Sometimes Women DO Sit Around Making These Things Up

According to Senator Mazie Hirono during her interview on “MSNBC Live” yesterday, the new standard of justice when it comes to sex crimes in America is that “Women do not sit around making these things up”.  She made this statement regarding the sexual assault accusations of Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Christine Blasey Ford’s Story

So here is Christine Blasey Ford’s story in a nutshell.

A woman claims that a man attempted to rape her 36 years ago.  She claimed to have repressed the memory and only recovered it during a 2012 couples’ therapy session with her husband whom she married in 2002.  Brett Kavanaugh’s name was never mentioned in the therapy session notes.

She has offered no physical evidence of the attempted rape.

She does not remember where the house was.

She does not remember what day or month it was in.

She said she received medical treatment but does not remember where or when.

Every person she has put forward as witness denies any knowledge of such an event.

There is No Evidence of a Crime According to American or Biblical Law

Whether this attack happened 36 years ago, or 36 weeks ago there is no evidence according to our legal system that a crime ever took place.  An accusation by the alleged victim of a crime is not evidence. There must be physical evidence, circumstantial evidence or witnesses to a crime to convict someone of a crime.

One of our American founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, stated this about how our justice system should work:

“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.”

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.—The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Albert H. Smyth, vol. 9, p. 293 (1906)

The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is not just the bedrock of American justice, but it was also the concept of Biblical justice as well. The Bible required multiple witnesses to establish the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime in Israel:

“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.”

Deuteronomy 19:15 (KJV)

In other words – you can’t accuse someone of a crime, including assault, simply based on your own witness of the event.  Where are the other witnesses, where is the physical evidence?

Yet many in our court of public opinion have already assassinated the character of Brett M. Kavanaugh based on these allegations by Ford.

Sometimes Women DO sit around making these things up

Contrary to the assertions of Senator Mazie Hirono, sometimes women do sit around making these things up for a variety of reasons.   It can be for reasons of pride, fame, spite, revenge or other political motivations. In the Bible we find a famous story of a woman “making these things up”:

“11 One day he went into the house to attend to his duties, and none of the household servants was inside. 12 She caught him by his cloak and said, “Come to bed with me!” But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house.  13 When she saw that he had left his cloak in her hand and had run out of the house, 14 she called her household servants. “Look,” she said to them, “this Hebrew has been brought to us to make sport of us! He came in here to sleep with me, but I screamed. 15 When he heard me scream for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house.”

Genesis 39:11-15 (KJV)

Women making up claims of sexual assault is as old as men committing sexual assault itself.  Both of these sins have occurred throughout history and our legal systems must recognize the very real possibility of both of these things occurring.

A lot of Ford’s defenders will say “Well she talked about him doing this way back in 2012 in a therapy session long before he became a nominee and there is documented proof of her making this claim to a therapist.  Why would she make up the lie before ever knowing who would be President in four years or that he would nominate Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court?”

Well first and foremost there is no documented proof of her making a claim that Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape her.  She never gave the therapist any names.  Her husband alleges she told him afterwards that it was Brett Kavanaugh but spouses lie for each other so he is not a reliable witness.

So, this leaves us with two other likely possibilities of what actually happened.  Ford could have been sexually assaulted by someone other than Brett Kavanaugh and she may not even remember who it was.  But she chose to put Kavanaugh’s name in as her attacker when she saw him announced as Trump’s nominee because she wanted to stop him from being nominated.

An even worse scenario would be and could be that she made the entire event up in therapy as an excuse to deal with problems in her own marriage and then filled in Brett Kavanaugh’s name as the attacker as an added bonus. And of course, her loving husband supports her in her lies.  This is a very real possibility as well.

But what about the second or third woman?

A second woman, Deborah Ramirez, has claimed that Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself in her face when he was Yale University. So, if we have two women accusing him then both these claims must true right? That is the sad standard for many in our society.  If you can’t take the man down with one flawed accuser, just throw in another for good measure.

This second woman even admitted to not being sure it was Brett Kavanaugh who exposed himself to her until after a democratic lawyer helped coach her and convince her that it was.

Then of course we have the trashy lawyer Michael Avenatti claiming he has yet another woman making claims against Brett Kavanaugh.

Conclusion

Senator Mazie Hirono was partially right in some advice she gave to men the other night when she stated:

“I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.”

The only part of her advice that was wrong was when she said “shut up”.  I would simply change this part of her statement and give this advice to all men including Brett Kavanaugh in the face of the rampant misandry going on in American culture today:

“I just want to say to the men in this country: Speak up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.”

The Bible gives us as men this admonition:

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

1 Corinthians 16:13

I was so pleased to see Brett Kavanaugh make the forceful defense he did in his interview with Martha MacCallum from Fox News.  I was pleased to see him speak up and step up to the corrupt political forces that would see him step down.

I pray that God will give the Republican senators the wisdom to see that this is truly a smear campaign against a good man and a good judge and I hope they will have the courage to help him win this nomination.

Exposing the Myth That White Christian America Is Dying

Is White Christianity in America dying?  That is what many in our American media would have us to believe.

In July of 2016, Robert P. Jones released his book “The End of White Christian America”. George Soros’s Open Society Foundation hosted one of the book’s first discussion groups and book signing events a couple weeks after it came out.

Robert Jones is also the founder and CEO of The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).  PRRI claims to be a nonpartisan polling organization but it is anything but that. Their who’s who list of globalists and left wing supporters like George Soros should be a huge red flag for anyone reading their polls.

What you will discover when you look at PRRI’s polling and commentary is that they are trying to persuade conservative Christians to give up their conservative positions on social issues like opposition to fluid gender roles, transgenderism, homosexuality and abortion just to name a few areas.  In the area of immigration, they greatly push globalism and multiculturalism and their enemies are populists or nationalists whether they be Christian or non-Christian.

Pretty much all liberal Christian groups and publications use PRRI’s polling because it supports both the secular and Christian liberal agenda’s which are closely aligned.

If you want to get polling from a truly independent source, I would recommend Pew Research who strictly forbids all of their executives and poll commentators from any involvement in the political arena.  They truly seek to do objective polling and present objective commentary without trying to sway public opinion one way or the other.

A great summary of Robert Jones’s positions is found in a Washington Post interview by John Sides entitled “Why Christian American is dying”.

The False “Lower Religious Affiliation by Age” Argument

In the beginning of his interview Mr. Jones makes the argument that lower numbers of Whites Christians in the younger ages is an indicator of the coming death of White Christianity in America. He references a chart from his book showing this when he states:

“Like an archaeological excavation, the chart sorts Americans by religious affiliation and race, stratified by age. It shows the decline of white Christians among each successive generation.

Today, young adults ages 18 to 29 are less than half as likely to be white Christians as seniors age 65 and older. Nearly 7 in 10 American seniors (67 percent) are white Christians, compared to fewer than 3 in 10 (29 percent) young adults.” [1]

There are two problems with Jones’s argument on this point.  The first problem is that if you dig into his definition here he is talking about church attendance. There are many people who are true believing Christians that for various reasons have not attended Church in many years. The second problem and really the larger problem is his glaring omission of a fact he knows well.

This difference between age groups and church attendance (not faith) has been around since the 1970s.  This is NOT something new.  In an article from Pew Research entitled “Why do levels of religious observance vary by age and country?” they make the following observation about age and church attendance:

“Looking at four age groups (rather than two) reveals even more clearly that religious service attendance and age have not always correlated perfectly in the United States. From the early 1940s through the 1960s, people in their 40s and 50s reported attending at least as frequently as those over 60. And adults in their 30s saw a spike in attendance in the late 1950s, briefly matching or exceeding the other groups. By the mid-1970s, the age groups had split into the pattern seen today: Older adults are more religiously committed than younger adults.” [2]

So, the pattern of younger people not attending church and then as they get older attending church has been the pattern for the last half century.  As people get married, have children and grow older they return with their families to church.   Nothing new here and certainly not evidence for the demise of White Christianity in America.

I always find it humorous when I am watching liberal TV news and read liberal articles and they point to the liberal views of young people as an indicator of where elections and the culture is heading.  What they neglect to tell their viewers and readers is that many polls and studies show that as people age they generally get more conservative.  That is why there is always consistently a larger percentage of conservatives among middle age and older people than younger.

Before I present and answer more of Mr. Jones’s supposed evidence for the death of White Christianity in America we need to define the major categories of Christianity in America.

Christian Sectarianism is as American as Apple Pie

In a Washington Examiner article entitled “Is the end of white Christian America a good thing?” Michael Barone wrote:

Sectarianism is as American as apple pie. We have not only had black churches, we have had separate Northern and Southern churches. The American Catholic Church, run by Irish-Americans for most of its history, has had identifiable Italian and Polish parishes. It’s nice if people of different ethnic or racial heritage decide to participate in a congregation together. But it doesn’t seem likely to be a major driver of increased church membership.” [3]

I would go a step further and say sectarianism is not just the norm for America, but it has always been the norm for Christianity throughout the world.  During the early church bishops ruled over individual churches.  Eventually metropolitan bishops consolidated power over all the local bishops and churches in a given city area.  There are letters during this early church period of bishops arguing with one another on various doctrines and applications of the Scriptures.  The point is that sectarianism was the norm of the early church.

After the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 312 A.D. he not only sought to reunite the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, but he also helped the Christian Bishops at Rome to consolidate religious power over all the Christian churches in the empire.  Rome’s hold on power over the Christian churches would only last until 1054 A.D. when the Eastern Byzantine Christians split from Rome to form what would later be known as the Orthodox Church.  Less than 500 years after that split, in 1517, the Catholic Church of Rome would experience another great division which started with a German Catholic Monk named Martin Luther. This division would become known as the Protestant reformation.

The 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.

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. Anglicans believed in following church tradition as long it did not conflict with the Scriptures. The Methodists and the Pentecostal churches that formed from them believed visions and other supernatural gifts were also to guide the churches.

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 Protestant groups for rejecting infant baptism as unscriptural and instead preaching believer’s baptism by immersion.

The Differences between Evangelical, Mainline and Black Protestants

Pew Research when compiling its 2014 “Religious Landscape Study” broke up Protestants into three main groups based on a combination of culture and beliefs.  These three groups were Evangelical, Mainline and Historically Black.  When PRRI did it’s study they purposefully rejected these three groupings and instead only had Evangelical and Mainline.  It added all black churches into the Evangelical category. Then it divided evangelicals back out into three categories of “White evangelical, White mainline and Black Protestant”.  Yes, it was definitely some fuzzy math.

This recategorization is alluded to in the ABC News Blog “FiveThirtyEight.com”.  In an article entitled “How Trump And Race Are Splitting Evangelicals” Perry Bacon Jr. and Amelia Thomson-Deveaux wrote:

“Two factors appear to be driving this divide. First, the number of white evangelicals is in decline in America at the same time that the evangelical population is becoming more racially diverse. According to 2016 data from the Public Religion Research Institute, about 64 percent of evangelicals are non-Hispanic white, compared to about 68 percent in 2006. [you have to click the x here to see the note]

PRRI defines “evangelicals” as respondents who identify as Protestant and evangelical or born-again. Other pollsters — in particular, the Pew Religious Landscape Survey, though not all Pew surveys — define “evangelical” by denomination and exclude some historically black denominations, which results in a higher share of white evangelicals. The 2014 Pew Religious Landscape Survey, for example, suggested that about 75 of evangelicals are white, a higher number than PRRI’s finding, but still a drop from 81 percent in 2007.” [4]

Robert Jones has attempted to sell a narrative for some time that Black Protestant and Evangelical churches are the same group of Protestants.  That has NEVER historically been the case as I will show later in this article.  In an article he wrote for the Atlantic in 2014 entitled “White Christmas, Black Christmas” Jones states:

“Black Protestants and white evangelical Protestants are the two groups with the highest church-attendance rates in the country. While less than four in 10 (38 percent) Americans overall report attending religious services weekly or more often, 58 percent of white evangelical Protestants and 55 percent of black Protestants attend church at least weekly. White evangelical Protestants and black Protestants also share a particularly literal approach to the Bible. Among the general public, approximately one-third (35 percent) believe the Bible is the literal word of God, but about six in 10 white evangelical Protestants (61 percent) and black Protestants (57 percent) hold a literal view of the Bible. These two groups also share a belief in a personal God, an emphasis on individual salvation, and religious architecture that emphasizes the centrality of the pulpit over the altar.” [5]

Jones is right that Black Protestants and White Evangelicals have much in common.  White Evangelicals and Black Protestants would stand side by side in condemning the mainline Protestants who reject the authority of the Bible or the literal interpretation of it.  White Evangelicals and Black Protestants would stand side by side in condemning mainline Protestant churches who allow homosexual members and even homosexual clergy.

However there still is a core and fundamental divide between Black Protestants and White Evangelicals and that divide is and has always been throughout American history what we call today social justice, which is simply another name for socialism.

White Evangelical Opposition to Socialism and Social Justice

As I have previously said, Robert Jones has tried to paint a false narrative that Black Protestants and White evangelicals are the same Protestant group. But the history of the evangelical movement proves this narrative to be false.

When the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was founded in 1942 there were no African American denominations or churches that were a part of it.  It was completely comprised of churches that were predominantly white and held to a literal view of the Bible.

There was probably no better representation of a 20th century White Evangelicalism than Billy Graham who passed away earlier this year at the age of 99. Unfortunately, the version of Billy Graham that we saw in his last couple decades bore little resemblance to the man he once was.  If you were to go to BillyGraham.org today and look up “racism” in search of his quotes and sermons you will find the “edited for modern viewers” presentation of Billy Graham.  You will find stories of how he befriended Martin Luther King and even paid to bail him out of jail.  You will find him calling racism evil and wicked.  You will hear how he integrated his rallies.

But after his death there were several publications that reminded us (albeit in a negative and condescending way) that the sweet and non-political Billy Graham most people had come to know today was not the Billy Graham of earlier years.

A CNN article entitled “Where Billy Graham ‘missed the mark’” recounts this story about Billy Graham:

“…Graham personally lobbied President Dwight D. Eisenhower to ignore the racial crisis in the South, that he told a white audience in Charlotte in 1958 that demonic hordes were the real source behind the country’s racial problems, and that he wrote a 1960 article for U.S. News and World Report tacitly defending Southern resistance to integration.

The Bible also recognizes that each individual has the right to choose his own friendships and social relationships,” Graham wrote. “I am convinced that forced integration will never work. You cannot make two races love each other and accept each other at the point of bayonets.” [6]

Matthew Avery Sutton, wrote the following in an article for the Guardian entitled “Billy Graham was on the wrong side of history”:

“For Graham, the Bible had a clear message for Christians living in what he believed were humans’ last days on earth. Individuals alone can achieve salvation; governments cannot. Conversions change behaviors; federal policies do not…

In the late 1950s, Graham integrated his revivals and seemed to support the burgeoning civil rights movement. This is the Graham most Americans remember… Within days of the publication of King’s famous 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Graham told reporters that the Baptist minister should “put the brakes on a little bit”.

He criticized civil rights activists for focusing on changing laws rather than hearts…

Graham praised the wisdom of young people who rejected the federal government as a tool for rectifying injustices.

These young people don’t put much stock in the old slogans of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society,” he said. “They believe that utopia will arrive only when Jesus returns. Thus these young people are on sound Biblical ground.

For six decades, Graham taught Americans that the federal government could not be an instrument of God to bring about justice, not on race matters and not on other significant issues…

Graham came of age during Franklin Roosevelt’s vast expansion of government power. But rather than join with social gospel advocates like Roosevelt’s aide Harry Hopkins in promoting the creation of a welfare state to serve the needy, the future evangelist was more influenced by apocalypse-obsessed, fundamentalist rabble rousers who rejected New Deal liberalism.” [7]

So, while it is true that Billy Graham even in his early years spoke out against racial hatred you will also find that he was equally against communism, socialism, the New Deal, the Great society and Martin Luther King’s social gospel which simply tried to interweave socialism into the Gospel.

It is also important to point out that Billy Graham was NOT the originator of these political positions of White Evangelicals, but rather he became their national spokesperson.

Graham believed “the race question” and the Gospel should never be confused.  They were separate issues for him.  He believed that Martin Luther King and many other Christian ministers had mistakenly made racial and economic equality a core tenant of the Gospel.   For Graham the Gospel was simple – it was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  And nothing should be added to it or taken away from it.

It is for all these reasons I have just mentioned that White Evangelicals tend to vote against socialist policies and for the most conservative candidates. And it is for these same reasons that most blacks (including Black Protestants), following in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, tend to vote for socialist policies including social and economic engineering programs.

This is why it is an utter mistake in polling data conclusions or political considerations to lump in Black Protestants with Evangelicals.  While they agree in principle on taking the Bible literally they very much disagree on their interpretation and application of the Bible especially as it relates to what the Gospel is and what government should or should not do.

American Churches Are Still Dominated by Whites or Blacks

Now let’s bring this full circle back to Pew Research’s breakdown of Protestants into the three categories of Evangelical, Mainline and Historically Black – they were absolutely right to do this as these are three separate and distinct groups of Christians in America with VERY different cultural and political beliefs.

The chart I have made below is based off table data from Pew Research’s 2014 “Religious Landscapes” Study specifically from their section entitled “Chapter 3: Demographic Profiles of Religious Groups” [8]:

I know of Protestant churches in my area that are Korean Churches, Chinese Churches or even Arab Churches.  The Baptist Church I attend helped a local Arab Baptist Church put on a vacation Bible school program a few years back.  But the reality is the vast majority of Protestant churches in America are dominated by one of two races – White or Black with other ethnic groups usually comprising minorities in one of these two types of churches.  And of these two racially dominant churches the vast majority are white.

Are Protestants really in a freefall decline?

Now that we have gone over the major categories of Christianity and then Protestant Christianity in America we can continue on to Mr. Jones next supposed evidence for the death of White Christian America.

In his interview with Washington Post writer John Sides, Mr. Jones goes on to speak about the declining numbers of White Protestants in America:

“Up until about a decade ago, most of the decline among white Protestants was confined to mainline Protestants, such as Episcopalians, United Methodists, or Presbyterians, who populate the more liberal branch of the white Protestant family tree. The mainline numbers dropped earlier and more sharply — from 24 percent of the population in 1988 to 14 percent in 2012, at which time their numbers generally stabilized.

But over the last decade, we have seen marked decline among white evangelical Protestants, the more conservative part of the white Protestant family. White evangelical Protestants comprised 22 percent of the population in 1988 and still commanded 21 percent of the population in 2008, but their share of the religious market had slipped to 18 percent at the time the book went to press, and our latest 2015 numbers show an additional one-percentage-point slip to 17 percent.” [9]

 

Let’s now compare what Pew Research stated about White Evangelicals in the 1987 to 2006-time frame:

“The rising political clout of evangelical Christians is not the result of growth in their numbers but rather of their increasing cohesiveness as a key element of the Republican Party. The proportion of the population composed of white evangelicals has changed very little (19% in 1987; 22% now) and what growth there was occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s.” [10]

In 2015 Pew made this statement as to the current population percentage of White Evangelicals:

“To look at it another way, white evangelical Protestants now make up nearly one-in-five (19%) of the nation’s adult population, while evangelical members of other racial and ethnic groups make up roughly another 6% of U.S. adults. Hispanics are the largest group among non-white evangelicals.” [11]

So, what is the major difference between the different pictures of these same time periods painted by PRRI and the Pew Research Center?

The difference is that PRRI attempts to paint a picture that White Evangelicals have not been below 20 percent from the 1980’s on and that now they are consistently losing ground over the last decade.

On the other hand, the Pew Research center analysis shows that White Evangelicals have actually had their numbers fluctuate between the late teens and early twenty percentage rates since the 1980s.  Again, like the argument of lower church attendance by the younger and higher by the older, this pattern is nothing new.  If anything, it shows a consistent level of White Evangelicals over the past several decades.

Evangelicals are Actually Gaining While Other Christian Groups are Shrinking

Now we get into the data that should be an encouragement to White Evangelical Christians about our future in this country.  Pew made this general observation of evangelical Protestants (who are predominately white as we have previously shown):

One big reason evangelical Protestants have not declined at the same rate as other major Christian groups is that they are gaining new converts at a greater rate than they are losing people who were raised in the tradition. While 8.4% of Americans were raised as evangelicals and have since left evangelicalism for another faith (or no faith), even more U.S. adults (9.8%) were raised in another faith (or without a religious affiliation) and have since become evangelicals.

The same cannot be said for Catholics and mainline Protestants. For instance, a significant share of all American adults – 12.9% – are former Catholics, while only 2% have converted to Catholicism after being raised outside the Catholic Church. And 10.4% of the nation’s population is made up of former mainline Protestants, while only 6.1% have joined mainline churches after being raised in another tradition.” [12]

These numbers expose the false narrative of liberals today who say that evangelicalism is dying.  Yes we in evangelical churches have shed the unfaithful and nonbelievers from our midst at a rate just over 8 percent.  But we are gaining those seeking a true and vibrant faith at almost a 10 percent rate!

Why Evangelicals Are Growing While Other Christian Groups Shrink

There is a fantastic article that Glen Stanton wrote in early 2018 for the Federalist entitled “New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger”.  Below are some key observations he makes from the Harvard study:

“New research published late last year by scholars at Harvard University and Indiana University Bloomington is just the latest to reveal the myth. This research questioned the “secularization thesis,” which holds that the United States is following most advanced industrial nations in the death of their once vibrant faith culture. Churches becoming mere landmarks, dance halls, boutique hotels, museums, and all that.

Not only did their examination find no support for this secularization in terms of actual practice and belief, the researchers proclaim that religion continues to enjoy “persistent and exceptional intensity” in America. These researchers hold our nation “remains an exceptional outlier and potential counter example to the secularization thesis…

The percentage of Americans who attend church more than once a week, pray daily, and accept the Bible as wholly reliable and deeply instructive to their lives has remained absolutely, steel-bar constant for the last 50 years or more, right up to today. These authors describe this continuity as “patently persistent…

When the so-called “progressive” churches question the historicity of Jesus, deny the reality of sin, support abortion, ordain clergy in same-sex relationships and perform their marriages, people desiring real Christianity head elsewhere. Fact: evangelical churches gain five new congregants exiled from the liberal churches for every one they lose for any reason. They also do a better job of retaining believers from childhood to adulthood than do mainline churches…” [13]

True believers in Christ want the real thing.  If someone just wants to go to a social club or be part of an organization that fights for things like “social justice” they don’t need a church for that. They can go join some secular political group.  I am not saying there are not true believers who believe that social justice initiatives should be a part of what the church does.  I have met in person and online many people who I think are true believers who think this way, but I simply disagree with them.  What I am saying is that if your main point for attending church is to talk about and fight for social justice initiatives you don’t need a church for that and that is why many liberal protestant churches are bleeding members.

But if what someone is looking for in a Christian Church a true intense faith and a group of like-minded people who believe in a foundation for morality that stands the test of time in the Bible then they will be drawn to evangelical Christian Churches.

Conservative Christians Have More Children Than Other Groups

At the end of his article in the Federalist, Glen Stanton talks about the reason that fundamentalist Christians will eventually outnumber secularists:

“There is another factor at work here beyond orthodox belief. The University of London’s Eric Kaufmann explains in his important book “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?” (he says yes) that the sustaining vitality, and even significant per capita growth, of serious Christian belief is as firmly rooted in fertility as it is in faithful teaching and evangelism. Globally, he says that the more robust baby-making practices of orthodox Jews and Christians, as opposed to the baby-limiting practices of liberals, create many more seriously religious people than a secular agenda can keep up with.” [14]

Now I want to add a point of clarification here.

The Fact is that Eric Kaufmann’s book “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?” is not simply about the reality that Christian fundamentalists are out-breeding secularists, but that all fundamentalists including Jews and Muslims are doing the same.

Below are a few questions that Eric Kaufmann was asked on an Atheist Blog about his thesis that Fundamentalists (Jews, Muslims and Christians) are about to retake the world from secularism:

“Why do fundamentalists have so many babies? Is this a relatively recent trend?”

Fundamentalists have large families because they believe in traditional gender roles, pronatalism (‘go forth and multiply’) and the subordination of individualism to the needs of the religious community.

Is it recent? Yes. First, when we all lived on the land, had no contraception and poor medicine and sanitation, most people — pious or otherwise — needed to have large families to survive. Now, family size has been freed from material constraints by urbanisation, modern medicine and contraception. So values come to the fore, and seculars express their values in smaller families while fundamentalists resist the trend. Fundamentalists don’t actually have more kids than they used to, but nearly all survive, and their relative advantage over others grows. It’s also worth mentioning that fundamentalism is a modern (post-1850 or post-1900) trend: a reaction against secularism or secularised (read: moderate) religion that has become more intense since the 1960s sexual revolution.”

Are fundamentalists concerned with the prospect of an overpopulated earth?

No — they feel God will provide and consider such concerns ‘anti-people’.

This trend of “quiverfull” Christian families and large Catholic families (to name a couple) has been around for a while… And yet, the percentages of non-religious people keep increasing according to recent polls. Does that contradict your thesis?

“No. The composition of a population is always a product of the relative pace of secularisation and religious growth. I use the analogy of a treadmill. Seculars are running on a treadmill that is tilting up and moving against them because of their low fertility and immigration. The religious — notably fundamentalists — are standing still or walking backward, but their treadmill is pushing them forward and tilting downhill. So, in Europe in the late twentieth century, seculars were running fast enough to overcome their demographic disadvantage and overtook the faithful. But today, secularism is slowing down outside England and Catholic Europe, and is facing a more difficult incline from the treadmill of demography. London is a good example: it is more religious now than 20 years ago despite secularisation, simply because of religious immigration and fertility.” [15]

Why This Should Matter to White Evangelicals

A lot of White Evangelicals reading this might be asking “What doe it matter if Whites continue to be a majority in evangelism or even in America? Isn’t it racism to even care if Whites are declining or not?”

I will probably get a lot of Christians who will email this verse to me:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

This is actually the favorite verse of Christian egalitarians, Christian feminists and Christian socialists.  These groups literally read the entire Bible through the lenses of this one verse instead of interpreting this passage within the entire witness of the Scriptures.  So, if you, even as a conservative White Evangelical have been taught this verse means you are not allowed to care about your race in connection with their status in your country let me challenge you with a few passages you may not have heard before.

“7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)

And the parallel passage to this is found in the book of Acts in the New Testament:

“24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”

Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)

My point in showing these passages is that it was God, and not sin that divided men by racial and national borders.  Even Billy Graham mistakenly believed racial divisions were because of sin in the world but that is NOT what the Bible teaches.

Is racial hatred a result of sin? Absolutely.  But racial preference is not.  It is by the very design of God who made all men from the blood of Adam but also divided the sons of Adam.

But loving one’s own family and one’s own race and promoting the good of one’s own family and race is not equivalent to hatred for other races. Racial preference, preferring to marry someone of your race, preferring to live in a neighborhood that is predominantly your race or preferring to go to a church that is your race is not hatred for other races.

I don’t blame Blacks or Asians for wanting the best for their race.  I don’t blame the Hispanics from central America who come from impoverished nations looking for a better life for themselves and their families.

But I can blame the whites of this country who wrongly bought kidnapped black slaves from Africa. I can blame the politicians who rejected Abraham Lincoln’s plan to send the freed blacks back to Africa to avoid future racial strife in America.

I can place the blame squarely on my ancestors in this nation who removed one of the first laws this nation passed, the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted American citizenship to “free white persons”.  They literally took down America’s protection for ethnic homogeneity and opened us up to the racial strife we have seen over the past 150 years.

And I can place the blame on politicians today who refuse to protect the borders of this nation and those who say “I don’t believe in borders” or that borders are an “injustice”.  I can also blame politicians who blame all the ills of minorities in this country on my race.  And I can vote based on these principles as millions of whites did in the last election.

Conclusion

I have shown proof here from multiple sources the Robert Jones’s thesis that White Christianity in America is dying is false.  White Evangelicals, the most conservative and Bible believing of all Christian sects, have hovered in the late teens and early 20 percent range of the population for the last half century.  But as secularists begin to die off and leave little to no offspring behind fundamentalists White Evangelicals will experience a rebirth like nothing seen in the history of this country.

Even if secularists catch on to their own demise there is nothing they can do about it.  Because their individualist selfish philosophy of life won’t allow them to fix the problem.  They can’t have bigger families because for them it is a violation of their own “religion” of secularism to do so.

If you are a white evangelical, you have nothing to be ashamed of if you consider race in whom you date, where you go to church or where you live.  And you certainly do not have to be ashamed of being white or for voting for white candidates for office or for voting for policies that favor your ethnic group.

For more on the subject of nations and race from a Biblical perspective see these other articles I wrote on those subjects – “Is Self-Segregation a Sin in the Bible?” and “Is Ethno-Nationalism a Sin against God or by His design?

 References

[1] J. Sides, “White Christian America is dying”, The Washington Post, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/15/white-christian-america-is-dying/?utm_term=.8175dab35da2.

[2] “Why do levels of religious observance vary by age and country?”, Pew Research Center, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/why-do-levels-of-religious-observance-vary-by-age-and-country/.

[3] Michael Barone, “Is the end of white Christian America a good thing?”, Washington Examiner, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is-the-end-of-white-christian-america-a-good-thing.

[4] P. Bacon & A. Thomson-DeVeaux, “How Trump And Race Are Splitting Evangelicals”, FiveThirtyEight.com, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trump-and-race-are-splitting-evangelicals/.

[5] R. Jones, “White Christmas, Black Christmas”, The Atlantic, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/white-christmas-black-christmas-evangelical-christian-racial-divide/383986/.

[6] J. Blake, “Where Billy Graham ‘missed the mark’”, CNN, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/us/billy-graham-mlk-civil-rights/index.html.

[7] M. Sutton, “Billy Graham was on the wrong side of history”, The Guardian, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/21/billy-graham-wrong-side-history.

[8] “Chapter 3: Demographic Profiles of Religious Groups”, Pew Research Center, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/#race-and-ethnicity-of-religious-groups.

[9] J. Sides, “White Christian America is dying”, The Washington Post, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/15/white-christian-america-is-dying/?utm_term=.8175dab35da2.

[10] S. Keeter, “Will White Evangelicals Desert the GOP?”, Pew Research Center, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewresearch.org/2006/05/02/will-white-evangelicals-desert-the-gop/.

[11] D. Masci, “Compared with other Christian groups, evangelicals’ dropoff is less steep”, Pew Research Center, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/15/compared-with-other-christian-groups-evangelicals-dropoff-is-less-steep/.

[12] Ibid.

[13] G. Stanton, “Will White Evangelicals Desert the GOP?”, The Federalist, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2010/03/19/interview-with-eric-kaufmann-author-of-shall-the-religious-inherit-the-earth/.

[14] Ibid.

[15] “Interview with Eric Kaufmann, Author of Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?”, FriendlyAtheist.Patheos.com, 2010. [Online]. Available: http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2010/03/19/interview-with-eric-kaufmann-author-of-shall-the-religious-inherit-the-earth/.

Is God’s Command to Be Fruitful and Multiply Descriptive or Prescriptive for Christians?

“I would be willing to theologically contest that “be fruitful and multiply” is a prescriptive command for each individual.” This was the assertion made by a Christian man I recently was conversing with on Facebook.   Here is was his fully comment:

“I would be willing to theologically contest that “be fruitful and multiply” is a prescriptive command for each individual. Rather it was a descriptive account of what God said at the beginning of his creation to Adam and Eve so mankind would grow, and was repeated to Noah since he had decimated Earth’s population with the flood. It’s not a command you see repeated in the Law of Moses as a command to the Israelites though, for example.”

I thought it would be good to let my readers know my response to this assertion as it is one that is commonly made today.

Below is my response.

I would agree with you that Christianity made singleness a legitimate way of life but only in service to God. Singleness was not encouraged so that one could live selfishly and escape the many responsibilities that come with marriage and family.

The command to be fruitful and multiply is actually renewed in the law of Levirate marriage in Moses Law:

“5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. 6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 25:5-6 (KJV)

God was not just concerned with a man marrying and having his own children, but he was so concerned about this that he commanded men to marry their brother’s wife if he died with no children to carry on his name.

God repeats his “be fruitful and multiply” command in different language in the book of Jeremiah:

“Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.”

Jeremiah 29:6 (KJV)

Incidentally – this is why American and western nations are seeing their native populations die out and only through immigration do they continue to grow. We are actually seeing the native population of the United States dwindle each year because women born and raised in American are not having enough children. We are having roughly 1.76  births per woman in the US which is well below the replacement level of 2.1. Check out the article entitled “The historically low birthrate, explained in 3 charts” from Vox.com actually praising these falling birth rates.

That number is actually inflated by immigrant women who tend to have more children than women born and raised here and if we did not count immigrant women having children it would be even less.

This is the direct result of our culture disobeying God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.

So sir I kindly and respectfully disagree with you that God’s command to have children (which would first require marriage) was “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive”. Celibacy is the exception to his rule but it does not negate his rule.

This is why I feel some Christian teachers have gone too far with celibacy and are attempting to normalize it. We can honor celibacy in the service of God while at the same upholding God’s very first command to mankind to be fruitful and multiply.

Does a Christian Wife Have to Submit to an Unbelieving Husband?

“Does the bible say anything about women being with men who aren’t followers of God? Is a man who doesn’t even believe in God still entitled to a submissive wife or am I now exempt from that?” – These questions and others were recently asked to me in an email I received from a newly married young Christian woman calling herself “D”.

D’s Story

“Hi there, If you don’t mind may I call myself “D?” I am a 27 year of woman and I have been quietly reading your blog for a while after I stumbled upon it while I was seeking out some answers online about my lifestyle. While I cannot say that I live a lifestyle that is completely working in tandem with the things you talk about, I do find your insight interesting and honest. I appreciate the thought and honesty even if I don’t always understand or want to agree with some of the things being said. If you don’t mind, I was wondering if you could help lend some insight on something that has been troubling me? I don’t really know where to go to find answers as it seems society throws people left and right, often even shaming people for wanting to understand.

I would like to start by explaining my lifestyle dynamic first so you can gain an understanding of where I am coming from. This might seem long and drawn out but stay with me, it’s sort of complicated. I do not attend church, well I have not committed myself to a church yet but I do go from time to time. I would consider myself a Christian, even if my choices didn’t always show that. While believing in God there has always been a somewhat liberal understanding of how things worked for me. As I grow older I realize how confused I really am, I was brought up one way, society tells me something else, while my heart yearns for more knowledge.

I have been happily married for 2 and 1/2 years, but here is where most Christians are going to frown down on me…

My husband doesn’t believe in God, we are intermixed in that way and I know that’s not the ideal circumstance! I will clear things up by mentioning it’s basically a mirror image of how my dad was, not believing in God while my mother did, it’s what is normal to me so I felt comfortable doing it. I wonder, did I mess up, am I wrong for this?  I love my husband and I would NOT like to be one of the couples that ends up in a divorce due to our differences and arguing over stupid petty things. I hope that one day he can change his mind about God, I really have hope for that. Still in the back of my head I wonder am I wrong to be with him because of our religious differences, will we fail for this reason? I want to ensure that I won’t end up in a divorce, we really only fight about petty things for the most part.

Generally he tells me that “I don’t listen” or that “I argue with him too much.” His solution is just that I should do what he says. I feel that isn’t a reasonable for our situation for us though because our marriage isn’t exactly founded on those biblical principles, so why is he still asking for them? It frustrates me and even angers me sometimes.

Does the bible say anything about women being with men who aren’t followers of God? Is a man who doesn’t even believe in God still entitled to a submissive wife or am I now exempt from that? How do I deal with this? This is just such a strange situation and I don’t know what to do. Part of me says “I should do what he says so he is happy and we don’t fail in our marriage” while the other part says “well he is clearly wrong he doesn’t even believe in God, therefore he has no idea what he is talking about.” Also, I wonder which is worse for a Christian to be married to a non-Christian or for that couple to get in a divorce?

I would like to thank you for your time, I hope this didn’t sound too confusing. I know that you base most of your dealings with couples who are both Christians but it would mean a lot to me if you could look into my situation as well as it has been eating a way at me for a while now. If you’d like to use my story as a concept for your blog, I would be okay with that too. I wonder if there are other people struggling with my situation.”

Below are the answers to D’s concerns.

The First and Most Important Question Is Are you a Christian?

D’ Statement of her faith:

“I would consider myself a Christian, even if my choices didn’t always show that. While believing in God there has always been a somewhat liberal understanding of how things worked for me. As I grow older I realize how confused I really am, I was brought up one way, society tells me something else, while my heart yearns for more knowledge.”

I have said many times on this blog that the most important doctrine of the Bible and really the most important question of life is this:

Have we truly accepted the one true God, the God of the Bible and his Son Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior believing that he died for our sins, was buried and rose again on the third day?

So, if you cannot answer with a clear and resounding yes to that question I encourage you to reach out in faith to God today and place your faith and trust in Jesus Christ today as your Lord and Savior.

The Gospel is NOT the Only Important Doctrine We Need to Accept

Just because the Gospel is the most important doctrine in the Bible does not mean it is the ONLY important doctrine in the Bible.  Many Christians and Churches today falsely believe that if they are preaching the Gospel and the Gospel alone that they are doing all God requires.  They believe everything else should be left alone for each individual Christian to figure out on his or her own.  But God did leave us to wonder on our own as believers and the Scriptures tell us he gives us teachers to teach us in his Word:

“11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ”

Ephesians 4:11-13 (KJV)

While the office of Apostle was temporary to start Christ’s Church and true Prophets will probably not appear till the end of days we do today still see God call men to serve him as evangelists, pastors and teachers.  I believe God has placed a calling on my life to be a teacher of his Word and this how I minister to his people through this blog.

The Bible also tells us that husbands are to be spiritual teachers of their wives:

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

1 Corinthians 14:34-36 (KJV)

The Scriptures exhort husbands to follow Christ’s example and wash their wives with the Word of God and again this requires teaching, correction and sometimes rebuke:

“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.”

Ephesians 5:25-27 (KJV)

Also, Christ when speaking to his Churches of which the Bible pictures him as their husband stated this:

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”

Revelation 3:19 (KJV)

Having started with this as our foundation, let us now move on to questions for true believing Christian wives who are living with unbelieving husbands.

Which is worse for a Christian to be married to a non-Christian or for that couple to get in a divorce?

There are three ways a Christian could end being with an unbelieving spouse:

  1. They were not a Christian when they married and neither was their spouse. Then they became a Christian after marriage.
  2. A Christian marries another person who claims to be a Christian but the person reveals later that they never truly were a Christian.
  3. A Christian willfully and knowingly marries a non-believer.

There is no sin on the part of a Christian who ends up with an unbelieving spouse because of the first two scenarios.  However, if a Christian knowingly marries a non-believer than that Christian has a committed a sin against God according to the following passage:

“14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

2 Corinthians 6:14-16 (KJV)

However, the Scriptures tells us this if we find ourselves with an unbelieving spouse (not matter the circumstances of how we came to that position):

“13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace…

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

I Corinthians 7:13-15 & 39 (KJV)

So here is what the Apostle Paul is stating by the inspiration of God in the above passage.  If a man or woman find themselves with a spouse that is not a believer and that unbeliever wants to stay married to them they must stay in that marriage.  However, if the unbelieving spouse wants to depart then they may let them depart and the believing brother or sister are not bound to that marriage in those cases.

When we look at verse 39 in the context of verses 13-15 of this chapter as well as passages like Exodus 21:10-11 then we understand that if a Christian woman’s unbelieving husband provides her with food, clothing, shelter and sexual relations and he wants to remain married to her she is bound to him for life and may not leave him.

So, if your unbelieving husband matches that criteria – you cannot leave him.  You are bound to him for life.

So, even if you willingly married a non-believing husband (which was a sin) if you divorce him without just cause that God allows for you are compounding that sin and doing something even worse.  The fact is God can forgive you of the sin of marrying a non-Christian and he may even use you to win him to Christ as we will talk about in the next section.

Is a man who doesn’t even believe in God still entitled to a submissive wife or am I now exempt from that?

The Bible directly answers this question of yours in the following text:

“1 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.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

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 3:1-6 (KJV)

So, the Scriptures tell you as a Christian woman to do something that very much goes against your sin nature.  If your husband is doing something your believe is disobedient to God whether it is how he conducts various aspects of his personal life or even how he treats your or your children your sinful response is to try and correct him, rebuke him and then free yourself from his authority.

But the Scriptures tell you to attempt to win your husband into obedience to God whether by accepting Christ as his savior or getting his life right with God if he is a Christian.  It tells you to win him without the word, without preaching at him and instead win him by your subjection to him, your living a pure life before him and your reverencing him.

The False Teaching that I Peter 3:1-6 Only Applies to Unbelieving Husbands

The key phrase “if any obey not the word” refers to husbands who are disobedient to the Word of God.  This would cover unbelieving husbands who “obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thessalonians 1:8) as well as those husbands who claim Christ as their savior but are disobedient to his Word in various ways.

I have heard many Christian women say “if any obey not the word” is strictly speaking about unbelieving husbands and does not apply to Christian husbands who are disobedient to the Word in various ways.  So, they literally try and have us believe that I Peter 3:1-6 does not apply at all to wives married to Christian husbands and they have thereby nullified the Word of God.   In other words, they believe if their Christian husband is disobedient to God in his lifestyle in anyway they deem too serious they have the right to free themselves from his authority.  His spiritual authority in their view is now forfeit.

The problem with this interpretation is that verse 5 blows it out of the water:

“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.”

After Peter describes the type of submission that wives are to have to their husbands who are disobedient to the Word he then writes a key phrase “For after this manner” and then he goes on to talk about the holy women of old times like Sara who obeyed Abraham calling him lord.  Was Abraham an unbeliever? We know he was not an unbeliever as the Bible presents him as a man who “believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (Romans 4:3).

Therefore, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt based on the full context of this passage that the phrase “if any obey not the word” absolutely applies to both unbelieving as well as believing husbands who are disobedient to the Word of God.

Can My Unbelieving Husband Demand My Submission to Him?

Another false teaching among egalitarians and sadly even most complementarians today is that a husband (whether he is a believer or not) cannot in any way compel his wife’s submission to him.  In fact, that is why most complementarians in our modern times reject a husband’s authority to discipline his wife for her failure to submit to his authority.  They teach the Biblical submission of a wife to her husband is completely voluntary and the part of the wife and this should not be any concern of the husband.

This false teaching comes from a faulty understanding The Greek word hupotasso which is translated as “submit”, “subject”, “subjection” and “obedient” in our English translations of the Bible.

This is the definition of hupotasso according to Thayer’s and Smith’s Bible Dictionary:

    “to arrange under, to subordinate

to subject, put in subjection

to subject one’s self, obey

to submit to one’s control

to yield to one’s admonition or advice

to obey, be subject

A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”.”

So, like many words in the Bible, the context in which hupotasso is used determines if it is a voluntary attitude of giving in and cooperating with someone who is an equal verses the military use of the word which is an involuntary submission to one’s authority.

In Ephesians 5:19-24 we read the following:

“19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; 21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

If you notice above I have put a separation in the text between verses 21 and 22.  In the NIV and many modern translations they will be put a separation between verses 20 and 21 and the NIV even puts a note above verse 21 making it seem as though verse 21 is speaking to the husband wife relationship.

Again, just like we discussed with I Peter 3:1-6 context is key.  Here in Ephesians 5:1-21 Paul is speaking to Christians in the Church in general about holy living.  He then ends his general call to holy living for Christians with a call for Christians to submit to one another – this is not the military type of submission of one under authority to another, but it is the voluntary submission of equals serving and cooperating with one another.

Then he turns to the subject of marriage and the family in Ephesians 5:22.

First and foremost you will never find one passage in the Scriptures that tells a husband to submit to his wife.  Not one. You will see egalitarians try and throw smoke up about God telling Abraham to listen to Sarah regarding Hagar (Genesis 21:12).  But this was not God telling him to submit to his wife, but rather for him in this instance to act on her advice.  Nothing in the Scriptures forbids wives from making requests of their husbands and giving them advice.  And sometimes God will lead us as Christian husbands to act on our wife’s advice but this is not a husband submitting to this wife.  This is no different than a King who grants the request of one his servants or follows the advice of one his advisors.

So how do we know what kind of submission it is that God calls wives to regarding their husbands? The found in the words surround the call for wives to submit to their husbands.  First in verse 22 God calls wives to submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord”.  In no other passage of Scripture do we find God calling someone to submit to a human authority as unto God.  But only in the husband wife relationship do we see this comparison.  Verse 23 further bolsters this by telling wives that their husbands are their head as Christ is the head of the Church and then in verse 24 he tells wives to submit to their husbands as the Church is to submit to Christ in everything.

So which kind of submission is God calling for? The voluntary type of serving submission between equals or the military type of submission where one is called to submit to and obey the one in authority over them? The answer is clear and indisputable.  God is calling for the military type of submission from a wife toward her husband.

When egalitarians and even complentarians say that a wife’s submission in this passage is the voluntary submission between equals they are breaking the model that is being setup here.  God is basing a wife’s submission on the model of our obedience to him and the Church’s obedience to Christ.  Are Christ and the Church equals? We know they are not.  Christ is the authority of the Church and he demands his Church’s obedience to him.

Therefore, we can say beyond a doubt that the submission that God calls wives to toward their husbands is the military type of submission which is mandatory. And just as commanders in the military must be concerned with and compel the submission of those under their authority so too husbands must compel their wife’s submission to them.

A husband who refuses to compel his wife’s submission to his authority is just as delict in his duty before God as the wife is who refuses to submit to her husband’s authority.  They both are failing to model the relationship of Christ to his Church where he compels the obedience of his Church and the Church submits herself to Christ.

Conclusion

You stated this regarding your unbelieving husband’s insistence that you stop arguing with him so much and simply do what he tells you to do:

“Generally he tells me that “I don’t listen” or that “I argue with him too much.” His solution is just that I should do what he says. I feel that isn’t a reasonable for our situation for us though because our marriage isn’t exactly founded on those biblical principles, so why is he still asking for them?”

Based on all the Scriptures I have presented to you in this article I hope you realize that your husband’s motivation for asking for your submission is irrelevant in God’s view.  God wants you to submit to him whether he asks for your submission or not.  Your husband may want you to submit for totally selfish reasons but God wants you to submit to him, not to make him happy, but for two reasons.  The first is just as I Peter 3:1-2 states that you may be able to win him to Christ by your submission, pure life and reference for him. The second is that by submitting to him you fulfill your role to model the Church’s obedience to Christ even if your husband is not fulfilling the role of loving you as Christ loves his Church.

So, D – you should absolutely listen more, talk less and don’t argue with your husband.  It is one thing to give him respectful advice or make a request and let him decide what to do.  It is another to argue with him.  D – do you realize how if you completely changed your attitude on this and truly just talked less and submitted more that this change could cause your husband to inquire of you what happened? Then you could share with him how God changed your heart on this matter and that God showed you he wants you to submit to your husband and serve him as the Church submits to and serves Christ.

This will also remove a lot of your frustration.  Because then you will realize this is not about you.  This is about Christ.  In way you are being just as selfish as you believe your husband is being.  You are making your marriage about you.  It’s not about you and your personal happiness.  It’s about God and his plan for your life.  Your service and submission to your husband is your service and your submission to God.

I pray that you and all Christian women who read this and who live with disobedient husbands will humble themselves today and truly submit to their husbands as unto the Lord.

New Studies Show Even Feminist Women Still Prefer Sexist Men

Women in general and even women who consider themselves strong feminists showed the same preference for sexist men over egalitarian men according to five studies carried out by scientists from the University of Kent and Iowa State University.  It turns out that no matter what political or philosophical background they come from, women prefer the muscular guy with money who opens doors for them to the weak and skinny egalitarian dude that will treat them just like one of the guys.

And in other breaking news a new study confirms that water is wet.  Ok that second study was fake.  But you get my point. Anyone who lives around women, works around women or has sisters knows what these studies concluded is just common sense.  Yes, there are those rare women, feminist or otherwise, that actually prefer the weak and skinny egalitarian dude that treats them like one of the guys but most women don’t operate that way.

Below are some conclusions the study found according to an article from the dailymail.co.uk:

“Benevolent means well-meaning or kind, and experts define the sexism as men who, for example, think women are more delicate or should be cherished or looked after by a man.

This is different to hostile sexism in which women are degraded, such as saying a woman’s place is in the kitchen.

Sexist attitudes were the norm for decades, particularly after the Second World War, and saw men as breadwinners and women as homemakers.

But this has shifted in recent years as gender attitudes change, more women focus on their careers, and couples increasingly share their parenting duties…

Women are more attracted to men who are sexist because they think they are more willing to protect them, provide for them and commit to a relationship, scientists say. Men who are considered to be sexist in a well-meaning way – for example if they are chivalrous or think women need a man to protect them – may be more attractive.

Even though women find these men patronising and can feel undermined by them, they are more likely to want to couple up with them than with men who don’t give them special treatment. Researchers say women may be hard-wired to think the benefits of being with a kind but sexist man outweigh the downsides.

The scientists maintain that, despite romantic and flattering elements of the relationship, even well-meaning sexism reinforces the idea women are inferior. And even women who consider themselves strong feminists showed the same preferences in the study by British and US researchers

In the study, women’s attraction to this willingness to invest is traced to a more basic hard-wired survival instinct, in which females choose mates in order to improve their children’s chance of survival.

A male who is more likely to be protective or provide food for the family would improve the chance of offspring surviving, the study explains.

This may have in turn shaped women’s psychology to make them subconsciously prefer men who are a bit sexist.”

The Great Lie of “Sexism”

In our American as well as other western cultures today, we are taught a great lie.  We are taught that if a person believes that someone’s gender determines what roles they should or should not perform in society that this person is holding an immoral belief.  The term “sexist” was coined in the late 1960’s by feminists and was employed as a scarlet letter of sorts to shame and ostracize anyone who held to such “unequal”, “outdated” and “unfair” beliefs about gender.

In fact, another word “misogynist” was used to ratchet up the heat on those who held to such “ancient” beliefs.  If you were a sexist, then you were also a misogynist or hater of women.  This same tactic was used in all kinds of social movements to paint anyone who believed in any different rights or privileges for anyone of any kind as being a “hater” of that group.

For instance, in 2018, we are told that if you believe both illegal and legal immigrants who are not United States citizens should not have the same rights and privileges as US citizens then you are a called a hater of immigrants.

But God’s Word shines a light on this great lie that believing men and women should have different rights and responsibilities somehow is hatred of women or immoral.  The belief that women should be “Barefoot and pregnant” or in other words get married, bear children and be homemakers is clearly backed up by the Bible:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV)

Were Sexist Attitudes the Norm Only After World War II?

“Sexist attitudes were the norm for decades, particularly after the Second World War, and saw men as breadwinners and women as homemakers.” Really? Every time I see statements like this it makes me laugh.  The reason it makes me laugh is because of this myth that people teach today that somehow these “sexist” views of men and women were somehow new after World War II.

For the entire history of mankind these were the roles that societies across the world cast men and women into.  Were there exceptions to this rule? Yes.  Did some women have higher educations and careers throughout history? Yes.  In other cases, did many women help their husbands out on their family farms or other such family businesses? Certainly.  Were there families that were so destitute that the woman was forced to go and work away from the home while the children were cared for by another family member? Absolutely.

But the point is that this was not seen by society as the ideal to strive for.  Societies across the world prior to the Second Wave feminism of the 1960s very much held what we call today a “sexist” belief that men are to be providers and women are to be homemakers.

Three Different Kinds of Sexists

These studies came up with two categories of sexist men.  One they labeled as a “Hostile Sexist” and the other as a “Benevolent Sexist”.  I actually agree with them that there are multiple categories of sexist men but I would expand it to three categories of sexist men as opposed to just the two.

The Hostile Sexist Man

This study says that a man has hostile sexist views toward women if he believes “a woman’s place is in the kitchen”. The truth of the matter is that God’s Word reveals that the “kitchen”, or in other words the caring for the food needs of the home, does in fact belong to the woman as we see in the passage below:

“She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.”

Proverbs 31:15 (KJV)

So, if believing in different roles for men and women is not the Biblical definition of being a hostile sexist what is? We can find the answer by looking the follow passages for the answer:

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

I Peter 3:1 (KJV)

“Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.”

Colossians 3:19 (KJV)

As we can see according to the Bible, a hostile sexist man is one who dishonors and has bitterness toward women. 

Now Christian feminists would seize upon those two words “dishonors” and “bitterness” to fill in their own definitions.  I have been accused by countless readers of showing dishonor toward women and being bitter at women.  But it is not dishonoring to women to teach what God teaches about women.  It is not dishonoring to women to teach that God did not give men and women equal rights and equal responsibilities.

It is not showing bitterness toward women to share of the hurts that I have suffered at the hands of my first wife when she committed adultery or my second wife when she has sexually denied me or disrespected me based on her feminist background.  It is no more bitterness toward women to share of these hurtful things women do toward their husbands than it is for a woman’s site to share stories of emotional or physically abusive husbands.

I have actually warned men on this site many times not to allow their hurt or even righteous anger toward sinful behavior on the part of their wives to turn into bitterness.  I have had men come through this site throughout the years and display actual hatred toward the female sex and I have condemned such hatred.

The truth is that all these false accusations of me hating women is just a cop out on the part of my detractors.  These false accusations are what is called “ad hominem attacks”.  This is when someone attacks the person presenting a belief or an argument rather than the belief or argument itself.  These kinds of false attacks actually display the weakness of those who oppose the beliefs I espouse based on the Bible.

Believing in gender roles and hating feminism does not equate to being hostile toward or hating women.  This is part of the great lie we are told today and as Bible believing Christians we must combat this lie with the Word of God.

The Benevolent Sexist Man

The studies we are discussing defined the benevolent sexist man as one who is “well-meaning or kind, and experts define the sexism as men who, for example, think women are more delicate or should be cherished or looked after by a man.

This Benevolent Sexist man displays no hatred toward women but on the contrary he practically worships women.

But is this behavior what the Bible calls for on the part of men toward women? The answer is no. Some might respond with the question “Doesn’t the Bible tell men to cherish their wives?” Yes, it does.  It is absolutely true that the Bible commands husbands to cherish their wives as we see from the Scripture passage below:

“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 5:28-29 (KJV)

In the minds of most women today to cherish means to worship.  That really is the whole idea of romance.  Romance is about a man making a woman’s happiness the central focus of his life.  How many songs do we hear where men say things like “you’re the meaning in my life, you’re the inspiration”.

It is absolutely intoxicating for most women to hear men tell them that they can think of nothing but her.  They only have eyes for her.  Women love it, they just eat it up when a man tells them that their happiness is his most important goal in this world.

But the truth is that this is NOT what the Bible is saying when it tells men to cherish their wives. 

When the Bible tells men to cherish their wives it is telling them to protect their wives.  When it tells them to nourish their wives it is telling them to provide for their wives’ physical needs.  So yes, the Bible tells men to be providers and protectors of their wives but it never tells them to worship their wives or make their wives happiness the central focus of their lives.

This study reveals that women are attracted to these benevolent sexist men and why wouldn’t most women be attracted to men like this?  If a woman were to find a man who wants to provide for her, protect her and worship the very ground she walks on why would she not be attracted to this from a human perspective? Having someone who wants to be our servant, do whatever makes us happy and provide us with a house, food, clothes, money and also protect us from those who would do us harm would be attractive to many women and men for that matter.

A lot of Christian husbands today are actually benevolent sexists in how they date and in how they conduct themselves as husbands once they marry.  It is not wrong that they feel a duty to provide for and protect their wives.  It is not wrong that they want to display kindness toward women in general or their wives in particular.  Those traits are good traits that we as Christians should honor in men. But where these benevolent sexist Christian men fail is in worshiping their wives and making their wife’s happiness the central focus of their lives.

A Word on Fake Benevolent Sexist Men

Before I continue to the third type of sexist man we need to recognize the reality of men who fake being benevolent sexists. The truth is that many men while dating will play the part of the benevolent sexist only to reveal later on that they are actually a hostile sexist.  A lot of men know that worshiping a woman is the key to getting sex from her.  They have their mission, so they size her up and they do what it takes to get to their goal.  Some of these men go for the one-night stand where they worship a woman all night long acting like they want a long-term relationship only to disappear in the morning.  Others will see the relationship through until marriage and then after marriage their true hostile sexist mentality is revealed.  And just as a side note – there are men that fake being egalitarians too just to get in the ladies’ pants.  There are myriads of these men in Hollywood and across America.

The Biblical Sexist Man

The Biblical sexist man believes very much like the genuine benevolent sexist man that God wants him as a man to provide for, protect and commit to a woman in marriage.  He also believes God calls him to be kind and compassionate toward women in general and especially his wife in particular. 

This Biblical Sexist man does not act in hateful ways toward women as the Hostile sexist man neither does he engage in woman worship as the Benevolent sexist man does.

The Biblical sexist man worships God alone and at the same time shows proper love and honor toward his woman not only by providing for her and protecting her by also by leading her as Christ does his Church and  teaching her and correcting her by washing her spiritual spots and wrinkles with the Word of God.

He knows that to worship his woman or make her the central focus of his life would betray the purpose for which God made him, women and intimate relationships between men and women.

The Scriptures tell us God’s purpose in making male human beings in the Genesis account:

“26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. “

Genesis 1:26-27 (KJV)

The Apostle Paul gives us divine commentary from God further elaborating on the Genesis creation account:

“3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God…7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

I Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9 (KJV)

Paul points out to us that God created man to be his image bearer and he created woman to help man in playing out his image bearer role. Man could only fully image God by being a husband and a father.  This is why God created woman and marriage to help man fulfill this task.   God shows us this purpose in marriage the same chapter that tells men to cherish(protect) their wives:

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

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 5:22-28 (KJV)

God created marriage so that man and woman could model the relationship of God to his people and thus this would help man to fulfill his purpose to image God.  God wants husbands to love their wives as he loves his people.  He wants men to sacrificially love their wives, he wants them to teach and correct their wives and so wash their spiritual spots and blemishes with the Word of God.  He wants men to care for their wives as they do their own bodies by protecting them and providing for them as they would their own bodies.

God also wants women to submit to and serve their husbands as mankind is to submit to and serve God.  A wife’s mission is her husband, her children and her home.  In regard to her husband, her mission is to help him fulfill the mission God has given to him.

The Biblical sexist man knows that to make his wife’s happiness the central focus of his relationship with her would be to betray his purpose to image God as a husband to his wife. He knows that he must lead her, teach her and correct her and this will not always make her happy.  He also realizes that as part of his leadership of his wife he must teach her to live out the truth that God made him to serve God by imaging him and he made her for him to help him in his mission.

In other words, one of the greatest duties a Biblical sexist man has in his marriage is to teach his wife that their marriage does not revolve her desires and her happiness.  Instead every Biblical sexist husband must teach his wife that he is to focus on his mission to image God and she is to focus on her mission to serve him and help him in his mission.

The Biblical sexist man also knows though that while his relationships with his wife and children are vital parts of his overall mission to image God they are not all God has for him to do.  God is not just a husband to his people or a father to his children but he is also an inventor, a builder, a teacher, a worker, an artist, a writer, a warrior and a ruler.  So too God calls men to be in these different roles and in doing so they image him.  The Scriptures tell us the following concerning men and their work:

“And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”

Genesis 3:15 (KJV)

“Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening.”

Psalm 104:23 (KJV)

“Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion…”

Ecclesiastes 3:22 (KJV)

“And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;”

Colossians 3:23 (KJV)

“And let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it.”

Psalm 90:17 (KJV)

Reclaiming Sexism For Christ

To often we as conservatives and Christians allow liberal Christians and non-Christians to define the language of our discussions.  Leftist and secularists are masters of taking words and twisting them for their perverted purposes.  Take the word “gay” which at one time simply meant “happy”.  This word was hijacked to represent homosexual men.

Some may be shocked at the title of this section “Reclaiming Sexism For Christ” because in our culture we associate Sexism with bad behavior.  But we as Christians serve a God who is in the business of reclaiming things for his purposes.  The cross was once a symbol of shame yet Christ took it and made it a symbol of hope and salvation.  Even the term “Christian” was once used as a derogatory term in labeling followers of Christ.  But again Christians took what was meant as badge of shame and made it a badge of honor.

In the same way we as Christians can redeem the Sexism and specifically the word “sexist” for Christ.  When people say they can’t stand “sexists” that is our opportunity as Bible believing Christians to share with them the truth of God.  I have actually done this on many occasions.  I have told people in these conversations that I am a sexist but when I explain to them what kind of sexist I am and why believe what I believe from the Bible often times they have never heard the Scriptures I present.

In fact I was just at a dinner recently with family where I shared why I was a sexist and one woman was astonished at the Scriptures I presented.  I explained to her that in no way do I hate women or ever want to see women as a gender demeaned or dishonored.  I explained to her that we as men should honor our mothers and our wives as God commands.  But I said I also believe that God created men and women for very different purposes.  I told her that because I believe men and women should do different things based on their gender that makes me a sexist.

She asked “Why have I never heard these Scriptures in Church before?” And I told her because our churches have been infested with feminism and the vast majority of Pastors have simply bowed to our culture.

I told her that God calls us as Christians to live counter to the culture.  He calls us to not conform to the patterns and thinking of this world but to be transformed by his Word.  In this way I was actually able to use the term “sexist” as a way to teach the truth of God’s Word.

Conclusion

The fact that women are attracted to sexist men who are strong and can provide for them is not simply some hardwiring left over by evolution.   As Christians we know this is by the design of almighty God.

The Bible tells us in I Corinthians 11:9 that “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.  Every part of a woman’s being was made for man and his benefit.  Woman was perfectly created for her task by God.  In doing this God created woman as “the weaker vessel” (I Peter 3:7) because God wanted her to need man’s strength as mankind needs God’s strength. God created woman to be beautiful and he created her to desire to be beautiful because God desires the beauty of his people (Psalm 45:11). He created her to be a companion and the bearer of his children.

God created every desire a woman has to help man fulfill his primary mission to image God.  God planted in the female human nature her desire for the strength, protection and provision of man.  He did this so that man could be the strong protector and provider to woman as God is the strong provider and protector to mankind. The man would desire to protect and provide for a woman and a woman would desire to be protected and provided for by a man.  It was a beautiful and glorious picture that God meant to be painted.  He setup the pieces perfectly.

But sin corrupted God’s plan for man and woman.  Sin warped and twisted a woman’s desire for the strength, protection and provision of man into a desire to make men their servants, rather than their masters as God intended it to be.  Instead of desiring to serve her husband and follow his leadership, her sin nature causes her to desire to control her husband (Genesis 3:16).

Application for Christian Men

  1.  Will you as a Christian man repent of any dishonorable behavior or bitterness that you have toward women as a gender or even particular women in your life?
  2. Will you as a Christian man accept that your desire to protect and provide for a woman is not wrong but is in fact right in God’s eyes?
  3.  Will you as a Christian man accept that your desire to lead a woman and your family is not wrong but is in fact right in God’s eyes?
  4.  Will you as a Christian man stop being ashamed of your masculine nature and accept that this is in fact the image of God in you?
  5.  Will you as a Christian man accept that worshiping women is just as much a sin in the eyes of God’s as being hostile toward women?

Application for Christian Woman

  1. Will you as a Christian woman accept all God’s design for you as a woman and not just the parts you like as in your attraction to strong men who are able to provide?
  2.  Will you as a Christian woman reject your sinful inclination to be worshiped by men?
  3.  Will you as a Christian woman reject your sinful inclination to be the center of your husband’s life?
  4.  Will you as a Christian woman accept that you were created for man and that he was not created for you?