Why God Wants You to Seduce Your Husband

Most Christian wives today are taught that their husbands must earn sex with them by romancing them. What if the Bible taught the opposite? What if wives were required to seduce their husbands?

I know it sounds crazy. The Bible couldn’t possibly tell women they need to seduce their husbands, right?

Well if you give me a few minutes of your time the answer might surprise you.

In my article “How the Church Made Sex Dirty” I explain how Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria made sexual desire, even in marriage, to be dirty and sinful. This false doctrine infected the churches like a disease shortly after the Apostles death.  I show in that article that the Bible in fact has a very positive view of sex and in no way, does the Bible support the false teaching that sex is only for procreative purposes.  This false teaching is still alive and well in Christian churches all across the world today.

The negative view of sex was even worse when it came to women than to men. Women were taught to view sex as dirty and women who expressed any pleasurable thoughts about sex were condemned as whorish.

This brings us to how women view sex today in our modern era.

Six Modern Feminine Views of Sex

Below are six views of sexuality that women have today. I know some people hate to be boxed into categories.  But if you are a woman reading this, and you are honest with yourself or asked your husband to be honest with you, you would find that you will come closer to one of these categories than the others.

The Frigid Wife

This Frigid wife views sex as a dirty activity that is a necessary evil for conceiving children.  She has no desire to be touched in a sexual way or to touch her husband in a sexual way. If her husband presses her for sexual relations outside the context of trying to conceive a child she may reluctantly and grudgingly agree to do this “dirty” act with him.  But she will have a nasty look on her face and be lifeless as he has sex with her.

The Submissive Wife

The Submissive wife has regular sexual relations with her husband whenever he desires it because she believes God tells her to and she believes this will help keep him from sexual temptation. But she views sex from the female perspective as more of a “receptive” position.  She does not take any proactive steps to sexually arouse her husband or seduce her husband. She may actually enjoy sex sometimes with her husband but never enough to want to initiate it with him – she always waits for him to initiate sex.

The Romantic Wife

The Romantic wife loves sex but only views sex from a relational, romantic and feelings oriented position. She would reject the view of the Frigid wife that sex is only for procreation and she would also reject the view of the Submissive wife that a woman should just be in a submissive position to have sex with her husband whenever he desires it.

The Romantic wife believes her husband must earn each sexual encounter with her by romancing her.  If for any reason, she does not feel like having sex then sex will not occur. Like the Submissive wife though, she rarely if ever initiates sex with her husband because she believes sex in a marriage should always center on a husband romancing his wife.

The Nympho Wife

The Nympho wife is a woman that has a sexual nature that is more similar to that of a man than a woman in that her sex drive is more physically oriented than relationally oriented. This type of woman could easily be having sex with multiple men in the same period in her unending quest for sexual pleasure.

The Nympho wife’s primary goal in sex is not procreation nor is it to please her husband but rather to meet her own sexual desires. She really has no desire to take the time or energy to seduce her husband or to truly concentrate on giving her body to him for his pleasure.  She just wants the clothes off and to have him pleasure her and fulfill her sexual desires – him getting his sexual needs met is of little to no concern to her.

The Evil Seductress Wife

The Evil Seductress wife uses her body and her sexual charms to get what she wants.  She uses sex to lure her husband into marrying her and then afterwards uses her sexual charms to control him and manipulate him for the remainder of their marriage.  The Evil Seductress wife sees sex primarily as a tool for power and only secondarily as an activity for procreation or pleasure. Her goals in seduction may be just to have control of the man and his money or it may also include her desire for him to be a sperm donor to give her children.

The Good Seductress Wife

The Good Seductress wife is one who views sex primarily through the lenses of pleasing her husband sexually, not just submitting herself to her husband sexually. She goes much further than the Submissive wife in that she takes an active role in trying to please her husband sexually rather than just taking a passive role and waiting for him to initiate sexual relations.

The Good Seductress wife makes herself a student of her husband’s sexual preferences.  She learns what turns her husband on and what turns her husband off sexually. She not only learns all these things about her husband – but she acts on this knowledge. The Good Seductress wife realizes that she cannot fully please her husband sexually unless she finds a way to truly enjoy sex herself so she becomes a student of her own body as well helping herself to work in concert sexually with her husband to bring him the maximum sexual pleasure that she can.

Which of these views of sexuality are most common among women?

I would say based on what I have read and observed through real life interactions and emails that the majority of women in American come closest to the Romantic wife position on sex.  There are also probably a good number of women who come somewhere between the Submissive wife position and the Romantic wife position in that they will sometimes give into their husband’s request for sex even though they feel he has not really earned it.

The Nympho wife’s are a rarity but sadly there are more Frigid wives and Evil Seductress wives than people generally realize.

In the realm of Christianity Romantic wives are extremely common but in more conservative circles there are more Submissive wives.  The Good Seductress wife is the rare jewel alluded to in Proverbs 31:10.

Now that we have presented these common feminine views of sex we now to need to measure these views against the Scriptures as we should all our beliefs about life.

Sex is both a Responsibility and Right in Marriage

First we need to establish the fact that under God’s law sexual access to one’s spouse is both a responsibility and a right within marriage for both the husband and wife.

The Scriptures teach both the responsibility to give sex and right to have sex in marriage:

“3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

I Corinthians 7:3-5 (KJV)

I once heard a Pastor say to the young women of the church “If you don’t want to have sex three to four times a week for the better part of your life then don’t get married.”  Unlike many Pastors today – he had a Biblical view of sexuality in marriage. A person who wants to get married and not have much sex is like a person who joins a baseball team but does not really want to play baseball.

It is absolutely amazing to me how many Pastors and Christian teachers today question this very clear Scriptural command. They look for all kinds of ways to give spouses (primarily women) excuses for denying their spouse sex in marriage.

Sex is not just a right a responsibility in marriage – it is like water for men

I think it is very telling that God chose to use water to describe a man’s desire for sex.  God could have chosen to compare a man desiring to have sex with his desiring meat but humans can survive on just fruits and vegetables.  God chose something that is necessary for all life on earth and something that we cannot live without to describe a man’s sex drive.  In this one verse God makes it clear to both men and women – sex is a need for men, not just a want.

From a larger societal point of view while men on an individual level will not die from not having sex, the human race would die out if men don’t have sex with women. Even on a relational level, if a couple stops having sex the relationship often dies.

But here in Proverbs 5 we see that God is showing us that sex is a need on a very personal level for a man in comparing it to water.

But there is another principle God is teaching us about the masculine sex drive.  Water is not just necessary for life but it is also beautiful in its natural state.  Just imagine a beautiful lake, a mountain stream or an ocean view – water is one of God’s most beautiful creations. A man’s sex drive which is often thought of as “dirty” is actually said by God to be a pure as water.

As human beings, we don’t just need to take in water to survive, but we are mostly water – human beings are 60% water! In the same way that human beings are mostly water men are mostly sexual beings.  It is a very important and defining aspect of who men are.

This brings up an important distinction between men and women.  While both men and women desire sex – a core defining attribute of men is their sexual nature.  For women, the core defining attribute of who they are is their relational nature. A man’s sex drive fuels all aspects of his life and gives him energy for him to go out and build, explore and conquer his world.

A man’s desire to touch, taste and experience a woman’s body on a sexual level is as pure and beautiful as water and like water is a defining part of who we are as human beings so too a man’s sexual nature is a defining aspect of his person.

So some women might be reading this and saying “Ok you proved your point that my husband has a right to have sex with me and I need to give myself to him for sex.  But that is a far cry from me having to seduce him! Where is that in the Bible?”

We are almost to that answer, but first we have to talk about a special type of command in the Bible.

Some Biblical commands require a team effort to be fulfilled

There are commands in the Bible that we as individuals can fulfill without help from anyone else.  For instance the Bible tells us not to steal, not to covet and not to murder. It tells us to be kind and caring to others. We each are responsible on our own for fulfilling these commands. A wife is told to submit to her husband and she can do this regardless of his behavior toward her unless he tells her to sin.  A husband is to provide for and protect his wife and he can do this regardless of her lack of submission or other sins she may commit toward him.

However there are certain commands in Scripture which require two or more people to act in concert with one another. God’s very first command to mankind requires that husbands and wives work together.

“27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

So what must happen for men and women to fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”?

  1. A man and a woman must agree to a covenant of marriage.
  2. A man and a woman must willingly come together in sexual union to create offspring.

If men and women do not marry and do not have sex this first command of God cannot be fulfilled.  A man cannot fulfill this on his own and neither can a woman but only in working together can man and woman fulfill this command of God.

Sex in marriage is not just for procreation or to avoid sexual temptation

Most Christian married couples do not know is that God gave another command that can only be fulfilled by husbands and wives working together:

“15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. 16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets.17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee.

18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Proverbs 5:15 & 18-19(KJV)

Proverbs 5 shows the third principle of sex that is often ignored in Christian circles.  Most Christians will agree that God’s command in Genesis 1:28 to” Be fruitful, and multiply” tells us that one of the reasons God wants us to have sex is for procreation.  Most Christians would also agree that I Corinthians 7:2 tells us that we should have sex in marriage “to avoid fornication”.

But what most Christians do not realize is that God wants men to satisfy themselves – to drink their fill of their wives’ body for their pleasure. This principle of God wanting us to seek sex for its pleasure is routinely denied by Christian writers today.  Sue Bohlin, writing for Probe.org, displays the typical attitude of Christian writers who down play pleasure as a major motivating factor in sex:

“If the purpose and goal of sex is primarily pleasure, then other people are just objects to be used for sensual gratification. Since people are infinitely valuable because God made us in His image, that is a slap in the face whether we realize it or not. The Christian perspective is that the purpose of sex is relational, with pleasure as the by-product.

https://www.probe.org/what-god-says-about-sex/

The truth is that men primarily seek sex from the physical (or pleasurable aspect of it) and women primarily seek sex from the emotional (or relational aspect of it).  Christianity and Feminism both falsely teach that the female perspective of sex “that the purpose of sex is relational, with pleasure as the by-product” is the right perspective and that men have it all wrong and need to become more like women in their sexual natures.

These same people who deny that God intended for men to freely seek sexual pleasure in their wife’s body try and reinterpret the command in Proverbs 5:19 for men to be satisfied by their wife’s breasts as it teaching that men should be content with whatever their wives do.

They actually reverse the true meaning of this passage and use this passage to excuse laziness and lack of effort on the part of a wife to please her husband sexually. If she gained excessive amounts of weight, dressed in frumpy clothes and failed to have basic hygiene that husbands were to make themselves satisfied with her and ravished by her.  If she only liked to have sex in one position and only once a week with the lights turned off, again men were required to be satisfied by whatever their wife did or did not do.  Rachel Pietka, writing for relevantmagazine.com, shows a common Christian attitude that God does not care about Christians making a good effort to have great sex:

“Although sex is indeed God’s gift to us, Christians are not directly commanded by God to have great sex. Couples may find themselves incompatible in the bedroom, and they should not be bombarded with pressure from the Christian community to start having good sex and lots of it.”

http://archives.relevantmagazine.com/life/relationships/christians-are-not-called-have-amazing-sex

But I will demonstrate to you that this modern interpretation and application of this passage is false.

 “Let her breasts SATISFY thee at all times”

The English word “satisfy” is a translation of the Hebrew word “Ravah” which literally means “to be satiated or saturated, have or drink one’s fill or to drench, water abundantly, saturate”.

So when we understand that “breasts” are symbolic of her whole body this is what God is saying to men regarding their wives:

“Drink your fill of your wife’s body whenever you are sexually thirsty and drink until you are satisfied”

So as we have shown here – the teaching that men are just to be content with whatever their wives do or don’t do in the sexual arena goes in direct contradiction to what this phrase actually teaches.  Men are to drink their fill and drench themselves sexually in their wife’s body.

This flies in the face of modern teachings about sex in marriage that men should just be content with however much their wives want to have sex.  It also contradicts the idea that husbands should be content with whatever their wives want to do sexually. “You should only have your wife do what she feels comfortable doing sexually” – is that not what we are told today? If a man desires anything more from his wife than what she is comfortable with then he is told that he is going too far and is being selfish.

But this passage tells us husbands are to drink their fill of their wife’s body!  Am I saying there are absolutely no limits? Of course not.  I have written about these limits in my previous articles. In my article “Does a Christian wife have to submit to a sinful request from her husband?” I stated that a wife does not have to submit to her husband wanting her to participate in orgies or sex with other men. In my post “Do Christian wives have to submit to requests for anal sex by their husbands?” I showed why I believe that Christians should not engage in anal sex because the anus is not designed for sexual penetration and wives do not have to submit to these requests from their husbands.

But let’s be honest – these are extreme cases but some wives try and use these types of extremes to justify any limitations they want to put on their sex lives. For instance I have heard of cases on the other extreme where wives do not feel “comfortable” touching their husband’s penis.  They literally have never placed their hands on their husband’s penis.  These types of “uncomfortableness” have no Biblical backing and women with these types of issues should be challenged by their husbands to change their behavior and thinking.

“and be thou ravished always with her love”

The English word “ravished” is a translation of the Hebrew word ‘Shagah’ which has to do with drunkenness or intoxication.  Literally husbands are called to be intoxicated with their wife’s sexual love.

We associate drunkenness with wrong doing and most of the time it is.  But the Bible tells us certain types of intoxication are not wrong.  Listen to what Paul says about the Holy Spirit:

“And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;”

Ephesians 5:18 (KJV)

Paul is telling us not to be drunk with wine – but be drunk with the Spirit of God!  In the same way men are not to be intoxicated by whores but instead they are to be intoxicated by their wife’s sexual love.

It is critically important to point out that God tells husbands and wives that sex is not just for procreation as so many Christians have been wrongly taught in churches for centuries. Sex was also designed for pleasure and enjoyment. In this passage from Proverbs, God tells a man that he is to be satisfied by his wife’s breasts (symbolic of her entire body) and that he is to be ravished(intoxicated) by her love which is clearly erotic love based on the context of the passage.

Great sex in marriage is a team effort

The modern formula for sexual relations is that a man seduces a woman into having sex by romancing her.

The Biblical formula for sex is a woman makes herself affectionate as the loving hind” and beautiful as the “pleasant roe” and available “at all times” and she ties her affection, her beauty and availability together to make herself sexually intoxicating to her husband.  In other words – in the Biblical model of marriage a woman seduces or sexually entices her husband to come to his well and drink of the waters of her body and by doing this she intoxicates him, or ravishes him with her sexual love.

Now the team effort is that the husband must respond – to her affection, her beauty and availability.  He must choose to “drink his fill” of his wife so that he may be intoxicated by her sexual love.

So as we can see, these commands require a husband and wife to work together in the same way they must work together to follow God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.

Solomon tells us here in Proverbs that the answer to a man not running after strange women (whores) is for him to find satisfaction in his wife’s body and be ravished with her sexual love.

But how can a man be intoxicated with sexual love for his wife if she makes no attempt to be affectionate toward him and she does not make herself beautiful and she does not show him that her body is always available to him?

The answer to that question is the same answer to this question – how can a man be fruitful and multiply if he can’t have sex with his wife? It is impossible.  In the same way, for a man to be sexually ravished by his wife and sexually satisfied by her body she has to give him something to be ravished and satisfied by.

And this is not the only passage in the Bible speaking of erotic love between a man and woman.  The entire book of the Song of Solomon is dedicated to this type of erotic, physical and sexual love that God commands there to be between a husband and wife in Proverbs.

“7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. 8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples; 9 And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.”

Song of Solomon 7:7-9 (KJV)

I also want to bring up one passage that does not speak specifically of sexual love in marriage but would still apply to how a woman shows her husband sexual love in marriage:

“She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.”

Proverbs 31:12 (KJV)

This passage above from Proverbs speaks of the virtuous wife.

If a wife denies her husband sexually is she doing him good or evil?

She is doing him evil.

If a wife has sex with her husband, but does so in a grudging manner is she doing him good or evil?

She is doing him evil.

If a wife has sex with her husband but does so in a frigid manner is she doing him good or evil?

She is doing him evil.

If a wife refuses to make a good faith attempt to cause her husband to be satisfied with her body and be ravished with her sexual love by getting to know his sexual preferences and acting on those things is she doing him good or evil?

I would argue that a woman who fails to make a good faith attempt to know her husband’s sexual desires and satisfy them to the best of her ability in order to cause him to be ravished by her sexual love is in clear violation of the Word of God.

But why does God want women to seduce their husbands?

We have shown from Proverbs 5:19 that God wants wives to seduce their husbands to help fulfill the command that their husbands be ravished by them. But why did God setup such a paradigm wherein women must seduce their husbands to cause them to be ravished in their wives?

To answer that question, we have to ask another question first.  Why does the Bible say God created the world?

“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”

Revelation 4:11 (KJV)

God created the world and his most precious creation mankind, to bring him glory and honor and for him to exercise his power.  Not only does God have power over our lives – but he is worthy to receive that power by his very position as creator.  But God did not just make his creation to receive glory, honor and power – but he also created it for his own pleasure.

Like an artist or engineer that receives pleasure from their own creations God himself receives pleasure from his creations.

In this same way, God created woman to give man honor and glory and to allow him to exercise his power.

 “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. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

I Corinthians 11:7-10 (KJV)

“A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.”

Proverbs 12:4 (KJV)

And God has also created woman to be a source of comfort, blessing and pleasure for man:

“And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”

Genesis 24:67 (KJV)

“25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:”

Genesis 49:25 (KJV)

“18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Proverbs 5:18-19 (KJV)

Conclusion

God has created woman to be a source of comfort, blessing and pleasure for man and this is why he commands that husbands are to find sexual satisfaction in their wife’s bodies and be ravished by their wife’s sexual love.

But a husband cannot fulfill this command on his own any more than he can fulfill God’s command to be fruitful and multiply on his own.  For a husband to find satisfaction in his wife’s body and for him to be ravished by his wife’s sexual love requires active participation rather than just passive participation on his wife’s part to accomplish these goals.

In order to do this a wife must make her husband to believe and feel that her body is available to satisfy his sexual desires whenever he wishes.  She must seduce him with her body and her sexual love for him.

A woman who simply spreads her legs and gives sex in a frigid manner is not cooperating with her husband to fulfill the command of God which requires BOTH their participation to fulfill. Wives must not just submit to sexual relations with their husbands but they must also give their husbands something to be ravished by!

In this article, we simply showed the command of God found in Proverbs 5:19 that women should sexually satisfy their husbands with their bodies and seduce their husbands with their sexual love. But we did not talk about how a woman could act out this command and set about to seduce her husband.

Many times, in the Scriptures God not only give us commands but he also give us examples to help us understand ways in which we can act out those commands.  For instance, in 1 Timothy 5:14 God tells women to “guide the house” and then if we look back to Proverbs 31 he gives a detailed example of how a woman can fulfill her duty to “guide the house”.

In the same way in the area of a wife seducing her husband God has not left women without an example.  In fact, God has given us not only a chapter like Proverbs 31, but an entire book in the Song of Solomon! In our next post, we will assemble a series of examples and principles found in the Song of Solomon that can act as sort of “A Biblical Guide to Seducing Your Husband”.

Advertisements

Why you should teach your daughter NOT to be independent

This famous cartoon created by Laura Foster in 1912, an opponent of women’s suffrage, has proven to be absolutely true a century after the passage of woman’s suffrage. A new study released this week confirms “women’s greater economic independence” as a contributing factor of rising cohabitation rates and declining marriage rates in the United States.

Here is more of the story from Reuters:

“More Americans 50 years and older are copying younger generations and eschewing marriage, opting instead to live with their partners, according to new research.

In 2016 about 18 million Americans were cohabiting, defined as living with an unmarried partner, and nearly a quarter of them were people over 50, an increase of 75 percent since 2007, data released on Thursday from Pew Research Center showed…

Government figures show that so-called “gray divorce,” or splits among adults 50 and over, has about doubled since the 1990s and could partly account for the increase in cohabitation.

Fewer marriages, changing social norms and women’s greater economic independence are other explanations for the rise, Stepler added.

As cohabiting has gone up, the marriage rate in the United States has dropped, from 8.2 per 1,000 population in 2000 to 6.9 in 2014, according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Stepler also pointed to an increase in the number of older Americans who have never married. Pew found that 27 percent of people 50 years and older who are cohabiting have never married, while more than half are divorced and 13 percent are widowed.”

Whenever reports like this come up about declining marriage rates and rising cohabitations rates you have to look very closely to see the actual cause buried in the fine print that no one wants to address.

Newtons third law of physics states:

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”

And this law of physics actually applies to changes in society as well.  If you take social “action” there will always be “an equal and opposite reaction” in society for the betterment or worsening of society.

While this report tries to show “fewer marriages, changing social norms and women’s greater economic independence” as factors in the rise of cohabitation rates and decline of marriage they are not really three different causes.  Fewer marriages and changing social norms (the acceptability of cohabiting outside of marriage) are a direct result of women’s greater economic independence and what gave women greater economic independence? The women’s rights movement, the movement to make women be social equals with men that started in the mid 1800’s.

The Driving forces of Marriage before Feminism

For the history of mankind women had fewer rights than men. Women were for the most part owned by men.  Few women owned property and still fewer women held positions of power.  The result was that women were compelled to seek out marriage to men for their economic prosperity.

In fact, in many cases women did not even chose whom they would marry but rather their fathers did.  Often men would literally purchase their wives from the woman’s father.

This was the simple formula that served as the foundation of the human family for all of human civilization:

Man seeks out woman for her beauty, sexual pleasure, bearing his children, caring for them and caring for the affairs of his home. 

Woman seeks man for his protection and provision.

America and other westernized nations have neutralized both of these primary historical drivers of marriage for women and replaced it with something that was rarely if ever a driver for marriage before the modern times – romantic feelings.

Governments have now granted rights to women to be socially and economically equal with men and for those women who still cannot support themselves the government will step in and help through welfare benefits.  Modern police forces provide all the protection women need so again in this area women do not need a husband anymore.

So now romance is the only driver for marriage If a man sufficiently worships a woman telling her how wonderful she is and agreeing to support her as her equal companion in whatever she chooses whether it is a career or having children she will grant him the privilege of marrying her.

And since she has no need from him other than his emotional support of her and constant worshiping of her if either of these things diminishes there is no need for the marriage to continue.

This change in the foundation for marriage has directly lead to a decline in marriage itself.  Because after all if marriage is just based on feelings – why does anyone need a paper? Why make a commitment that will just cause more complications? Live on feelings and when the feelings are gone each person can go their separate ways.

This is not just about economics but about spirituality

As Christians, we know there is much more going on here than just the destabilization of marriage because of the economic independence of women.  We know that marriage is about more than just a mutually beneficial economic relationship (although God did intend for it to be a mutually beneficial relationship as well).

The Bible shows that God designed marriage as a spiritual symbol of the relationship between himself and his people:

 “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…

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 5:23-24 & 28-29(KJV)

The Biblical model of marriage is simple.

Man loves his wife by leading her, protecting her and providing for her as Christ does the Church.  Woman submits to and serves her husband as the Church submits to and serves Christ.

The Bible show us specifically how a wife serves her husband in this world:

She serves him by making herself affectionate, beautiful and sexually pleasing him

“19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:19 (KJV)

She serves him by bearing his children and caring for the domestic needs of his home

“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)

This is the model of marriage that our creator designed.  While human beings imperfectly followed this model for thousands of years it served human civilization well.

But then we thought we knew better than God.  We overturned thousands of years of civilization for an experiment with women’s rights and women’s independence. We broke God’s model for not only marriage but society at large – that model was patriarchy. And now we are reaping the consequences of that decision.

As a direct result of feminism, marriage as an institution is crumbling and women are having so few children that western nations can only keep their populations growing by importing people from less developed nations. Third world nations from Central and South America and Africa are overrunning Europe and America as a direct result of our failed experiment with equal rights for women.

What can we do in the face of this disaster?

The Scriptures tell us “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

It can be very disheartening to those of us who recognize the collapse of our culture and soon as a result the collapse of our nation.

We must restore the foundation for our society one family at a time and that foundation begins with Jesus Christ himself:

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

1 Corinthians 3:11 (KJV)

But then what is next? We must build upon his Word as given by his Apostles and Prophets in the Bible:

“19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone

Ephesians 2:19-20 (KJV)

In keeping with the Word of God as our foundation we must teach women NOT to be independent of men but rather we should teach our daughters to depend on us as their fathers as we all should depend on our heavenly father.

We should teach them what God’s word says a young woman’s primary goals should be:

“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)

There is not one passage in all the Bible that encourages women’s independence from men.  Not one.  And we as Christian parents continue to do a disservice to our society when we encourage our daughter’s independence but more importantly we sin against God’s design for men and women in this world when we do this.

It is up to Christian fathers and mothers to encourage our daughters to play the part that God has given them to play.  When we return to doing things God’s way – we will reap the benefits not only in our families and churches but in our societies and nations as well.

Should we discourage our daughters from being educated?

This question will certainly be asked in the face of my advocating for parents not to teach their daughters to be independent of men.  In fact , women not being educated was one of the ways in which society for thousands of years discouraged women’s independence.

However, I don’t think as Christians we need to completely discourage our daughters from being educated.  The Bible tells us in Proverbs 31:26 of the virtuous wife that she “She openeth her mouth with wisdom” and in the New Testament elder women are encouraged to teach younger women in the Lord:

“3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:3-5 (KJV)

But we should teach our daughters that their education should be channeled toward the primary directives God has for them to marry, bear children and keep their future home in order. If they are pursuing education fields that are not supportive of those goals then that may be questioned.

I am not saying women can’t learn history or science or other such subjects even though they don’t directly relate to her home making duties.  Especially when we know that if she is going to home school or even help her children with their homework as mothers should she needs to have some knowledge of these subjects.

But we as parents should always be cognizant of the direction our daughters are taking.   We must ask a simple question in any activity our daughter undertakes:

Will this be a help or a hindrance to her following God’s directive for her to eventually marry, bear children and guide the domestic affairs of her home?

If we feel the answer is that it will be a hindrance  – then we should discourage whatever it is.

How the Church Made Sex “Dirty”

For centuries, many Church leaders and scholars have seen sex as dirty and a necessary evil.  When it was encouraged it was encouraged only for its procreative value and not for the purposes of pleasure.  Once a man’s wife was pregnant there would be no procreative value to sex so the couple should not engage in sex simply for pleasure.  Also, once a woman passed her child bearing years there would be no need for sexual relations to continue because again it had no procreative value.

When it came to women the Church and society at large discouraged women’s enjoyment of sex even more so than men until the rise of modern feminism. If a woman enjoyed sex, she would have to keep that to herself otherwise she may be considered whorish – even by her own husband sometimes.

Anyone who reads this site will know I have no love for feminism.  I believe it has done far more harm to society than good. The free sex movement was also born out of feminism and again that movement did far more harm to society than good.

However, in history sometimes good does come out of evil events. The holocaust was one of the most wicked events in human history yet this created the catalyst to finally bring Israel back as a nation.  Like some other wicked events – the wicked feminist and then free sex movements did cause Christians to have to question their generally negative views of sexuality that had been held for so many centuries.

This lead to the rediscovery of the fact that the Bible has an entire book, the Song of Solomon, dedicated to celebration of erotic love in marriage.

“7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. 8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples; 9 And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.”

Song of Solomon 7:7-9 (KJV)

The previous passage from the Song of Solomon literally alludes to a man wanting to take hold of his wife’s breasts as he mounts her for sex and at the same time french kisses her while they are having sex.

The Song of Solomon even alludes to the desire for and the pleasure from oral sex within marriage:

Here the wife alludes to her desire to perform oral sex(fellatio) on her husband:

“As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

Song of Solomon 2:3 (KJV)

The apple tree was a symbol of a man’s genitals in ancient times and her sitting in his shadow displays the idea of her kneeling before him performing oral sex on him.  It even shows that his fruit (his semen) was sweet to her taste.

In the following passage, the husband describes his desire to perform oral sex(cunnilingus) on his wife:

“Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense.”

Song of Solomon 4:6 (KJV)

The “the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense” is symbolic of a woman’s pubic mound.  So literally the husband was saying to his wife – “I want to go down on you all night long”.

Later in the same chapter the wife expresses her desire for her husband to perform oral sex(cunnilingus) on her:

Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.”

Song of Solomon 4:16 (KJV)

The “north wind” is speaking of the man’s head and specifically him using his mouth.  She implores him to go “south” to her “garden” referring to her genital area. She asks him to “blow upon my garden” – meaning to perform oral sex so that “the spices thereof may flow out” referring to him causing her natural vaginal lubricants to flow. When she encourages him to “eat his pleasant fruits” this is directly equivalent to another phrase we use today to describe when a man performs oral sex on his wife.

There are many other sexual allusions in the Song of Solomon but you get my point.

The rediscovery of the Bible’s positive view of erotic love in marriage helped to spawn many Christian books encouraging Christian couples to no longer look at sex as a necessary evil only for procreation – but rather as gift from God to be enjoyed for its many other benefits.

In the last several decades scientific research has confirmed that regular sexual relations often bond couples together closer on a chemical level. They also found that regular sexual relations had a very positive effect on mental health and chemical balances in the body.

How sex became “dirty”

About 50 years after the last Apostle(John) died, a man who would later be regarded as an early father of the Church known as Clement of Alexandria stated this about sex:

“Our general argument concerning marriage, food, and other matters, may proceed to show that we should do nothing ‘- from desire. Our will is to be directed only towards that which is necessary. For we are children not of desire but of will.  A man who marries for the sake of begetting children must practice continence so that it is not desire he feels for his wife, whom he ought to love, and that he may beget children with a chaste and controlled will. For we have learnt not to “have thought for the flesh to fulfil its desires.” We are to “walk honourably as in the way”, that is in Christ and in the enlightened conduct of the Lord’s way, “not in revelling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and lasciviousness, not in strife and envy.”

Clement of Alexandria, “On Marriage”, Chapter VII

So Clement is saying when a married couple come together as an act of the will for the sake of having a child and not because of their sexual desire for one another their is no sin.  But sex, even in marriage, simply for the sake of pleasure is a fleshly indulgence in Clement’s view.

Justin Martyr writing around 150 AD stated the same belief as Clement:

“But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children”

Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin (150-160 A.D), CHAPTER XXIX — CONTINENCE OF CHRISTIANS

Augustine of Hippo wrote this in his treatise “On the Good of Marriage” around 400 AD:

“Further, in the very case of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage…

For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting has not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it has venial fault: but adultery or fornication has deadly fault, and, through this, continence from all intercourse is indeed better even than the intercourse of marriage itself, which takes place for the sake of begetting.”

Augustine of Hippo, Of the Good of Marriage(401 AD), Section 6

Augustine saw the desire for sex outside of “begetting children” as a venial sin that was better than the mortal sins of adultery and fornication. In his other writings he acknowledged that God made them “male and female” and intended on sexual reproduction but like Clement of Alexandria he believed it would have been an act of the will and not an act of passion or pleasure in God’s original design.

The 8th Century theologian John of Damascus wrote:

“Carnal men abuse virginity, and the pleasure-loving bring forward the following verse in proof, cursed be every one that raiseth not up seed in Israel. But we, made confident by God the Word that was made flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man’s nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin soil.  From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children.

But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of “male and female,” and “Be fruitful and multiply?” In answer we shall say that “Be fruitful and multiply” does not altogether refer to the multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to the end.  But God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” Let us, then, proceed on our way and see the glories of virginity: and this also includes chastity.”

John of Damascus (8th century) Chapter XXIV.–Concerning Virginity

John of Damascus went further than Augustine believing that God’s design of “male and female” was not his perfect will but instead a concession based on his foreknowledge that Adam and Eve would eventually sin and need to create children through marriage and sex. In other words sex was never part of God’s perfect design but rather a concession he made because he knew sin would occur.

This just demonstrates the crazy lengths that Church theologians would go to in an effort to explain away the fact that God made them “male and female” from the very beginning.

What the Church fathers and their later followers taught regarding the condemnation of all earthly desires for anything that is pleasurable was part of a false ideology we now call Christian Asceticism.

The Apostle Paul confronted asceticism in the Church

The Apostle Paul saw asceticism on the rise within the churches and fought against it as is seen in this passage of the Scriptures:

“20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

Colossians 2:20-23 (NASB)

But almost immediately after the Apostles died the Apostles war against asceticism was lost and it spread through the church like a disease. While we would agree with the Church fathers that things like homosexuality, bestiality and orgies are “dirty” or fleshly forms of sex the church fathers went further in even calling normal heterosexual desires dirty and saw sex in marriage only as a necessary evil for reproduction.  They also strongly encouraged celibacy even in marriage and called on husbands and wives to suppress their “fleshly” desires for sexual pleasure with one another.

So, in summary – if you condemn yourself as “dirty”, or other men and women as “dirty” for having pleasurable thoughts about sex or for thinking of sex as more that a procreative exercise you can thank many of the early church fathers for that false belief – but not the Apostles who opposed such thinking.

In stark contrast to the negative view of sex of the Church fathers the New Testament book of Hebrews tells us this:

“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

The Apostle tells us that “the bed” is “undefiled”.  Literally sex which happens in marriage is both honorable and pure in God’s eyes.  Neither Christ nor his Apostles ever restricted sex in marriage to be for procreative purposes only.

If we look in the Old Testament we find that a man is actually encouraged to be satisfied by his wife’s body and ravished with her sexual love:

“18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Proverbs 5:18-19 (KJV)

Proverbs chapter five makes it abundantly clear that sex in marriage is not simply for procreation. It was also given to mankind for pleasure.

Clement of Alexandria’s writings on this subject of sex in marriage puts on full display the fatal flaw of the church fathers who falsely attributed the Bible’s warnings against “fulfilling the desires of the flesh” (Ephesians 1:3) as the Bible condemning the enjoyment of any earthly pleasures.  They completely missed the spiritual application of the word “flesh” which applied to the sin nature in man and the fact that neither Christ nor his Apostles ever unilaterally condemned all human desires nor did they want Christians to live lives devoid of any pleasure.

Christ and his Apostles taught two important points. We as Christians should not live for earthly pleasure where the pursuit of earthly pleasure is the center of our life to the neglect of our service to God and our families. We also should not follow the desires of our sinful and corrupted nature (which is spiritually referred to as our “flesh”).  But it is not a “fleshly desire” for one to desire certain foods and take pleasure from eating them.  It is also not a “fleshly desire” for a man or woman to take pleasure from sexual thoughts or fantasies or to desire sexual relations with their spouse.  These human desires are pure and part of our original nature as given to mankind in the Garden of Eden by God himself.

Conclusion

The church fathers were not perfect men. They were not inspired by God in the way the Apostles were who wrote the Bible. They were imperfect men writing imperfect commentaries on the perfect Word of God.  But some of their misinterpretations and theological errors still plague the Church and Christians to this day.

I hope that if you view sex as “dirty” or even sexual desire and sexual fantasy as dirty you will reevaluate those kinds of thoughts.  Our human sexual natures, especially our distinct male and female sexual natures, are a gift from God.  They were given to mankind in the Garden of Eden as part of mankind’s original design.  We as Christians should never feel any shame for these desires or for exercising our sexual nature within the bounds of Gods law.

Should Christian women wear leggings as pants?

Since leggings and yoga pants very clearly reveal a woman’s form are they inappropriate to wear? Is a woman tempting the men who see her in leggings to lust after her or is it not her fault if they do?

The whole “leggings and yoga pants debate” was brought back to into the national spot light last week when two girls were not allowed on a plane because they were wearing leggings.  The Washington Post reported on the event as follows:

“A United Airlines gate agent barred two girls from boarding a flight Sunday morning because the girls were wearing leggings.

Another girl who was wearing gray leggings had to change before she was allowed to board the flight from Denver to Minneapolis, a witness said.

“She’s forcing them to change or put dresses on over leggings or they can’t board,” Shannon Watts, who was at a gate at Denver International Airport, said on Twitter. “Since when does @united police women’s clothing?”

United, responding to tweets about the incident tweeted that “United shall have the right to refuse passengers who are not properly clothed via our Contract of Carriage.” And added, “This is left to the discretion of the agents.”

The airline’s passenger contract says for the safety of all passengers and crew members, the airline can refuse to let a passenger board if the passenger is “barefoot or not properly clothed.”

So was it improper for these girls to be wearing leggings on this flight? And a much broader question would be is it improper for Christian women to wear leggings or yoga pants at all in public?

I want to clarify what we are talking about here.  For a long time women have worn leggings under dresses or long blouses and other clothing. But now for several years women have begun wearing leggings by themselves as pants.  That is the subject of this discussion.

Before we get into answering the question of the morality of women wearing leggings or yoga pants in public settings we need to establish a very important fact about men.

God made men with a much higher testosterone level than women. Most men have 10 times the level of testosterone in their system and probably 10 times the sex drive to go along with it.  A man’s sex drive is not only significantly stronger than a woman’s but the entire driving force of it is different.  While normal and healthy women desire sex too – their sex drive is emotionally and relationally driven.  A man’s sex drive is physically and visually driven.

So yes, for us as men when we see a woman in legging pants or yoga pants it is far more sexually arousing to us then if a woman had on baggy pants or a loose-fitting dress that hid the shape of her rear end, pelvic area and legs.

As man we cannot control the fact that the sight of a woman’s figure displayed in this manner brings us pleasure – our brains are wired by the design of God to receive pleasure from the female form.  Let put it this way to you ladies reading this article.

If you were to walk by your coworker’s desk and they had just sat down with hot cheeseburger from your favorite cheeseburger place – would the sight and smell of that cheeseburger not send you pleasure signals through you brain? Would you not be made hungry as a result? Of course you would.  The male physical and visual sex drive works exactly the same way when it comes to seeing women we find attractive.

The debate here is not about how men’s brains work – that is just a biological fact.  The debate is about what is sinful and what is not – what is lust and what is not and ultimately if women are tempting men to lust by wearing leggings and yoga pants in public settings.

Current Cultural Views of Lust

Most people have been taught that causing a man to lust means simply causing him to be sexually aroused by the mere sight of a woman regardless of her actions toward him.  So the thought goes – if a woman is fully covered this will sharply reduce a man’s chances of being sexually aroused by her form which they believe is lust on his part.

Because of this belief about what lust is some conservative Christians have their wives and daughters dress in very baggy dresses with that go to the floor with long sleeves to completely cover their arms.  They may even wear their hair tied up with a head covering of some sort.

This same concept when taken to its logical conclusion is why some Muslims make their wives be covered from head to toe with only a screen to see through on the face.

But true wisdom comes from being able to recognize our presuppositions or preconceived notions of morality.  Only when we are willing to question things that we have believed since before we can remember anything else will we be able to find the truth in many areas of life.

As Christians we believe that the starting point for our all the moral questions of life is the Bible. So if we are to truly understand what the Bible teaches about any subject of life – we must disregard all our presuppositions and let God’s Word to speak to us.  We must do as I have said on this site many times “remove our cultural glasses” and see the truth regardless of our presupposed ideas.

So take off your cultural glasses and put on your seat belt as we show you that the question that is the title of this article gets it all wrong.

What the Bible says about lust and causing your brother to stumble

Let’s first establish some two Biblical truths that are applicable to this discussion.

The Bible says it is sin to lust

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Romans 7:7 (KJV)

As we can see from the passage above, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that to lust is to sin.

We then can see from the Gospel of Matthew that sexual lust is sin:

“27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

The Bible says we should not do things that tempt other to sin

““Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

Romans 14:13 (KJV)

The Apostle Paul makes it clear that we as both men and women should never do something to could cause our brother to sin.  We should not put things in front of them that might trip them up spiritually.

So this is an open and closed case right? These Scriptures prove that the question of this article truly is a rhetorical question right? Well not so fast. Keep your seat securely fastened and keep your arms in the vehicle as we continue our quest for the truth in this matter.

Distinguishing the Biblical definition of lust from the cultural definition of lust

This is the huge presupposition that sits right in front of us. We are presupposing what lust is.  In our language when we think of lust we think of sexual arousal.  If a person is turned on sexually by the sight of someone who is not their spouse that is lust according to our culture.

But is that the definition of lust according to the Bible? Let’s find out.

Remember that passage from Romans 7:7 where Paul was saying lust was sin and we were all saying “Amen!”? Well he actually tells us what it is sin – because God said in the 10 commandments “Thou shalt not covet”. So what does that tell us? It tells us that lust is synonymous with covetousness.

So if lust is synonymous with covetousness then what is covetousness?

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

So up to this point we have established with absolute certainty that lust is sin and lust is tied directly to the 10th commandment.

The 10 commandment shows us by the context in which covetousness is used what it means. Is covetousness finding your neighbor’s house desirable? No it is not. Is covetousness dreaming about or fantasizing about what it would be like to live in your neighbor’s house? No it is not. Covetousness is the desire to sinfully possess something that does not belong to you.

We have seen this story play out in many movies. A man desires the land or home of another man.  So he offers him money for it but he won’t sell.  He says he will never sell it. Was the first man finding the second man’s land desirable a sin? No it was not. But if he cannot legally acquire this land and begins to think of how he can illegally acquire that other man’s land he has now gone from righteous desire to sinful covetousness.

This exact same principle applies to a man’s wife, his daughter or any other woman.  It is NOT lust (covetousness) when a man simply finds a woman sexually desirable no matter her marital status. It is no more a sin for this man to imagine her naked or even imagine having sex with her than it is for a man to imagine what another man’s house looks like on the inside and what it would be like to live there.

Lust is born when a man’s natural God given sexual desires are turned into sinful sexual covetousness and he desires to unlawfully possess a woman.

I know your head is probably spinning.  Your presuppositions about lust have been completely blown out of the water.

But we are now coming to end our journey so just hold tight just a little longer.

Now let’s take the original question of this article and look at the presupposition right in the middle of the question:

“Is a woman tempting the men who see her in leggings to lust after her or is it not her fault if they do?”

So what is the presupposition? This question presupposes that if a woman dresses in any way which might cause a man to be sexually aroused by her or find her sexually desirable or fantasize about having sex with her that this is her causing him to lust.

But what we know from our journey in the Scriptures is lust does not refer to sexual arousal or sexual imagination.  It refers to covetousness which in the context of sexual lust means that a man has the desire to unlawfully possess a woman in a sexual manner.

I would argue that once we understand what lust actually is then we understand better what enticing someone to lust looks like. I would argue that for 99 percent of cases a woman causes a man to lust after her first by her actions and then secondarily by her appearance.

A woman has to draw a man with actions in the form of words or body motions before true lust develops in most cases. The vast majority of men will not desire to unlawfully possess a woman unless that woman motions in some way either verbally or through body movement toward him that she might be available to him.  In other words she flirts with him in some manner.  This is when the seed of lust in 90 percent of cases with men.

Now are there men who lust after women who have not flirted or motioned or talked in any sexual manner toward them? Yes! But if a man lusts after a woman simply because of her beautiful appearance and not any sexual flirting or actions on her part that would draw him to lust after her then his sin of lust lays 100% at his feet and she is innocent.

So now let’s change our original question to what Christian women should really being asking themselves in regard to causing men to lust after them:

Instead of asking:

“Isn’t it wrong for me to wear this because it might sexually arouse a man or make him have pleasurable thoughts about me?”

Women should ask themselves:

“Did I just flirt with him? Did I lead him on in some manner?”

So are you saying women can just walk around half naked or completely naked wherever they go?

No In am not saying that at all. But as the Scriptures say “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven” (Ecclesiastes 3:1). That means we should wear clothing that is appropriate to the occasion.  It may not be appropriate for a woman to wear a tight tee shirt and shorts to her job unless she works at Hooters and it may not be appropriate for a woman to wear a bikini unless she is going to beach, swimming pool or sun bathing.

But what about I Timothy 2:9’s admonition for women to dress modestly?

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array”

I Timothy 2:9 (KJV)

I am glad you asked that. I have written an entire post on that verse going in-depth into what modesty actually means and the context in which this verse is talking about women’s dress. You can read it here.

The very short answer is that like the word lust, our culture has made up its own definition of modesty.  Modesty in I Timothy 2:9 refers to women dressing in attire that is appropriate to the occasion. It then tell us that for the occasion of gathering in the church assembly for worship women should wear “modest apparel” or literally “be appropriate clothed in full covering garments”.

Paul gave a similar warning about food in worship.  He told the Corinthians not to abuse the communion table by turning worship into a feast when he wrote:

And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

1 Corinthians 11:34 (KJV)

Paul was not saying it was wrong for us to think about food or sex or be aroused to hunger for food or sex. He was saying that when we come together as a churches for worship and communion we need to put these natural God given hungers aside and fully focus on God.  He was not condemning sexual thought or women dressing sexually outside the Church in the same way that he was not condemning being aroused to hunger for food outside the Church.

It was all about time and place.

Combating Negative Views of Masculine Sexuality

This debate over women wearing leggings or yoga pants is actually a great opportunity to help both men and women have a better understanding and respect for male sexuality.  As Christians we must measure everything action, everything thought and every desire we have by the Bible.  The Bible has been called the “Canon” which means “measure” or “rule”.  It means the Bible should be the standard or rule by which we measure our lives.

Thousands of years ago back in the Garden of Eden God designed man and woman with distinct masculine and feminine natures. Contrary to many false doctrines promoted over centuries of Christianity – the distinct male and female sexual natures were not a result of sin and the fall.  They were made by the design of God from day one.

That means when Adam saw Eve for the first time he had the same dopamine rush that men get today when they see women they find beautiful and yes he probably got an erection.  This is not something dirty – it is by the design of God.

But as Christians we recognize that the fall corrupted the original masculine and feminine natures God designed.  That means man’s sexual nature and woman’s sexual nature was corrupted in some ways from the fall.  Our task is to discover what parts of our distinct male and female sexual natures are still by the original design of God and which parts are a corruption of that design.

In the context of the male sexual nature, we must measure male sexual behaviors by the Bible.  If a certain male sexual behavior conflicts with God’s moral law than we condemn it but if that behavior is not condemned by God’s moral law or is honored by God’s moral law than we honor it as God’s design.

How much honor does male sexuality get in our day and time? I would argue that most Christians have a very negative view of male sexuality and that is something we need to change.

I have chosen some excerpts from an article entitled A Man’s Perspective on Yoga Pants by Al Blanton at 78mag.com to illustrate how male sexuality is commonly dishonored in Christian circles.

“Do I like yoga pants? Of course I do. I think they may be the greatest thing ever invented. But that’s the barbarian in me. The Cro-Magnon. The man

To say that the leggings “cause” men to stumble might be a stretch (pun intended). Men cause men to stumble, not leggings.

When the gorgeous behinds pass by, we (men) always have a choice. Either a) look away and think nothing else of it, b) appreciate the female form while you sip your half-caf, or c) visualize scenarios that run the prurient gamut.

I believe the first glance is not the problem. It’s the second and third that begin to get us in trouble. But remember, we are always presented with a choice…

I do not write this to bash men; no, indeed I write this to help men, to liberate men…

So the Christian male is faced with a very difficult scenario: pursue purity or feed the beast. We justify the latter by saying it is “natural” or “just the way we were made.”

So in summary, the real problem is not yoga pants. The problem is our mind. The problem is our heart.”

 

I truly believe that Mr. Blanton did not write this article “to bash men” but instead to help “liberate men” from what he believes is sinful behavior. His intentions are noble.

But Mr. Blanton like many Christian men today has a “zeal of God, but not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2). Specifically his knowledge of what lust actually is according the Scriptures is lacking and because of this he believes when men take that “second and third” look at a woman or when we “visualize scenarios that run the prurient gamut” (undress a woman in our minds and imagine sexual scenarios with her) that this is the very definition of lust and therefore sin.

He shows some feminist tendencies in his words as well. When he talks about why he as a man likes yoga pants and says “But that’s the barbarian in me. The Cro-Magnon. The man…” that is a nod to modern feminism.  The masculine physical and visual sex drive is seen as “uncivilized”, “piggish”, “dirty” and “base”.

Now I am not saying that some men do not act “uncivilized”, “piggish” and “dirty” sometimes.  Picture the construction workers whistling at women walking by yelling out comments about their bodies or men gawking at women and making them feel uncomfortable.  Men grabbing women or slapping women’s behinds.  That we would agree is barbaric behavior on the part of men.

But for Mr. Blanton to say that simply because he likes woman in yoga pants and it gives his brain pleasure that this is somehow barbaric or uncivilized is wrong.  His statement was dishonorable to himself, men in general and the God who designed male sexuality. This statement is textbook misandry.

Later Mr. Blanton compares masculine sexuality to the beast. This is again is a nod to false views of that equate male sexuality to animal sexuality while lifting up female sexuality as a more civilized and human sexuality that men should try to model in their lives.  Again comparing masculine sexuality to a “beast” dishonors men and dishonors the God who made men.

And I yes Mr. Blanton this is in fact “just the way we were made” by God himself. It is as natural for a man to be sexually aroused by women in yoga pants and even to get an erection as it is for a pregnant or nursing mother to lactate when she hears a baby cry, or when she even thinks of her baby. We don’t call women barbaric and uncivilized for their natural reactions to babies and infants yet we condemn men for their natural reactions to women. It is completely and utterly inconsistent.

Let’s take his statement again and translate this to the natural reactions of women to babies:

“To say that the leggings “cause” men to stumble might be a stretch (pun intended). Men cause men to stumble, not leggings.”

This is like saying this toward women:

“To say that crying babies or thoughts of babies “cause” women to lactate might be a stretch. Women cause women to lactate, not babies.”

This just puts the absurdity of the condemnation of the male sexual nature on full display.

I do agree with Mr. Blanton that “the real problem is not yoga pants.”, but I disagree with him that “The problem is our mind” as in the problem is the male sexual nature which he calls barbaric and animalistic.

The problem is not women wearing leggings or yoga pants or men being sexually aroused by or taking pleasure from seeing women in these pants.

The problem is the condemnation of the male sexual nature by both men and women. Men need to be at peace with their nature and as long as they are not being rude and gawking at these women if they take tasteful glances and enjoy the view there is no sin in this.

Women need to stop viewing men as barbaric and sexual beasts and appreciate them for the way God designed them.  If a man is gawking at a woman or making lewd gestures and remarks she has a right to say something because that is rude. If he is only taking passing glances at her she has no more right to shame him or that then she would her girlfriend for lactating because she heard a baby cry.

A final word for women on this subject of what you wear

Whether it is yoga pants, leggings, tight fitting dresses or blouses as a woman you must be aware of the fact that that the sight of your form brings sexual pleasure to men even if they hide it very well.  Normal men see you as God designed you – as a both a person and an object of sexual beauty and pleasure.

So in essence when a man sees you as a woman it is the same as when you see your favorite foods on TV or in restaurants and you imagine what it would be like to taste that food.  But you don’t just go and steal food that you like right? No you legally purchase it before enjoy eating it.

In the same way, because a good man sees a woman as a person as well as object of sexual beauty and pleasure he does not go up and just grab her and take her. He does not call out lewd remarks to her or gawk at her.

In God’s design he marries her.  Then as part of his marriage relationship to her he can “come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits” (Song of Solomon 4:16). I hope that this journey through the Scriptures has helped to change your perspective of what lust actually is. If you are woman – you don’t have to be ashamed to dress in beautiful clothing, or even clothing that might be sexually arousing to men provide that you follow these Biblical principles:

  1. If you are married or still under your father’s authority are they are ok with you dressing in this manner? If they are not then you need to submit to male headship that God has placed in your life.
  2. If you are able to wear clothing that some would consider more form fitting or sexually arousing are you doing so at the proper place and time? Maybe it is ok to wear tight fitting leggings for a night out with your girlfriends but it may be inappropriate for school(or on an airplane) It certainly would be for wrong for worship services in your church.
  3. Whether you are wearing more sexually appealing clothing or not – are you flirtatious with men to the point that you make them think they could have sex with you outside of marriage? If that is the case this needs to stop. That is the very definition of a woman causing a man to lust.

On the subject of United Airlines barring these two girls for wearing improper attire.  They have every right to do so.  It is their airline. They can determine what clothing must be worn to fly on their planes.

Being a stay at home mom should be illegal?

“We should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed…So long as we as a nation cling to the lie that only a stay-at-home mum is best placed to assume the responsibilities of caregiver then working fathers will continue to feel insecure about stepping off the corporate treadmill to spend more time with their children.” This is the advice given by Australian journalist Sarrah Le Marquand writing for the Daily Telegraph in Australia.

Her advice comes as a result of public outcry in Australia regarding a study that recommended stay at home moms would be better off in the work place then at home:

“It’s the topic of stay-at-home mums. More specifically, the release of any data or analysis that dares recommend Australian women should get out of the living room/kitchen/nursery and back into the workforce.

So the outcry has been predictable in the wake of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) recent report which had the audacity to suggest stay-at-home mums would be better off putting their skills to use in paid employment.”

Now to be fair to Sarrah Le Marquand she has advocated for women to be able to choose to stay at home with their children until they reach school age:

“And yes, the role played by parents in the early months and years following the birth of a child is vital and irreplaceable. It also stands to reason that for many (but certainly not all) families, it is the mother who opts to take time off work during this period to solely focus on caring for her baby.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, that time at home should be a privilege afforded to more new mums, which is why a few years back I was a lone voice in supporting Tony Abbott’s grossly misunderstood and thus ill-fated paid parental leave scheme, which proposed all female employees receive their normal salary for six months.”

So this is Sarrah Le Marquand’s full position – she is arguing in this article that while women should have the choice to stay at home with their children while they are infants and younger, once they reach school age they should be forced by law to enter the work force full time alongside their husbands.

Near the end of the article she reveals what the ultimate goal of her advocating for forcing stay at home moms back into the workforce is:

“Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.”

The last line says it all. Forcing stay at home moms to enter the work force would be the final assault on gender roles as God designed them.

This is the logical progression of equality movements.  When you don’t get the results you want, then you use the government to force the results you want.  When you don’t have of the racial or ethnic representation in a given area whether it be higher education or certain areas of employment you force it through government quotas. When women don’t make the same amount as men you force it by taking away merit based pay systems. And when some women refuse to try and make themselves equal with their husbands by working outside the home like their husbands – you force it upon them.

Is it really better for both genders when women leave the home for careers?

I get emails and comments on a regular basis from women who after years have pursuing careers outside the home have come to regret that decision.

Recently I received the following comments from a woman that had what she described was her “dream job” as the chief editor of a newspaper only to realize the devastating impact her career had on her children and her marriage.

“Since the advent of feminism, women have in fact become slaves to the status quo and materialism. Children are being raised by institutions and strangers and, frankly, the consequences of that alone have been terrifying to watch unfold. Homes are falling apart and marriages are crumbling. Every woman struggles with going back to work after having a baby…

I am a mother to three girls, and over the past 11 years, I’ve worked and stayed home for periods of time. I am currently working in what I thought was my “dream job” as the chief editor of a newspaper, but this decision has brought my family and marriage nothing but pain and stress. My husband and I have prayerfully decided that, after the end of this year, I will stay home again and care for our family, permanently this time. I will not return to work again.

Although our budget is tighter when we don’t have two incomes, we are infinitely happier and, as this is God’s will for our family, He always provides abundantly for us.”

This woman’s experience is by no means unique. It happens to millions of women across the western world who buy into feminism’s lie to women that “you can have it all”.  When we break God’s gender roles that he has assigned to man and woman we will reap the consequences both on an individual level as well as a societal level.

But there is more than just anecdotal evidence to support the premise that the mass exodus of women from being keepers at home to career women has been bad for western culture.

See these comments from a study entitled “THE RISE OF DIVORCE AND SEPARATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1880–1990”:

“Marital dissolution for reasons other than widowhood has increased dramatically over the course of the past century. Only about 5% of marriages contracted in 1867 ended in divorce, but over one-half of marriages contracted in 1967 are expected to end in divorce (Cherlin 1992; Preston and MacDonald 1979). Scholars and commentators have consistently explained this change as a product of the changing sexual division of labor. Writing in 1893, Durkheim (1960 [1893]) pointed to the sexual division of labor as a source of interdependence between men and women, producing what he called “organic solidarity.”

Less conservative scholars use different terminology, but most stress the same agent of change. They argue that the rise in economic opportunities for women was a necessary condition for the increase in divorce and separation (Cherlin 1992; Degler 1980; McLanahan 1991; Ross and Sawhill 1975). According to this interpretation, women in the past who lacked independent means of support were often trapped in bad marriages; as the opportunities for female wage-labor expanded, women were increasingly able to escape and live on their own. Thus, the rising economic power of women undermined patriarchal authority and destabilized marriages

The rise of individualism associated with urbanization and industrialization has meant increasing emphasis on self-fulfillment and growing intolerance of unsuccessful marriages. In essence, the cultural argument suggests that marriages in the past tended to be governed more by social norms and less by rational calculation to maximize individual happiness. Since the nineteenth century, increasingly individualistic values could have simultaneously contributed to rising female market-labor participation and to rising marital instability.”

The key phrase that from the analysis of women working as it relates to marriage stability is this one:

“the rising economic power of women undermined patriarchal authority and destabilized marriages”   

I would go a step further.

The Bible tells us that it is God, not man that instituted patriarchal authority:

“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.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

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

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 5:22-24 & 28-29 (KJV)

“4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:4-5

The Bible clearly establishes patriarchy – male headship over women.  It establishes the relationship of man to woman in clear and unequivocal terms.  Men are to be the leaders, protectors and providers for women. Women are to be dependent upon their fathers and then ultimately their husbands for leadership, provision and protection in the same way the Church is to depend on Christ for these things.

Western culture, and really the cultures of the entire world used to embrace this basic principle of society.  Only since the mid 19th century with the rise of egalitarianism which spawned feminism did the Western world turn its back on God’s design and we are reaping the natural consequences of that decision.

What if we reversed Sarrah Le Marquand’s advice?

What if instead of making it illegal for stay at home moms to stay home after their children reached school age we made it illegal for married women to enter the workforce at all? I know GASP! That is crazy right.  What if we restored by law the dependence of women upon men and reversed all the so called “progress” of the woman’s rights movement?

The fact is we know from the history of mankind that if we made it more difficult for women to work outside the home or own property husbands would once again have the help meets God designed for them and children would have their mothers back.  Women would once again be able to fully concentrate on their homes rather than dealing with the struggle between work life and home life balance that feminists like Sarrah Le Marquand think is so great but other women know has a horrible effect on their lives and that of their families.

Yes there would be some negatives. Some women would again be trapped in bad marriages or abusive situations.

But we have to ask ourselves this question.  Which was better for society? Was society worse off by having a patriarchal authority or by eliminating patriarchal authority to address injustices against women? I would argue that if the measure of a society is the strength of the family unit and not the size of our homes or bank accounts we have the answer to that question.

I have said it before and I will say it again.  Feminism will come to end one way or the other.  Either governments will abolish feminism before they collapse due to its negative effects on their cultures or those governments will collapse giving rise to new governments that will have the courage to do what must be done.

The Sacrifice God Calls Christian Wives To

Many young Christian women today have been raised their whole lives to believe feminism’s greatest lie – “You can have it all”.  “You can have a career, a husband and children and you should never sacrifice any part of your dreams”.  This is the core of feminism today and it is the primary reason that the family unit has been so decimated over the past century.

Even in Churches today women are taught a corrupt and twisted view of the Scriptures using passages like Psalms 37:4 to tell them God wants them to have all “the desires of thine heart” and it is a male dominated society that has held them back from having everything they want – not God.

Sacrifice is a part of God’s will for both men and women

The Bible tells us in the New Testament letter to the Hebrews that Moses sacrificed his position as a prince of Egypt and all the pleasures and riches that came with that position to follow God’s will for his life even though it would involve suffering and pain and perhaps even the loss of his dreams as a prince.

“24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.”

Hebrews 11:24-26 (KJV)

Many Christian women today struggle with a similar choice to sacrifice their career ambitions to follow the path God has for them in their home. Recently I received some emails from a woman who is experiencing this very struggle and I thought it might be beneficial for my readers to hear her story.

Courtney was on a successful career path to becoming a doctor later this year and looking forward to having a husband and many children along with that career. As a young Christian woman, Courtney had been raised all her life to believe the greatest lie of feminism – “you can have it all.”

Then she found this site and it has completely rocked her world to say the least.  It has caused a conflict in her where none existed before.  It has caused her to question how she has lead her life up to this point and if it was all a waste.  Why did no one ever show her the Scripture passages she found on this site? Why did no one ever share with her God’s design of Biblical gender roles and what they represent? To say that she is now very frustrated and hurt would be an understatement.

So, with that as an introduction here is Courtney’s story.

Courtney’s Story

“I’ve recently become enthralled with your website but the more I read the more I just wonder what this life is supposed to be. Why give us the capacity to learn so much, dream big and have talents if, we were would later be forced to break our own hearts.

I thought having a happy family was what God wanted but now after reading the Bible passages you present I know it’s more than that. To say a woman can’t have it all is not true if you look at it in the same lens that most of us do. Happy family that never wants for anything great kids that excel in everything they do, a loving husband and happy functional home. To know that “having it all” as I just mentioned and how God wants it, don’t even run parallel just hurts.

I’m in my fourth year of med school and I’m in my ophthalmology rotation, but it means nothing and it’s worth nothing. To be told your ambition is misguided sucks, I’m not doing this for selfish reasons. I genuinely love medicine and helping people. It’s not fair, but hey none of it was meant to be right?

I was taught in church that loving God with my mind consisted of striving for academic success because it would bring honor to my family and God, but why say that if it’s not true. Why did I even go to school? I read about history and I think this would hurt less if we lived in biblical times when women didn’t know they had the capacity to learn how to do things. By June I’ll be a doctor but for what? I’ve interviewed for residencies and dined all this work, was it a waste of time?

As a Christian I know that being a parent is the greatest responsibility you could ever bare, but why does having a career have to diminish that? Honestly it seems easier to be a man because your role is as a provider and a man can have his career goals and his family but women have to choose not because someone will be unhappy but it seems like God expects us to. It just hurts.

One of the doctors that I’ve shadowed is an oculoplastics surgeon and her husband is the head obstetrics in another clinic. They meet for lunch several days out of the week, they even kind of brag on each other, they have 3 kids the youngest is a year old. I’ve asked how she does it and she has said it is hard but she makes time. She sees about 12 to 14 patients in a half day 3 times a week, surgery once a week and a day at the county clinic once a week.

She makes it to every recital and soccer game. When she gets home, she cooks and she typically gets home around 4 or 5 most days.  She and her husband always look like newlyweds even though they are going on 8 years. The kids send videos from home doing cute stuff like coloring or dancing or playing a game. She and her husband are never on call at the same time so when that comes once a month the kids sleep in bed with either parent. Of course, they have conferences to go to on occasion so grandparents may keep the kids if one parent accompanied the other. Her life was my definition of “having it all”.

I believe any child if asked if they could have their mother stay at home would say yes, but I never believed that it was a necessity. I know what the duties of a man are, but when I say it’s easier I’m referring to the fact that he doesn’t have to choose between his passions and curb his ambitions. I’ve never been materialistic, things would not be how I kept my children happy. No one forced me into being a doctor. My mom stayed at home and yes it was great so I know what could come of it I choose to do so, but to find out now that I’m simply not allowed to choose to have both (a career as well as a husband and children) makes me wish that I was born in a time when ignorance was bliss. When women had no rights, no voice, and weren’t allowed to have an education. Women knew what they were allowed to know to keep them in line and didn’t have false hope.

It’s like a carrot has been dangled in front of me my whole life. I’ve always said I wanted 6 kids, 2 boys to protect their 2 younger sisters then adopt two more boys. I have to decide between having a family or being doctor which means a loveless life and eventually dying alone.

Oh, I’m dating an orthopedic surgeon resident too he’s been super supportive, we’ve talked about me staying at home and he said he’d support me no matter what. His mom stayed home too but he also believes that women with carriers are admirable. I never thought that this was part of my salvation, is it really though? As I write this I cry. I cry because I thought I had a plan, I thought that what I was doing was honorable unto God and I’m upset because I thought Psalms 37:4 meant I could have this career as a doctor and also have a family, but I was wrong. Why didn’t God warn me before I took this path, or give me a sign, because now I’m in pain. Does God favor men? Is this a test? Because if it is my body aches with frustration and disappointment.”

My Response to Courtney and other women who face this situation

Courtney – I know the knowledge I have presented from the Scriptures troubles you. You never heard it before.  You want to run from it.  And you could.  You could find 100 different articles on line or Christian books that will tell you that you are perfectly fine to live your life as you planned it before finding out these truths.

But please realize it is not my words that have convicted you, but rather the Word of God. God tells us that the Bible has this spiritual power to convict:

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)

As you know from the posts you have read on this site the Scriptures are clear that if a woman is married her top priority, her most important priority is her service to husband, her children and her home.

“4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:4-6 (KJV)

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

I Timothy 5:14 (KJV)

She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.”

Proverbs 31:27

 

Proverbs 31 shows us the most detailed example of what God expects from wives and it tell us all the things “she” – the wife does.  Many women have tried to say servant girls could do all these things but the Bible shows her doing these things.  Yes, she may go out of the house to plant a field or buy and sell in the market.  But she never does these things at the expense of her household, but rather she does these things after she makes sure the needs of her household are cared for.

In no way does this picture a woman spending 40 to 50 hours a week away from her home delegating her home duties to others to care for while she was gone.  It also does not even tell us at what point in her life the woman was leaving her house to do these things.  Since we know there is no way a woman can care for her infant and toddler children while at the same time spending many hours and days away from the home each week this tells us her activities outside the home are when her children are older and or perhaps gone and not in need of her care.

In any case, the modern notion of a career woman having a baby and then leaving her infant child with a caretaker (even her husband) while she goes out to pursue a career has no Biblical support whatsoever. Every wife and mother is faced with a choice.  Will she be a full-time career woman and part time wife and mother or will she be a full-time wife and mother as God has called her to be.

Now I want to directly respond to a few statements you made.

Your Statement:

“I never thought that this was part of my salvation, is it really though?”

I wanted to tackle this first as I think it is the most important one to address.

We are not saved based on how we run the different races God has given us to run as men and women. In other words, we are not saved by adhering to Biblical gender roles.  But on that same note, we are not saved by giving to the poor, going to church, giving to our church or obeying God’s moral law in other areas. We are saved by the grace of God.  Many Christians do not run the race “lawfully” as the Bible talks about but instead they make up their own rules of the race and run it the way they want to. Will they lose their salvation? No because if they did then their salvation would be based upon their works and not by God’s grace through faith alone in Christ alone.

But even though it will not cost us our salvation – it will cost us our honor and reward in heaven. So, if you choose the celibate life in service to God as an ophthalmologist you will receive reward and honor from God for the race you ran because you did it lawfully. If you chose to give up your career as an ophthalmologist to marry a man, have six children and serve your family for the rest of your life as a wife and mother you will receive a reward and honor from God at the end of your life.

If, however you chose to change the rules of his race and make your own rules thus trying to have the husband, children and career which will cause you to not be able to fully dedicate yourself to your husband, your children and your home you will as the Scriptures say “shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire”.

 Your Statement:

“I was taught in church that loving God with my mind consisted of striving for academic success because it would bring honor to my family and God, but why say that if it’s not true.”

This false teaching is common in many churches today.  The church has been poisoned by the philosophy of the feminist world around that says a woman’s must have a formal education and a career for her life to have full value. In fact, while you love and respect your mom for staying home to care for you many in this world do not respect stay at home moms anymore.  They are regarded as lazy and ambitious.

But what does the Bible tell us a wife and mother’s greatest ambition was? It was her serving her husband, her children and her home.  It was her service to her family, not her career, that caused her children to bless her and her husband to praise her as the Scriptures tell us:

“Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.”

Proverbs 31:28 (KJV)

Your Statement:

“One of the doctors that I’ve shadowed is an oculoplastics surgeon and her husband is the head obstetrics in another clinic. They meet for lunch several days out of the week, they even kind of brag on each other, they have 3 kids the youngest is a year old. I’ve asked how she does it and she has said it is hard but she makes time. She sees about 12 to 14 patients in a half day 3 times a week, surgery once a week and a day at the county clinic once a week.

She makes it to every recital and soccer game. When she gets home, she cooks and she typically gets home around 4 or 5 most days.  She and her husband always look like newlyweds even though they are going on 8 years. The kids send videos from home doing cute stuff like coloring or dancing or playing a game. She and her husband are never on call at the same time so when that comes once a month the kids sleep in bed with either parent. Of course, they have conferences to go to on occasion so grandparents may keep the kids if one parent accompanied the other. Her life was my definition of “having it all”.

I realize you may have looked at this couple as the model for the life you want.  But let me break down what is really happening in this dream scenario this couple has painted for you.

Five times a week, sometimes for an entire day and others for half the day or more this woman leaves her most important duties of the home God has given her not because she has to, but because she chose to. Because she wants to.

Also, do you realize that people sometimes paint pictures of their lives for themselves and others that are often not true? I know this to be true with family members I have had that are career women.  They might say they normally cook at home but when you really drill down they may cook once or twice a week at home the vast majority of the time they are ordering carrying out because both they and their husband are too exhausted from their work day to cook.

Often career women are completely zapped for energy when it comes to having sex with their husbands.  When they get home whatever energy they have left is given to the children and their husbands are left with next to nothing. Even what they give to their children is not the best they would have to offer if they did not have a career outside the home.  Do you know how often we find that the couples who appear to have everything in order and are madly in love are just one step away from giving it all up and seeking divorce? It happens all the time.  But they lie to themselves for years telling themselves it is all ok when it is not.

But let’s say that everything this woman has told you is true.  That they truly have this perfect mix of family and career and she gets the best of both worlds working as a doctor and being a wife and mother and there are no real issues in neglecting their marriage or their children.  Even if all this were true it would still be wrong.

While God says “Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening.” (Psalm 104:23) he calls on wives to be “keepers at home” (Titus 2:4-6). This paints a stark contrast between the life of a wife and mother and that of her husband and there are more than physical reasons for this.  There is a spiritual reason for this.

This relationship of man going out to work and providing for his wife, leading her and protecting her is a picture of God providing for the needs of his people.

“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…

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church

Ephesians 5:22-29 (KJV)

You see it is not just about following the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law. A woman might be able to be like your friend and try and cook meals every day, do laundry and never miss a kids’ soccer game.  She can have sex with her husband regularly and then do her career as well.  But being a husband and wife is not just about checking things off a list so we can go do what we want to do.  It is about modeling the relation of Christ and his Church.

A wife’s dependence on her husband for his leadership, protection and provision creates a beautiful picture for the world to behold. When a wife is less than fully dependent on her husband for his leadership, his protection and his daily provision for her it breaks the model that the Church should be fully dependent on Christ for her spiritual leadership, her protection and her provision.

We live in a sin cursed world that does not always allow us to keep this picture of marriage that God desires for us.  Husbands die, become disabled or take downgrades on their jobs that may force them to have to ask their wife to work for a short period of time or longer. Divorce happens and women have to go and out work.  All of these things break the model of marriage but they may not be the fault of the woman.  She did not choose to have to go and work – this was forced upon her and God understands this.

But for a woman before marriage to purposefully plan that she will not even attempt to keep this model but will go about her own way by making her own model is a direct affront to God’s will and even more so if she knows this is what God’s Word shows.

Your Statement:

“Why didn’t God warn me before I took this path, or give me a sign, because now I’m in pain. Does God favor men? Is this a test? Because if it is my body aches with frustration and disappointment.”

I wonder if Moses had the same thought? God let him live 40 years in ignorance as a Prince of Egypt believing that was the life for him before God put it in his heart that the Israelite slaves were his brethren and he knew the difficult path he had to choose.

I know you are troubled now.  You are hurt by the hard choice you know you must make based upon the Word of God.

But there are other Christians who face heart breaks like yours but for very different reasons.  Below is a fictional story I have written to illustrate such a scenario.

A new Christian learns a painful truth about his life

Robert is a man that was raised by a pair of Lesbian mothers.  They loved him and cared for him his whole life.  While he is a teenager he realizes, he is sexually drawn to men and is a homosexual. As a young man in college he meets a man named Andrew who becomes his lover and eventually Robert marries Andrew.  Robert and Andrew even adopt a baby girl together that they name Anna .

Then he meets a man named John at his work who is a Christian.  Over the next year Robert becomes good friends with John and they often go to lunch together. John talks about his wife and children and Robert talks about his husband Andrew and his daughter Anna. Eventually through various conversations John shares his faith in Christ with Robert.  Robert becomes more and more interested in John’s faith and John begins sharing various Scripture passages about the creation account, how sin entered the world and how God sent Christ to die for the sins of mankind.

Over the course of a few months Robert feels the call of God.  The next day at lunch he is asks his friend at work “I want to become a Christian, I want to be saved.  What must I do to be saved?” and Robert shares with him Romans 10:9 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

Robert is so excited as he calls on Christ to save him.  John and Robert embrace and John welcomes him to the body of Christ.  John tells Robert the next step is for him to get baptized, join a local church and engage in his own personal study of the Scriptures to understand God’s moral law and will for his life. John knows that Robert will soon learn a difficult truth about how he is currently living his life.

Robert begins to intensely study the Scriptures as is common for many new Christians. He wants to learn everything he can about God and God’s will for his life. He decides to start out studying the book of Romans, because after all it was Romans 10:9 that taught him how to be saved. So he starts at the beginning with Romans chapter 1 and he comes across this passage:

“24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”

Robert cannot believe what he is reading.  He had heard some Christians opposed homosexuality but he thought they were just bigots.  He thought they were just ignorant and prejudiced.  He reasoned to himself “But John never mistreated me because I was a homosexual. He never said anything to me about it. Am I misreading this?” Robert can’t wait for the next day at work during lunch to get the answer to his questions.  He calls his friend Robert and insists they talk.

John agrees and comes over to Roberts house to talk.  Robert shows him the passage from Romans 1 he has just read. Robert says “Is it true? Is my lifestyle a sin against God? Is my relationship with Andrew a sin against God? Was the relationship of the women who raised me a sin against God?”  John replies with a heavy heart to Robert – “Yes”. At this point Robert is overcome with grief and begins to cry. Robert asks John “Do I have to give up Andrew and our family together with Anna to become right with God?” John again answers him – “Yes”.

Robert still weeping asks John “Why did you not tell me this before I came to Christ?” John replies “Because it was not for me to try and clean up your sin before you accepted Christ. Christ died for while were we yet sinners.  He asks us to repent, to acknowledge our sin before him and our need for his salvation.  When you were first saved you asked God to forgive you of the sins you knew – that you had lied or cheated or mistreated others.

But you did not know your homosexual lifestyle was a sin.  After salvation God begins to show us sins in our lives we never knew were there.  His spirit searches us and reveals what is in our hearts.   After we are saved then he does the work of changing our lives and conforming us to his will.  For many Christians, especially those who are saved as adults, this is change can be a painful process.  But God calls us all to progressive sanctification, to daily die to our old sinful natures and to try with the help of the Holy Spirit to be people God called us to be.”

Sometimes God reveals to us some painful truths.  Sometimes he reveals things to us that will cause us to have to make very difficult and painful choices. In the Scriptures God did this with the children of Israel when they sinned by taking foreign wives in Ezra chapter 10. Israelite men literally had to send their foreign wives and children back to the lands they came from.   How heart breaking that must have been.  But it was necessary to make the people right with God in the same way we as Christians must sometimes make painful choices to make ourselves right with God and his will for our lives.

Conclusion

Moses though serves as a model for us in following God’s will for his life by giving up what he thought would be his life in service to a greater purpose that God had for him. Moses wanted to run the race God had for him, not a race of his own making or one based on his own rules. He valued the rewards of heaven over the riches and pleasure of this world. I hope that you will make that same choice.

God only gives you two choices at this point in your life. You can choose to live in celibate service to God as a doctor and as a result give up your dreams of having a husband and children or you can choose to be a wife and mother.  But you cannot do both.

But I believe the passion you have for children and a husband outweighs your passion for medicine and God may have provided you with a man who will allow you to follow God’s will for your life in the home. I believe that if your heart is truly to be the wife and mother God called you to be that one day you will look back over the years you spent loving and serving your husband, your children and your home and the pain of this sacrifice will be forgotten.

A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

John 16:21 (KJV)

The Pope calls for Christians to violate God’s first command to mankind

Because of comments that were inappropriately attributed directly to the Pope and not Peter Raven as they should have been I have decided to retract my post as well.

It has been brought my attention that lifesitenews.com has printed this correction of the article I quoted at the begining of this post:
“March 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – On March 3, LifeSite published an article originally titled: “‘Pope Francis has urged us to have fewer children,’ claims Vatican academy member.” That article misquoted botanist and environmentalist Peter Raven, who was reported to have said at a Vatican press conference that, “Pope Francis has urged us to have fewer children to make the world more sustainable.” After reviewing audio recordings of the press conference, LifeSite has amended the story to accurately reflect Raven’s words.

What he actually said was, “We need at some point to have a limited number of people which is why Pope Francis and his three most recent predecessors have always argued that you should not have more children than you can bring up properly.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/correction-vatican-academy-member-misquoted-in-story-on-pope-francis

This however does not change my suspicion of this Pope in regard to his alliance with environmentalism.   It would not surprise me if over time he actually did publicly accept the overpopulation myth.  But to date there is no official evidence it.

I still do not agree that the Pope allowed an avid forced abortion promoter to speak and I do believe the overpopulation ideology had a wide audience at this Vatican summit.  Something the Pope should never have allowed.