusion of his rebukes and threats to chasten his churches he makes the following statement:

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” – Revelation 3:19 (KJV)

This passage is directed to his churches.  This is a depiction of Christ’s love for his Bride.  Therefore, it is absolutely correct to say that the call for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved his Church is a call for husbands to rebuke and discipline their wives.  Christ was literally washing his wife with the Word of God in the previous passages in Revelation just as he implores men to love their wives by washing them with the Word in Ephesians 5:26-27.

This washing with the Word, this rebuking and chastening of one’s wife as Christ did is his Church is in fact a call to rule one’s wife.  Only a person in a ruler can discipline someone or attempt to modify their behavior by imposing punishments for bad behavior.

The Bible even says that a man is to be “one that ruleth well his own house”:

“4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)… 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.”

I Timothy 3:4-5 & 11 (KJV)

This passage above clearly states that God expects men to rule well their own homes and if a man cannot rule well his own house how can he rule the church of God?  The wives are mentioned separately below.  Some have wrongly inferred that only because the children are mentioned in the first part that wives are free of a husband’s rule and he has no responsibility to rule over them.  This would make absolutely no sense.  Are wives not part of a husband’s home? Are there people in the church that are not under the rulership of church elders? Such an interpretation is absurd to say the least.

Therefore, we can rightly conclude based on Ephesians 5:25-27, I Timothy 3:4-5 & 11 and Revelation 3:19 that the husband’s call to love his wife which is recognized by both Caldo and Dalrock is also a call to rule one’s wife.

What is the Difference Between a Leader and A Ruler?

In my original version of this article I only used the word “leader” because I was trying to use the language Caledo and others were using.  But I have explained on this blog many times that there are different types of leaders.

There are leaders who people voluntarily follow who have no authority or disciplinary power over those they lead.   Then there are leaders who have authority over others and with that authority comes disciplinary powers.   A leader with authority and disciplinary powers over those under them is a ruler.

Another way to convey this truth is that while all rulers are leaders, not all leaders are rulers.

A ruler does not simply offer guidance, but they actually institute rules for those under their authority and use discipline for the breaking of those rules.  In some cases rulers actually own those under their authority as well and this is how the Bible presents the husband wife relationship where the husband is called the “baal” or master/owner of the wife throughout the Old Testament.   See my article “Is Christian marriage a master – servant relationship?” for more on this subject.

Conclusion

I want to return to Darlock’s process of where he thinks Christian feminism has added to God’s Word:

This first statement is absolutely Biblically true:

The husband is the head; the wife is to submit to him becomes leaders have an obligation to lead.

The husband is the head of the wife and the wife is to submit to him.  It is both IMPLIED in the husband being the head of his wife and EXPLICIT in a husband’s call to love his wife as Christ loves his Church, to wash her with the Word of God and chasten her that he is called to rule her.

But Dalrock’s next statements is where feminism adds to the Word of God:

Leaders have an obligation to lead becomes if the husband leads, he will be the head.

If the husbands leads he will be head becomes if the husband leads well, the wife will submit.

Christian husbands absolutely have an obligation to lead their wives as Christ lead’s his Church.  However, those Christians who say a husband’s headship is contingent on his follow through of his duty to lead are in direct contradiction to what the Scriptures say about the basis for a husband’s headship.  The husband is the head of his wife whether he is rules as Christ does his church or utterly fails to model Christ’s leadership of his church.   This is the explicit teaching of the Word of God:

 “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.”

I Peter 3:1-2 (KJV)

So, unless a husband tells his wife to sin (Acts 5:29) she must obey him in ALL he commands her to do. The passage above leaves no gray area.  And no, it is not just talking about submission to non-Christian husbands who are disobedient. Later in this same conversation the Apostle Peter says the following of this kind of submission from wives toward their husbands:

“5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”

I Peter 3:5-6 (KJV)

Was Abraham a believer? You bet he was.  So, this means whether a woman’s husband is a believer or non-believer even if he is living a life that is disobedient to the Word of God and even if he utterly failing to love his wife and lead his wife as Christ does his church wives ARE TO SUBMIT.  Period.

Beth Moore Has A Man Bow to the MeToo Movement

/ biblicalgenderroles / 9 Comments

This last weekend, Beth Moore, a prominent charismatic and feminist preacher, had her drummer come forward and kneel on the stage “asking their forgiveness for all hurts & harms they’ve ever received at the hands of men”.

I want to first give thanks to Snapper(one of my regular reader) who sent this my way and I also want to give credit to PulpitAndPen for their powerful rebuke of this wickedness where they stated:

“Moore started her career as a teacher for women, but now preaches to both genders. Evangelical leaders like John Piper have encouraged men to listen to her violations of 1 Timothy 2:12. Not deterred by Scriptural admonitions against women teaching doctrine or preaching to men, Moore has gradually become a chief proponent of evangelical feminism…
Of course, there is nothing in Scripture that suggests any individual can apologize for the sins of someone else, least alone an entire gender. The very notion is Biblically untenable. Neither is it wise to presume that every woman is a victim, but in Critical Race Theory (which is a Marxist political ideology that applies to gender, sexuality and other “identity groups” as well as race) and in the ideology of Marxist Intersectionality (the combining of two “victimized” identity group, in this case Native Americans and women), it is necessary to presume victimhood upon all.”

I say to PulpitAndPen- AMEN and AMEN. What wickedness our generation is now seeing before its very eyes.

Now let me add a few of my own thoughts to what PulpitAndPen said. Much of this error goes back to the roots of Methodism and Pentecostalism.

During the reformation, Protestants rejected both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox position that Church tradition was equally as authoritative as the Bible. Protestants also rejected the Catholic doctrine of Papal authority as well. The Protestants while having diverse opinions on many doctrines were united in the doctrine of “sola fide” meaning “justification by faith alone” against the Catholic Church’s position of faith plus works being necessary for salvation.

One of the main divisions within Protestantism was over the issue of whether the Scriptures alone formed the basis of faith and practice or whether they simply had higher authority than church tradition.

Some Protestants took the position of “prima scriptura” which held that the Scriptures were the “first” or “above all” source of divine revelation BUT not the only guide for faith and practice. The Anglicans believed in following church tradition as long it did not conflict with the Scriptures. The Methodists and the Pentecostal churches that grew out of the Methodists believed visions and other supernatural gifts were also to guide the churches.

And it was this error at the very root of Methodism and Pentecostalism which lead both groups to embrace feminism far before any other evangelical churches did.

Others Protestants like the Lutheran churches, Presbyterian churches and Baptist churches strongly held to the doctrine of “sola scriptura” which meant that the Bible alone was the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

However, the Baptists were the strongest and loudest of all the Protestants in their preaching of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Baptists were heavily persecuted by other Protestants on the basis of another major division between Protestant groups and that is on the issue of infant baptism. Baptists were persecuted by other Protestant groups for rejecting infant baptism as unscriptural and instead preaching believer’s baptism by immersion.

This is why it should come as no surprise that the “Bible Belt” which is overwhelming populated by Baptist churches and located in the Southern United States has the highest concentration of conservative Bible believing Christians in the United States. It is in this place where we find the most Christians in America standing against feminism. That is not to say there are not outliers throughout the rest of the country. I do not live in the south but I can say where I live there are outposts of Christianity that are taking a stand against this apostasy as well.

The Church can never ever base its practices on either the traditions or feelings of men or women for that matter. Our sole source of faith, our rules for church conduct (including offices and those who preach or teach) and our rules for holy living must be founded upon the Word of God and the Word of God alone.

CBNNew reported on the following on this incident:

“Moore said tears began falling and that the Holy Spirit fell on the women. “How much more Christlike could this brother have been?” she asked. “He had committed no such sins against women. But he stood before them representing those who had. It was one of the most powerful things I’ve ever seen.”

The tears flowed like rain. I was told again & again that most of them had never EVER heard these things addressed & had certainly never heard anyone say I’m so sorry. Many hurts also come through other women & I addressed those next but this was when the Holy Spirit fell on us.

— Beth Moore (@BethMooreLPM) October 8, 2018 “

What this drummer did was not Christlike at all. We as Christian men bow before God. Christian men do not bow to the idols of feminism or the MeToo movement. Christian men stand firm in the faith.

“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”

1 Corinthians 16:13(NASB)

Better 100 Rapists Should Escape Than One Innocent Man Should Suffer

/ biblicalgenderroles / 4 Comments

Benjamin Franklin once famously stated “That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.” And he was right in saying this. This principle was deeply interwoven into the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all early American laws. It was based in English common law and before that Roman laws and before that Biblical law.

The MeToo Movement’s Assault on Justice

It is ironic that a movement that purports to fight for justice for women who have been sexually assaulted by men is itself guilty of an even more heinous assault on a bedrock principle of American, Western and Biblical justice.

On November 21st 2017, the Feminist Columnist Emily Lindin wrote the following statements on her twitter account:

“Here’s an unpopular opinion: I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.”

“First, false allegations VERY rarely happen, so even bringing it up borders on a derailment tactic. It’s a microscopic risk in comparison to the issue at hand (worldwide, systemic oppression of half the population).”

“Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”

And more recently a Christian woman emailed me yesterday and made the following statement:

“Your article about Kavanaugh really bothered me, and I have no doubt that a lot of victims of molestation will be highly offended.

Now I understand that false allegations do happen, and I understand that usually we have innocent until proven guilty rule. But I think with rape and molestation, it should be a false positive system, because we need to protect alleged victims, especially if they’re children, protected from the accused until there is proof that the allegations aren’t true. If victims are not believed it can have dire and tragic consequences. It does unthinkable harm to genuine rape/molestation victims, and it just makes it harder for victims to be believed. There are two sides to this. There is no proof that Kavanaugh is innocent.

I will flat-out say that I believe the women speaking against Kavanaugh. Also, there can’t always be proof that something happened because sexual predators are very smart in hiding their crimes.”

Do you see what these women are saying? The are literally reversing what Benjamin Franklin said and are basically saying this:

“Better 100 Innocent Men Should Suffer Than One Sexual Assaulter or Rapist Should Escape”

Now the women who take this position comfort themselves with some statistics on false reporting of rape and sexual assault. We will discuss this next.

Are Only 2 Percent of Rape Accusations False?

A common statement you will see being floated around many sites that want to proclaim all men accused of rape as guilty until proven innocent are statements like this:

“Only 2 percent of rape accusations are false according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center”

First, we must understand the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) is not perfect in its information. It is an agenda driven organization so its numbers could be skewed to fit that agenda. But let’s take look at the NSVRC website to see the complete statement they made on this subject of false rape claims:

“The prevalence of false reporting is low between 2% and 10%. For example, a study of eight U.S. communities, which included 2,059 cases of sexual assault, found a 7.1% rate of false reports (i). A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston found a 5.9% rate of false reports (h). Researchers studied 812 reports of sexual assault from 2000-2003 and found a 2.1% rate of false reports (g).”

So we can see that the 2 percent number that all the MeToo folks give us for false rape claims is actually on the low end of the estimate.  It could actually be as high as 10 percent.

Crying “Rape”!

Cathy Young wrote an article for Slate.com back in 2014 entitled “Crying Rape”. In it she made some interesting observations what she called the “serious problem” of false accusations of rape against men. Here are some excerpts from that article:

“How frequent are false accusations? A commonly cited estimate, which may have originated with feminist author Susan Brownmiller in the 1970s, is that they account for only about 2 percent of rape reports. After the Oberst fiasco, feminist blogger Rebecca Watson posted a video asserting that, statistically, you will be wrong two out of 100 times if you presume a rape accusation to be true and 98 out of 100 times if you presume it to be false.

In fact, as Emily Bazelon and Rachael Larimore wrote in Slate five years ago, official data on what law enforcement terms “unfounded” rape reports (that is, ones in which the police determine that no crime occurred) yield conflicting numbers, depending on local policies and procedures—averaging 8 percent to 10 percent of all reported rapes.

…
In challenging “the myth of the lying woman,” feminists have been creating their own counter-myth: that of the woman who never lies.

…

Our focus on getting justice for women who are sexually assaulted is necessary and right. We are still far from the day when every woman who makes a rape accusation gets a proper police investigation and a fair hearing. But seeking justice for female victims should make us more sensitive, not less, to justice for unfairly accused men. In practical terms, that means finding ways to show support for victims of sexual violence without equating accusation and guilt, and recognizing that the wrongly accused are real victims too. It means not assuming that only a conviction is a fair outcome for an alleged sex crime. It means, finally, rejecting laws and policies rooted in the assumption that wrongful accusations are so vanishingly rare they needn’t be a cause for concern. To put it simply, we need to stop presuming guilt.”

Even NSVRC recognizes that incidents of false rape claims could be as high as 10 percent. The higher number of 10 percent is backed up by other groups outside the NSVRC  as well.

Putting a Human Face on the Victims of False Rape Claims

In 2002, Brian Banks was a football star at the age of 17 destined for college football was accused of rape and kidnapping after what he said was consensual sexual encounter with Wanetta Gibson. And the encounter actually left no trace DNA on Gibson’s clothing. Brian Bank’s attorneys told him he was facing 41 years in prison if the jury believed her so he plead no-contest to get a reduced sentence of 6 years. Wanetta Gibson sued Long Beach Schools and received a 1.5-million-dollar settlement for her supposed rape. After Banks served a little over 5 years in prison and was released Gibson met him and later prosecutors and admitted she lied. He sued her and won in June of 2013.

In 2003, James Grissom was convicted of the raping Sara Ylen. She had picked him out of a page of mug shots presented to her by the police. Later she would admit she had been looking at pictures of men from sex offender registries before seeing his mugshot. After serving almost 10 years of a 15 to 35-year sentence, James Grissom was released from prison after the District Attorney in St. Clair County Michigan asked the court to vacate his conviction and dismiss all charges. It turned out that Sara Ylen would later go on to make many more false rape claims. In December 2013, Sara Ylen was sentenced to serve 5 to 10 years in prison for making false rape accusation claims against two men.

In 2005, William McCaffrey was accused by Biurny Peguero of raping her. With no DNA evidence a Manhattan jury convicted the man of rape. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. After he had served 2 years of his 20 year sentence a DNA test showed the bite mark on the woman’s arm did not even come from a man – it came from a woman. She would later admit to a Priest and the Prosecutors that she had lied about the whole event. He was exonerated and released by a judge in 2009.

In 2006, three white college students on the Duke Lacrosse team were accused of raping a black stripper they hired for a party. It would later turn out that an ambitious DA who was using this case to help with his re-election bid violated many codes of legal ethics and in the end based his entire case on false evidence. The three young men were exonerated at trial.

In 2009, an 18-year-old Black student named Danmell Ndonye accused 5 fellow students of gang raping her in a dormitory bathroom at Hofstra University. This case quickly fell apart when within 72 hours of her claim when police obtained cell phone videos from someone in the bathroom filming the whole event. Slate writer Emily Bazelon in her article “Smeary Lines” wrote regarding this case that “The weird lesson for men who have group sex in bathrooms: Film it on your cell phone”.

In 2013, Joanie Faircloth made a false claim that the singer Connor Oberst had raped her a decade earlier when she was a 16-year-old teen. A year later she issued a public statement recanting and saying she made it up to get attention.

In 2016, Nikki Yovino accused two college football players of raping her. She later admitted she made the story up. She was sentenced in August of 2018 to 1 year in prison for making false rape allegations.

What a MeToo America Would Look Like

Socialists and Liberals often don’t fully think through the consequences of their actions.

Imagine if we passed the following as the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“The presumption of innocence is hereby suspended for men accused of sexually related crimes against women. All women are to be presumed as credible and truthful in their accusations against men for sexually related crimes. Men are to be presumed guilty of any sexually related crime they are accused of by a woman and bear the burden of proving themselves innocent in such cases. Even if a woman’s claims are proven to be false or even if she admits they are false at some future point she may not be prosecuted in civil or criminal courts for this action. Men accused of sexually related crimes may be immediately terminated from by their employers with no recourse to sue for wrongful discharge in these cases.”

A person with an ounce of common sense and awareness of human nature knows if you give any group of people a blank check to do a certain thing – that thing will be abused. Such an amendment which follows the proposed ideals of the MeToo movement would cause the 2 to 10 percent incidents of false rape and sexual assault allegations to sky rocket.

Imagine how many women would use this as black mail to get any position they wanted at a company? “If you don’t give me the promotion I will say you raped me or sexually assaulted me”. If a man goes to break up with woman she could say “I will say you raped me if you leave me”. When women get divorced they cold just blackmail their soon to be ex-husbands with false rape charges so they could take all their money and get full custody of the children. When women have consensual sex with men and are ashamed of their choices they can just re-frame it as rape. Just imagine the wicked abuses that could take place in such a system.

Better 100 Rapists Should Escape Than One Innocent Man Should Suffer

This brings us to the conclusion of this matter. On one side we have MeToo advocates arguing that men have been sexually assaulting women since the beginning of recorded history and now its time for men and the patriarchy to pay for its past and continuing abuses of women.

But you know what else has been occurring since the beginning of the human history? Murder, theft and all other types of non-sexual abuses of men against men, women against women and men against women. Human beings are and always have been sinful and wicked since the Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden.

The question is how we deal with the wrongs that people commit against one another. Should we throw out innocent until proven guilty for sexual assault crimes? The answer from the Bible is a resounding NO!

The Bible shows us that God is far more concerned with the innocent being falsely punished than the wicked escaping justice:
“15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.”
Deuteronomy 19:15-20 (KJV)

It would be absolutely Biblical to say that in God’s eyes it would be better that 100 rapists should escape justice than one innocent man should suffer by a false or uncorroborated accusation.

Look at what God says should be done to the one who brings a false accusation? They should get the same sentence that the one they falsely accused would have received.

There are many MeToo and other women’s rights advocates who would like to see our legal system get rid of prosecution or civil lawsuits for false rape claims by women. They say such mechanisms discourage women from coming forward with real rape claims. But as I have shown here from the Bible – our punishments for false rape claims don’t go far enough! Women who make false rape claims get sentenced to a tiny fraction of the time that the men they accused of rape would have received if they had been found guilty. We should follow God’s law in this and give the same sentence to women who falsely accuse men of rape as what the men would receive if they were convicted of rape.

What If It Were Your Father, Your Husband, Your Brother, Your Son?

Judge Brett Kavanagh, now thanks to God Justice Brett Kavanagh, made a statement that I believe will be long remembered in American history. He made this statement at the close of his opening remarks on September 27 while defending himself against the false rape allegations of Dr. Christine Blasely Ford.

“We live in a country devoted to due process and the rule of law. That means taking allegations seriously, but if the mere allegation, the mere assertion of an allegation, a refuted allegation from 36 years ago, is enough to destroy a person’s life and career, we will have abandoned the basic principles of fairness and due process that define our legal system in our country. I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father. Your husband. Your brother. Or your son.”

While others had previously made this contention against the MeToo movement’s assault on due process and the presumption of innocence – this was different. This was a national stage. It is estimated that nearly 20 million Americans watched this hearing and heard Brett Kavanagh’s words. To those in the MeToo movement it probably did little to move them to rethink their assault on due process and the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

But what it did do is awaken millions of other Americans to the dangers that the MeToo movement poses to justice and due process in America. And the tired argument of Democrats and MeToo advocates that “this was not a court of law but just a job interview” did not hold water with millions of Americans who were infuriated at what happened to Brett Kavanaugh.

You can still destroy a man’s life with unproven accusations without ever trying him in a court of law or sending him to prison. One of the writers for CBS’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”, Ariel Dumas, made this statement on twitter before making her account private after a huge backlash:

“Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life”

In the last week, millions of Americans woke up to the reality that their fathers, their husbands, their brothers and their sons could have their lives ruined in the same way that Ariel Dumas was so happy about. Their careers and livelihoods could be destroyed by the MeToo movement and some could lose their freedom and be imprisoned for many years if the MeToo movement is successful in its assault on the American justice system, men and the patriarchy.

In article for Slate.com entitled “The Kavanaugh Hearings Have Women Fired Up … to Vote Republican” Ruth Graham writes:

“the Kavanaugh spectacle seems to have evaporated the Democrats’ enthusiasm edge, according to a poll conducted Monday by NPR, PBS NewsHour, and Marist. In July Democrats were likelier, by 10 percentage points, to say the November elections were “very important.” That gap has now narrowed to a statistical tie. “The result of the hearings, at least in the short run, is the Republican base was awakened,” Marist head Lee Miringoff told NPR.

…

Atlantic reporter Emma Green talked with about a dozen female conservative leaders across the country for a story this week that puts flesh on the Marist poll’s finding: that the Kavanaugh hearings have electrified conservative women too. “I’ve got women in my church who were not politically active at all who were incensed with this,” the chairwoman of the West Virginia Republican Party told Green. The Indiana state director for the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, Jodi Smith, told Green that “people in Indiana are angry.” In her view, the hearings are “one of the best things that could happen to us” as she looks forward to a hotly contested Senate election in the state in November.”

I can say that all but two liberal women amongst my extended relatives and friends thought the way Brett Kavanaugh was treated was truly “a national disgrace” as he stated in his hearing. And his line about would this be the standard that you would want your “your father. Your husband. Your brother. Or your son” judged by rings true for millions of women across the country.

A Final Word to Women Who Have Been Victims of Sexual Assault

I previously revealed here that my mother was the victim of rape by her own grandfather. I have also known other women personally in my life that were raped or otherwise sexually assaulted. I myself was molested by a 17-year-old boy at a church I attended when I was 14. But I would never compare what happened to me to what happened to my mother. It still gives me chills when I think of her account of what happened and the effect that she told me it had her relationship with my father years after it happened.

When I and millions of other Americans stand up for the rule of law, due process and the presumption of innocence this does not mean we care nothing for the true victims of sexual assault. But we cannot do evil that good may result. We cannot tear down the justice system, and destroy men’s lives in order to get justice for female victims of sexual assault.

Rape and other forms of sexual assault have existed as long as murder, theft and all other types of crimes have existed. We will no more eliminate rape and sexual assault than we will any of these other crimes. All we can do is try to protect ourselves against these crimes and when they do occur report them right away to the proper authorities with as much evidence as we can muster.

As Christians we know that a crucial way to help protect women from sexual assault or rape is to follow the rules that most societies had for their women for thousands of years. Women were not left alone with men who were not their male relatives. Now I know that some will immediately say that sometimes relatives molest their own. I could not agree more based on what happened to my mother on the part of her own grandfather.

But we must do our best to take all the precautions we can. We can’t say just because we can’t stop all rape and sexual assault that we should not take all the precautions we can. I lock my doors at night but that does not mean someone could not find another way into my home by breaking a window.

Finally, if you are a woman like my mother who was raped I am going to give you a piece of advice my mother had to learn. You have two choices. You can choose to allow the sexual assault or rape you experienced to distort your view of men and sex and cause you to want to tear down the entire justice system to get your revenge on men or the patriarchy. Or you can take a different path. You can choose to give your pain and hurt to Christ. You can choose to have Christ restore in you a healthy view of men, sex and marriage and a respect for the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
“For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” – 1 John 5:4

You can either live your life as a victim or as victor, the choice is yours.

A Teenage Girl’s Courtship Covenant

/ biblicalgenderroles / 1 Comment

Today I make the following covenant before God.

I will only seek to court a man when my father gives his permission to court that man and I will honor his rules for courting . (Genesis 29:15-20, Exodus 22:16-17)

I will not make provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof by allowing myself to be alone with any man that I am not married to unless he is my close blood relative. (Romans 13:14)

I will guard my heart and save not only physical intimacy, but emotional intimacy as well for marriage and I will not awaken the type of love God meant only for marriage until I am married. (Proverbs 4:23, Song of Solomon 2:7)

I will not follow my heart or feelings in seeking my future husband as it may deceive me.  Instead I will seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance  as well as the guidance of my parents and other Christian elders as they follow Christ. (Proverbs 1:8,Proverbs 11:14,John 16:13)

I will not date because dating is led by the heart, not the spirit, it can often awaken the kind of love only meant for marriage and it makes provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.