YogiOabs Interview with BGR

Last week I was contacted by a blogger and podcaster named YogiOabs.  YogiOabs was exposed to the poisonous influences of feminism on our culture while he was still an unbeliever studying to be a doctor in Portland, Oregon.  He then went on to become an entrepreneur and got involved with MGTOW and started a YouTube channel advocating for the MGTOW position because of his horrible experiences with women both in his education and in his dating life.   He saw that because of feminism, most American and Western women had no respect, not for men and not for themselves.

YogiOabs Testimony

What follows is an excerpt from YogiOabs’ testimony on his About page on Yogoabs.com where he shares how he left Leftism and then MGTOW and became a Christian and a firm believer in Biblical Patriarchy.

“I spoke about my new conviction in the MGTOW movement on YouTube and quickly gained 50,000 subscribers. Throughout the process, my awareness of the pain and discriminiation caused by feminism grew. I connected with men’s rights activists and other creators and realized there was a whole nother world out there. My ideas resonated with women too, and they started asking for more female-focused content. My YouTube channel was censored by YouTube shortly afterwards for hate speech, and there was also a lot of drama because I turned against my audience and criticized the MGTOW movement. That’s not smart for the YouTUbe algorithm, which I didn’t care about in the slightest at the time. My channel basically died, so I started a new channel where I aimed to be professional and focus on educating people on the harms of feminism. And that’s where I spend most of my time on YogiOabs today.

2019, The Year God Found Me

Jesus has known me ever since I was born in Pennsylvania. But in 2019, it seems as if he started pressing the gas on his efforts to find me in 2019. I started noticing Christian music on the radio, and strangely, it was the only music I liked! I started getting comments from Christians on my videos, and then I fell in love with one! I started going to church, and I really liked it. I started reading the Bible, and I opened my mind more. But I was not ready to accept Jesus into my life.

I grew up really logical and analytical. If I became Christian, I would be turning my back on everything that I stood for. I never associated Christianity with free-thinking or rationality, so it didn’t make sense. Yet, when I heard Christians speak in church or read the Bible, most of it did seem rational. Maybe I felt that way about Christianity because I was never taught a single Bible story that I could remember in public education. What a shame! I was taught that creationism was terrible and Christians were uneducated. Maybe this was its own religion. The religion of the secularists…

2020: The Year I Became Christian

This year, in the summer, I finally accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. It might sound weird to some of you, but there’s a spiritual significance to saying it. In my early twenties, I liked yoga, meditation and Buddhism to a degree. That was my spirituality then. But now, my spirituality is understanding I’m one of God’s children. It’s understanding who Satan is and how he operates. And it’s understanding that my purpose is to do God’s work, with all the intellectual creativity he can give me.

I pray every single night, and I’m glad you’ve read this far. I’m excited to share more information with all of you, so don’t forget to get on my newsletter.”

I encourage you to read the rest of his testimony here.

My Interview with YogiOabs

YogiOabs reached out to me after finding my articles on domestic discipline.  He invited me on his podcast yesterday morning to do an interview.   

We actually covered a great deal of theological ground in the one hour I spent with him.  He asked about my background, what I teach from the Bible about gender roles, my views on MGTOW and Red Pill, what I believed were Biblical definitions of masculinity and femininity, why I think men should not give up on marriage and how young people can go about finding a good Christian spouse.  The last subject we talked about was domestic discipline and he and I both agreed that husbands are responsible being human instruments of sanctification in the lives of their wives and that God wants husbands to hold their wives accountable for their actions.

You can tell both in his testimony on his blog and on his YouTube channel that the Holy Spirit led Yogi through his Word ultimately to Christ. And now as newborn Christian, he is hungry to learn everything God says in his Word, especially about how he wants us to live including the doctrines of Biblical gender roles.

I am excited for this new journey in faith that Yogi has now begun. Many of his followers are still unbelievers and Yogi has a great opportunity to share the Gospel and the important truths of Biblical patriarchy and how both can positively affect Western culture.

I encourage all my readers to click on the YouTube link at the top of this article and listen to my interview with YogiOabs.

A Newlywed Wife’s Experience with Incorporating Domestic Discipline

In my article, “A Newlywed Husband’s Experience with Incorporating Domestic Discipline”, we discussed a newlywed husband’s experience with incorporating domestic discipline in his marriage.  In this article we will give the other side of that experience with a testimony from his newlywed wife. Her name is Sarah. 

Sarah grew up in a relatively conservative Christian home and as you will see from her testimony she was spanked as a child as is normal for conservative Christians.  But even among conservative Christians today, wife spanking is no longer a common practice as it once was.  So this experience was as strange and new for her as it was for her husband.

Like the first part of her husband’s testimony, this first testimony from Sarah will primarily deal with the introduction of domestic discipline into their new marriage from her perspective as well as the impacts it has made from a high level.  In a follow-up testimony on Biblicalsexology.com, we will get a more detailed look at the changes in the sexual arena of their marriage.  Below is Sarah’s testimony. 

A Newlywed Wife’s Perspective on Domestic Discipline

“When my husband told me that he had located a mature Christian woman to mentor me as instructed in Titus 2:3-5, I did not know what to expect.  The wife of the mentor team first took time to get to know me and my Christian background.   Then she took me through a few weeks of learning the biblical doctrine on the role of the wife.   There is a lot more all throughout the Bible about Biblical gender roles than I knew.   Then came applying it to our marriage.  You can’t just read it and learn it, you have to apply it, she told me. 

I always believed in the value of parents spanking their children, but it was foreign to me to consider a husband spanking his wife.   The mentor wife patiently took me through the scriptural support of it and she followed that up with the historical fact that the practice of wife spanking was fairly common until around 100 years ago.  After that, I told the mentor wife that I agreed that my husband has authority to spank me, but I don’t think he will much because I am don’t do much wrong.  I then told my husband that same day that accepted his authority to use physical punishment with me, in other words I consented to my husband spanking me as he saw fit.   

It turns out, my husband was just not addressing everything that I did wrong.  

The first time he spanked me, it was not physically real hard, but it was emotionally hard for me.  It was a mix of feeling guilty for disappointing him as well as a blow to my pride to accept the spanking.   It brought back memories of when I was spanked as a child too.  The later spankings were physically more painful.  But I can assure you, while they are quite painful in the moment, they did not physically injure me.  Injure my pride, yes, physically no.  However, I now knew he had this authority, so I submitted to his authority and I grew from it.     

All this change has been hard and I am truthfully still adjusting to some of it.   These changes have not only included learning new things, but also unlearning some old things.   I don’t want to go into too much detail here, but there has been a great deal of changes in our sexual relationship too.   Some of the things my husband requires that I do conflict with how I was raised.   I had to learn to put away what I was taught in my father’s house and fully submit to my husband’s authority over me.   The mentor wife also pointed me to an article on the difference between being what I saw as slutty to being sexy; it comes down to one word: Marriage.  

The mentor husband had a number of exercises he suggested to my husband to help me become more sexually submissive.  Many of these exercises conflicted with how I was raised, but I learned I needed to submit to my husband.   I have also realized that I was turning my husband down too often when he initiated sex and I have corrected that.

One time I was struggling with a specific hurdle.   My husband wanted me to do something sexual that I was uncomfortable with.  The mentor wife worked with me for days and we discussed it in detail, it was not sinful, but I did not want to do it.   Finally, the mentor wife really showed me how my disobedience in this was sinful and I needed to change.   I was somewhat stuck.  I couldn’t bring myself to do it, but I couldn’t live with the spiritual conviction either.  Finally, I asked my husband to spank me to force me over this hurdle.   I know this sounds really strange, but it worked.  It was a huge blow to my pride to ask my husband to spank me like that, and then to submit to doing what he had requested.

However, looking back several months later, I see how this has been so helpful to our marriage.   My obedience even when I did not agree was a critical step.   Notice I did say obedience, not submission.  By submission, I mean having my feelings agree with my obedience.   At first, I learned to obey, then over time my emotions begin to catch up and I learn to truly submit.   It is all part of the growth experience.  I am glad I have the mentor wife working patiently with me as I go down this road she has already traveled.  I am proud to say that every month I have stayed on budget too.  That was the initial issue that brought my husband to BGR, but we have grown in so many ways beyond that one issue.  Do I recommend this lifestyle change to other women?  Yes.  It is hard to change, but this more closely aligns with how God designed marriage.   I trust that He knows what He is doing.”  

What We Learn from This Wife’s Testimony

As with her husband, the incorporation of domestic discipline into their marriage has not been easy for Sarah. Obviously as the one receiving the discipline it has been much harder for her.  The changes in being responsible with the money were easy compared to other changes that were required.  The most difficult changes have been those in the area of sexual submission.  This is an area that all the mentoring couples I work hit hard on.  And there is a very important reason that they do this and that reason is a husband’s headship over his wife begins in the marriage bed.

Unfortunately, most Christian teachers today deny a husband’s headship over his wife’s body. Pastor Jonathan Parnell, lead pastor of Cities Church in Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota, wrote a prime example of this all too common false teaching.

In an article he wrote entitled “When the Sex Should Stop” for DesiringGod.org, Pastor Parnell writes:

“The mutuality of sex seen in 1 Corinthians 7:1–5 is clear. The husband’s authority over his wife’s body is no greater than her authority over his. It is a terrible mistake to apply the pattern of gender roles to this issue of sex in such a way that the husband, by virtue of his headship, requires the wife to submit to him sexually…

The church doesn’t need Christian gigolos, but men who willingly lay down their lives, and when called for, their sexual desires, for their wives.”

The statement above that this Pastor wrote is contrary to the teachings of the Bible despite his assertions otherwise.  In fact, I have referred to the article above as “a treasure trove of heresy” in a three-part series that I did on this article for my podcast site, Bgrlearning.com where I cover many other false doctrines he teaches in that article.  

The Scriptures are clear that the husband is the most powerful of all earthly human authorities as shown below in Ephesians 5:22-24:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 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. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

In no other human authority relationship, except that of the husband/wife relationship, is the one under authority told to submit to their human authority “as unto the Lord”.  Wives are told to submit to their husbands “in every thing”.  There is no exception given for the marriage bed nor would it make any Biblical sense for a husband’s headship to end at the bedroom door.

The Bible does teach mutuality in sex, but not in the way this pastor tells it as seen below in 1 Corinthians 7:1–5:

“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 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. 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.”

The passage above teaches us that it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman if he has the gift of celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:7), but it is “better to marry” if one has the gift of sexual desire (1 Corinthians 7:9).  It then tells us that sex is both a right and a duty in marriage for both the husband and the wife.

The only thing “mutual” about sex in marriage according to this passage is that neither the husband nor the wife has the power to deny sexual relations to the other and that they must mutually agree to cease having sex for a short period and then come together again soon so they will not be tempted to have sexual relations outside of marriage.

There is absolutely nothing in 1 Corinthians 7:1–5 that teaches a wife must mutually agree with her husband as to when or how they engage in sexual relations neither does it limit the husband’s headship in the bedroom.

Modern Christian teachers like Pastor Parnell ignore a central Biblical truth and its application to sex in marriage.  In Corinthians 11:9 the Bible says:

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”. 

When we apply that truth to sex, we can rightly say that sex was not created for the woman, but rather sex was created for the man.  Everything about woman, including her ability to give and receive sexual pleasure was created for man.

The Bible affirms this truth in Romans 1:27 when it calls sex “the natural use of the woman”.  It never refers to sex as “the natural use of the man”.  Why? Because man was not created for woman’s use, but rather woman was created for man’s use.

The Bible also explicitly tells men to have their wives satisfy their sexual desires in Proverbs 5:18-19:

“Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 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.”

The passages above show us that the Bible actually teaches the very opposite of what Pastor Parnell and so many other Christian teachers teach today. 

A man’s headship does not end at the marriage bed, but rather the marriage bed is where a husband’s headship begins.  A man who is not master of his wife’s body, is not master of her at all.

This is why I only refer newlywed Christian couples to Christian mentoring couples who not only fully embrace Biblical gender roles, but also those who understand that biblical gender roles begin in the marriage bed.  

Often as couples go through these mentoring programs, they will update me on their progress from time to time.  And I always smile when I see the same patterns of learning occur with these young wives.

It goes in stages. In most cases, it is not too difficult for young newlywed husbands to train their young newlywed wives in the first level of submission regarding finances, things around the home and simply saying yes to sex whenever he wants it if the woman is a true Bible believing Christian.

However, the difficulty emerges when the husband begins to ask for new things in the sexual arena, things the wife is not comfortable with.  It is at this second stage of sexual submission that many wives will look for the escape hatch.  They will say things like “I am doing what he wants with the finances and the keeping of the house and I never say no to sex anymore – why can’t he just be happy with that?”.   

But the answer to these young wives is always the same.  Ephesians 5:22-24 tells us that marriage was created by God to model the relationship of God to his people and in the New Testament of Christ to his church.  In verse 24 of Ephesians 5 the Bible says “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing”.  

Notice the Bible does not say wives should be subject to their husbands “in every thing they are comfortable with” but rather it simply says “in every thing”.  Of course, we understand that wives should not submit to sinful requests of their husbands (Acts 5:29).  But a husband asking his wife to do something sexually that is outside her comfort zone does not equal him asking her to sin.

And now a final word to newlywed husbands reading this.   In 1 Corinthians 11:7 the Bible says “…woman is the glory of the man” and in Proverbs 12:4 the Scriptures state “A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones”

God meant for your wife to be your crown, your glory. And by bringing you glory; your wife brings God glory.  So how does a woman bring glory to her husband? By both her inner and outer beauty.  And the most important aspect of a woman’s inner beauty is her full submission to her husband in all things.

In Esther 1:9-12 we read the following story:

“Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus. On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king, To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to shew the people and the princes her beauty: for she was fair to look on. But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment by his chamberlains: therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him.”

Queen Vashti had an opportunity to bring glory to her husband by simultaneously displaying her inner beauty, her submission, and her outer beauty, her body, to her husband’s guests.  But as she hosted her own party with the women, she was filled with pride.  She may have had the same thought that many women both Christian and non-Christian alike have today.  She probably thought “I am not his sex object to parade around for his friends to drool over”.  And being filled with pride in the presence of her female friends she refused her husband’s command and in doing so she did the very opposite of what God created wives to do.  Instead of being her husband’s crown, she became his shame.

My point to newlywed husbands is this.  It is not selfish on your part for you to desire from your wife what God created her for, which was to bring you glory through both the inner beauty of her submission to you and the outer beauty of her body.  And it is not selfish for you to discipline your wife to accomplish this purpose, to make your wife the glorious wife God wants her to be toward you. 

But make no mistake, this work will require great courage on your part as a newlywed husband.  It means having the courage to push your wife outside her comfort zones both inside and outside the bedroom.  It means not letting her tears sway you from molding her into the wife to you that God wants her to be.  It means being honest with yourself as to what you desire from your wife and as long as that desire is not sinful, bringing these desires to pass in your wife through washing her with the Word of God, rebuking and chastising her as Christ does his church.

And it also means being willing to stand alone against many Christians who will call you selfish for daring to fully exercise your headship in all areas of your marriage, including your headship over your wife’s body.

A Newlywed Christian Husband’s Experience with Incorporating Domestic Discipline

About 4 months ago I received an email from a newlywed Christian husband calling himself Robert.  He is 24 and his wife is 18.  They had been married for about a year.  So yes, she was 17 when they got married (with her parents’ consent of course).  He was experiencing a lot of rebellious tendencies with his young bride and I told him it was not too late for him to make a course correction in their marriage.  In fact, the newlywed phase (the first four years of marriage), is really the best time and the most crucial time to make these kinds of changes.  After the newlywed phase, it becomes much more difficult to make major structural changes in a marriage.

So, in response to Robert’s questions I wrote my article “7 Steps to Grooming Your Young Christian Wife”.  This article of course drove humanist Christians and atheists mad and I received a lot of hate mail from them expressing their feelings on what I wrote.  But at the same time I received many thankful emails over these last few months from the faithful remnant of Christians who rightly reject the humanist philosophies of individualism, egalitarianism and feminism as contrary to the Word of God.

I am happy to say that I was able to get Robert and his wife in with one of the mentoring couples I work with.  And by the way, I have had several Christian husband’s reach out to me asking about mentoring couples in their area and I will just tell you here the same thing I told them.  Right now, I only have a limited number of mentoring couples that I refer to and they only mentor online and not in person. 

There is a strict vetting process that I go through to vet mentoring couples to make sure they are trustworthy Christians who not only believe in Biblical gender roles, but they actually live these doctrines on a daily basis to the best of their ability.  Then I vet each couple that comes to me looking for a referral for mentoring and finally the mentoring couple themselves have their own vetting processes.  

The first reason we take all of these precautions is because we know as Galatians 2:4 says that there are “false brethren” who come to “spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” to their false belief systems.    But the second reason we do this is that even with some Christian couples who are genuinely looking for help, sometimes either one or both of them are not in a right place to go through these mentoring programs.

Some couples pass the initial vetting process but soon must leave the mentoring program because one or both of them were not honest about where they were spiritually before they started the program or because they simply were not willing to make the changes that were necessary.  In other words, not every couple is a success story. 

One other thing I want to answer that has been asked a lot of me recently.  And that is whether having a mentoring couple is required to incorporate domestic discipline and other concepts of Biblical gender roles into marriage.  And my answer is no, it is not required, but rather it highly recommend.  It will be difficult, especially for the woman, without having a female mentor.  But it is possible.

It really comes down to the strength of a husband’s will and his convictions.  If he recognizes the changes he needs to make in his own life, which include him becoming courageous enough to confront and discipline his wife despite her tears and every other emotional manipulation she may throw at him, then yes, it is possible for husband to incorporate this into his marriage without the help of a mentoring couple.

I have tracked Robert and his wife (Sarah) in their progress with great delight over the past 4 months and in the last week both of them felt they were finally at a place where they were ready to share their testimonies as to how God has transformed their marriage through the incorporation of domestic discipline into their marriage with the help of a mentoring couple.

I asked each of them to break up their testimonies into multiple parts.  We will examine the first part of their testimonies here on Biblicalgenderroles.com and the primary focus here will be on the initial incorporation of domestic discipline into their marriage.  Then on Biblicalsexology.com, we will examine the second part of their testimonies showing how this husband used domestic discipline to bring about the full sexual obedience that was lacking in their marriage.

If you know some young Christian men and women who will be looking to marry soon or who are newlyweds these perspectives from both the newlywed husband’s point of view and then his newlywed wife’s point of view will be invaluable.

I also want to clarify what I mean when I use the historic phrase “domestic discipline”.  Often today when the term is used, we can think of it as being synonymous with wife spanking.   And many times, when I use it, I am specifically referring to the practice of a husband spanking his wife.  But historically speaking, domestic discipline was understood to incorporate more than just wife spanking.  It also referred to a husband’s ability limit his wife’s spending, what friends she could see or even things like him sending her to her room without dinner for the evening due to her behavior.

And I think from a Biblical perspective we must see domestic discipline in an even broader sense as part of a husband’s duty to wash his wife with the Word of God (Ephesians 5:25-27) as well as to rebuke and chasten her (Revelation 3:19) as Christ does with his church.

With all that being said, below is the first part of Robert’s testimony.

A Newlywed Husband’s Perspective on Domestic Discipline

“After I contacted Larry with my question concerning keeping my wife on budget and considering spanking her, he referred me to a husband and wife couple that mentors young Christian couples in living as commanded in scripture.   They were quite helpful as we implemented spanking in our marriage.   While I know my wife had more change on her side, I wanted to share some of the changes from the husband’s side too.  

I had to learn how to spank my wife in a way that would punish her, but not risk real harm or leave marks that would be embarrassing for her to explain if someone saw them.   Mentally, I had to adjust to the concept that I was going to be spanking her.   The first few times, it was really strange and I felt like I was just going through the motions.  After that, it got to where both my wife and I accepted that I was going to spank her when she needed it.  

Much of the growth I did took me outside my comfort zone.   However, I know that my wife was being taken even further outside her comfort zone.   She stays on the monthly budget now.  Although it did require several spankings at new weekly budget reviews that the mentor husband recommended.   She is careful to speak to me respectfully, even when we disagree.  

But the biggest change was in an area that I had not even initially requested assistance, the bedroom.  Like many couples, I have a higher sex drive than my wife.  Prior to the mentoring, my wife was having sex with me too infrequently, often just once week.   Now she makes herself available most anytime I request sex.  Without going into too much detail here, the range of sexual activities has expanded too.   Overall, these changes have been very beneficial for our marriage.   I would recommend this process to any young couple that are bible believers.   Change is often hard, but we are living as God designed in our marriage now.”

What We Learn from This Husband’s Testimony

As we can see from Robert’s testimony there were several stages in how this newlywed husband incorporated domestic discipline in his marriage.   First both the he and his wife needed to accept the realization that he was going to spank his wife.  This was brand new for him, and brand new for her.  They had no examples in either of their parents for this because our society almost completely abandoned the practice of husbands spanking their wives by the 1960s.

Next, Robert had to figure out techniques for spanking his wife in a way that would not violate the Ephesians 5:28-29 principle that he must care for his wife’s body and provide for it and protect it as he would his own. And the first few times he did it, it fell strange to him as the one giving the spanking.  And why did it feel strange for him? If Robert were living in 1820 or even 1920, spanking his wife would not have felt strange at all to Robert because it was a very common practice of husbands toward their wives.  He would have known that his father spanked his mother and that other men around him spanked their wives.  But in 2020, the practice of domestic discipline has been all but abandoned for more than half a century and this explains why at first it felt very strange for Robert to spank his wife.    

In order to overcome that strange feeling of spanking his wife as a method of discipline, Robert had to abandon the false adult/child paradigm that our humanist culture teaches us and instead embrace the historic and Biblical societal classes of men, women and children.  He had to realize that spanking his wife was not him treating her as a child, but rather it was him treating her as a woman, as his wife.

And whether a practice is popular as it once was, or not popular as of today is irrelevant.  God’s Word transcends cultural changes and it remains a consistent standard to guide our decisions and behavior in this life.

Another thing that Robert had to realize is that spanking applies to all areas of marriage.  It must be incorporated as a way of life, not just something you do in extreme situations.  And yes, it is right for a husband to chasten his wife for failure to be 100% submitted to him in the sexual arena.  Robert will get more into what that submission looks like in his marriage as he continues his testimony on Biblicalsexology.com.

But as you can see from this first part of his testimony, after 4 months of incorporating domestic discipline into his marriage his wife submits to him in all areas of their marriage including the financial and sexual arenas.  She also shows him the respect that men require from their wives.

Our modern society and sadly even the church have robbed men of their God given birthright and responsibilities toward their wives.  They have robbed men of the tools God has given them to mold and shape their wives into the glorious wives they can be as they learn to submit to God and their husbands.   But as Robert’s story shows, men can be taught to reclaim their birthright and responsibilities toward their wives as well be taught to reincorporate the ancient and Biblical practice of domestic discipline.

And Robert saw the promise of God’s Word realized in his marriage.

“Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.”

Hebrews 12:11 (KJV)

Piper vs Grudem On Trump vs Biden

Evangelical Christians make up around 22 percent of the American population and over 80 percent of evangelical Christians voted for Trump in 2016. It would not be an understatement to say that evangelical Christians helped elect Donald Trump in his first election and they will be just as critical to electing him next week.

John Piper is one of the most respected evangelical pastors in America.  He is the pastor of Bethlehem Baptist church in Minneapolis and the author of numerous Christian books.   On October 22nd, he wrote an article entitled “Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin” where he outlined why he could not vote for either Trump or Biden.

I was going to write my own rebuttal of Piper’s views on the 2020 election as a fellow Baptist and evangelical but then I came across an excellent rebuttal of John Piper’s article by a close friend of his – Wayne Grudem.

In my article “Piper vs Grudem on Trump vs Biden” over on BiblicistReport.com, I give excerpts from both of these respected evangelical theologians. And Wayne Grudem does an excellent job of rebutting the position taken by Piper. This is a must read for evangelical Christians before next week’s election. You can read the full article here.

19th Century Judicial Precedents Regarding Domestic Discipline

In this third article in our series on domestic discipline, we will be looking at a few 19th century judicial decisions on the lawfulness of husbands practicing domestic discipline toward their wives.  We will start with two cases which upheld the right of a husband to practice corporal chastisement on his wife and then move to a decision which overturned these precedents.  

1834 – Calvin Bradley vs The State of Mississippi

In this case of a husband being charged with battery against his wife the Supreme Court of Mississippi referenced the ancient common law to affirm the right of “domestic discipline” by husbands:

“It is true, according to the old law, the husband might give his wife moderate correction, because he is answerable for her misbehaviour; hence it was thought reasonable, to intrust him, with a power, necessary to restrain the indiscretions of one, for whose conduct he was to be made responsible

I believe it was a case before Mr. Justice Raymond, when the same doctrine was recognised, with proper limitations and restrictions, well suited to the condition and feelings of those, who might think proper to use a whip or rattan, no bigger than my thumb, in order to inforce the salutary restraints of domestic discipline.

Family broils and dissentions cannot be investigated before the tribunals of the country… let the husband be permitted to exercise the right of moderate chastisement… without being subjected to vexatious prosecutions, resulting in the mutual discredit and shame of all parties concerned. Judgment affirmed.”

In the case of Calvin Bradley vs The State, the court affirmed what it called “the ancient common law” right of a husband to use “moderate chastisement” with his wife referring to this practice as “domestic discipline”.    It also respected the limits of civil government interfering in the affairs of the family and stated husbands should not be subjected to prosecutions for exercising their right to domestic discipline as long as they did so in moderation.

1864 – State Of North Carolina vs Jesse Black

In this case the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled as follows:

“A husband is responsible for the acts of his wife, and he is required to govern his household, and for that purpose the law permits him to use towards his wife such a degree of force as is necessary to control an unruly temper and make her behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted, or there be an excess of violence, or such a degree of cruelty as shows that it is inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum or go behind the curtain.”

As in previous cases, the court affirmed that the husband’s right to chastise his wife flows from his responsibility to govern all in his household and his wife is part of his household.   The court affirmed that it is improper for the civil government to “invade the domestic forum”. 

In this decision, the court did recognize limits on the husband’s power to use corporal punishment to chastise his wife.  They said that a husband’s chastisement of his wife should not cause any “permanent injury” or be excessively violent and that he should not discipline his wife for his own sadistic pleasure.  The court’s view in this case aligns with the Scriptural command to husbands in Ephesians 5:28-29 that they are to care for and protect their wife’s bodies as they would their own.  

1871 – The Year American Courts Invaded the Domestic Forum

It was in 1871, that a state court did what others had warned against decades earlier.  The court invaded the domestic forum, the sphere of authority given to men as the heads of their households.  It not only overturned decades of American court precedent, but invalidated ancient common law rights of husbands upon which those precedents were built.

In 1871 the case of Fulgham V. State, the Alabama Supreme court ruled as follows:

“Since then, however, learning, with its humanizing influences, has made great progress, and morals and religion have made some progress with it. Therefore, a rod which may be drawn through the wedding ring is not now deemed necessary to teach the wife her duty and subjection to the husband. The husband is therefore not justified or allowed by law to use such a weapon, or any other, for her moderate correction. The wife is not to be considered as the husband’s slave. And the privilege, ancient though it be, to beat her with a stick, to pull her hair, choke her, spit in her face or kick her about the floor, or to inflict upon her like indignities, is not now acknowledged by our law

Two key words stand out in the first sentence and those words are “humanizing” and “progress”. 

What does it mean to “humanize” someone? And to what “progress” were they referring? To understand these concepts, we have to compare and contrast the social classes of the post enlightenment age with those that came before it. 

When God created mankind, he ordained three core social classes and those were men, women and children.  After sin entered the world, he allowed for a fourth social class of slaves (both male and female) because of poverty and war. 

Humanists rejected these four social class structures and instead sought to bring about a new model of society that had only two social classes which we know today as “adults” and “children”.  The abolitionist humanists first targeted the slave class for elimination.  Then some female abolitionists broke off and organized the first womens rights conference in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York.

When they talked about “humanizing” people, they were talking about making women and slaves equal with free men.  In other words, they were seeking to eliminate the social classes of men, women and slaves and replace those classes with one new social class, that of a “human” or “adult” while leaving the child class intact.

This is why today if any adult is seen has having less rights than another adult, it is said that the person with less rights is being “dehumanized”. 

The ultimate goal of humanists of the late 19th century was to build an “internationalist” or what we call today “globalist” society.  No men, no women, no slaves, no rich, no poor, no Christians, no Muslims, no Jews, no Americans, no Mexicans, no British.

Just humans.    

And it is this march toward a one world society with no nations, no religions, no genders, no rich and no poor that humanists refer to as “progress”.  And this is why leftists today refer to themselves as “progressives”.   

Humanists knew that their master plan would take decades and perhaps more than a century to bring about.   And they knew they had to do it in small incremental pieces.  This is why if you notice in this ruling, the court still acknowledged that a wife had a duty to be in subjection to her husband. It would have been too much for American society to accept all at once that a husband could not use corporal punishment on his wife and that a wife did not have a duty to obey her husband.

The court was simply taking away a primary means of him enforcing that subjection, his ability to use corporal chastisement on his wife.  And by reducing the ability of husbands to enforce their rule over their wives, women were given more power.

In other words, taking away a husband’s right to use corporal discipline upon his wife was one of the first steps in dismantling patriarchy. 

The court falsely equated a man using moderate correction with a rod to him having a right “to pull her hair, choke her, spit in her face or kick her about the floor”.   This is what leftists do, they use extremes and abuses of authority, or this case chastisement, to get rid of all chastisement and in essence to get rid of an authority’s ability to chastise.

While Tennessee was the first state to outlaw “wife beating” in 1850, the vast majority of states did not do so until after this ruling in the 1870s.

But even though the courts and state legislatures had invaded the domestic forum by the late 19th century, local law enforcement officials rarely enforced these laws.  In other words, most local police did not feel right about invading the domestic forum even though state laws and court decisions would allow it. 

It would not be until more than a century after the first laws denying husbands’ rights to use corporal punishment on their wives, that a new “Domestic Violence” movement would arise in the early 1970s.  It was then that new domestic violence laws were passed and edicts came down from state and local governments forcing police to invade the domestic forum.

Conclusion

We have shown here that early 19th century jurisprudence respected ancient common laws giving husbands the right to use corporal punishment as part of domestic discipline with their wives. 

The courts showed great deference to the domestic forum, recognizing it was not right for civil authorities to intervene in domestic affairs, except under the gravest of circumstances, as husbands were to have supremacy in the affairs of their homes.

Later courts, following humanist philosophies, broke this sacred rule and launched a full-scale government invasion of the domestic forum with the attack on corporal punishment of wives being only one of the first battles in this invasion.

A 19th Century Suffragette View of Domestic Discipline

In this second article in our series on domestic discipline, we will be looking at the 19th century suffragette (feminist) view of domestic discipline.  To do this we will look at two primary sources.  The first is the Declaration of Sentiments which was issued from the first woman’s rights conference in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York. 

The second source we will be looking at is a book entitled “History of Woman Suffrage: 1848-1861”, written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, ‎Susan Brownell Anthony and ‎Matilda Joslyn Gage in 1881.  This book is also a valuable resource in understanding the historical view of domestic discipline.   Less than 20 years before this book was published, state courts in America were still upholding a man’s right to use corporal punishment with his wife.  It was only in the 1870s that courts began striking down this common law right and later states would begin enacting laws against it.

The Declaration of Sentiments

The Declaration of Independence was America declaring its independence from England and the Declaration of Sentiments was women declaring their independence from men.    Below is a portion of the Declaration of Sentiments issued from the first woman’s rights conference in 1848:

“The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes, with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master – the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.

As Bible believing Christians, we can and should recognize the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments for what it was and still is today.  A declaration of war on God’s institution of patriarchy.   And the sad truth is, that more than 170 years later that war has been mostly won by feminists. Those who still hold to God’s design of patriarchy have been forced into hiding, with their only option to fight a spiritual guerrilla warfare against those who seek to eradicate the last pockets of resistance to the reigning humanist regimes.

“In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband”

The common laws of the land in this case were strongly aligned with the Word of God as seen in Titus 2:4-5:

“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.”

In fact, we can rightly say that the Declaration of Sentiments complaint against women being compelled by common law to be obedient to their husbands was blasphemy against the Word of God.

The Husband is “to all intents and purposes, her master”

Again, the Scriptures are crystal clear on this point calling women to regard their husband’s as their earthly lords (their masters) in 1 Peter 3:5-6:

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

The Greek word used in 1 Peter 3:6 is “kurios” which means master.  It is used in reference to kings, governors, slave masters, husbands and to God himself in the Bible.  All of these masters were authorities instituted by God over different spheres, but God is the LORD and master of all.  The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek kurios is “baal” which means “owner, lord, master”. 

In Deuteronomy 22:22 we see the following example showing the husband’s ownership over his wife:

“If a man be found lying with a woman married [‘baal’ used as verb] to an husband [‘baal’ used as noun] , then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

The passage above demonstrates that under God’s law a married woman is an owned woman, and her owner is her husband.

The Husbands power “to administer chastisement”

The power to chastise is a critical element of authority. If a person can tell others what to do, but they have no means of enforcing what they have commanded then they really are not an authority.  And this is why the early woman’s rights movement targeted the common law recognition of the husband’s right to chastise his wife.  If they could remove his power to chastise her, they knew they were effectively removing his authority over her.

History of Woman Suffrage: 1848-1861

The women who wrote “History of Woman Suffrage: 1848-1861” lived in the era when wife spanking was still widely practiced and culturally accepted so their perspective is valuable in the historical sense, even with their moral position on the rights of women and husbands chastising their wives being completely unbiblical and wrong.

In pages 88-89 the History of Woman Suffrage: 1848-1861 states:

“In those early days a husband’s supremacy was often enforced in the rural districts by corporeal chastisement, and it was considered by most people as quite right and proper – as much so as the correction of refractory children in like manner…The laws made it his privilege – and the Bible, as interpreted, made it is his duty.”

If you go to the average Christian today in the average Christian church, even most conservative evangelical churches, and you started talking about domestic discipline they would have no clue what you are talking about.  I know if you would have mentioned it to me 7 or 8 years ago, I would have been one of those people with a blank look. And if you mentioned “wife spanking” they would look at you like you are crazy.   I know I would have. 

But I am happy to have been challenged on this subject.  Because it caused me to really have to research this out.  I already showed in my first article in this series on domestic discipline, “The Biblical Case for Domestic Discipline”, that the Bible fully supports two important concepts. 

First it supports the concept of corporal punishment for both children and adults.  Secondly, it supports husband’s chastening their wives as we see God chastening his wife Israel in the Old Testament and Christ chastening his wife, the church, in the New Testament.

But then we come to the historical side of this.  Before the 20th century, most Christians believed according the Bible that husbands had a right and duty to chasten their wives using corporal punishment.  The common laws of the land supported this right. And except for the left-wing feminists of the 19th century, Christian women fully accepted this too.

Chastisement Was Seen as Good for A Wife’s Moral Development

On page 599 the History of Woman Suffrage: 1848-1861 states:

“By the common law of England, the spirit of which has been but too faithfully incorporated into our statute law, a husband has a right to whip his wife with a rod not larger than his thumb, to shut her up in a room, and administer whatever moderate chastisement he may deem necessary to insure obedience to his wishes, and for her healthful moral development! He can forbid all persons harboring or trusting her on his account.  He can deprive her of all social intercourse with her nearest and dearest friends.  If by great economy she accumulates a small sum, which for future need she deposit, little by little, in a savings bank, the husband has a right to draw it out, at his option, to use it as he may see fit.”

A husband chastising his wife was seen as a healthy and moral thing for a marriage.  But his powers of chastisement were not limited just to corporal punishment.  But he could also literally ground his wife as a parent grounds their child and send her to her room.  This was the normal accepted practice under common law.

Domestic Discipline Outlawed in the Late 19th Century

On page 792 the History of Woman Suffrage: 1848-1861 states:

“Wife-beating is still so common, even in America, that a number of States have of late introduced bills especially directed to the punishment of the wife-beater. Great surprise is frequently shown by these men when arrested. “Is she not my wife” is cried in tones proving the brutal husband had been trained to consider this relationship a sufficient justification for any abuse.”

“Chastisement” did not have enough sting to it.  In fact, even in the late 19th century, the word “chastisement” in America was seen as a positive word.  So then feminists went from speaking about husbands chastising their wives to calling men “wife-beaters”.  That had a much better ring to it.  And they declared that a husband chastising his wife in any form was “abuse”.   

Now to be sure, there were some men who took their right to chastise their wives too far causing serious or permanent injuries to their wives.  And this of course was the case throughout the history of mankind and was by no means unique to America.   But the exact same thing could also be said for parents, whether they were fathers or mothers who chastised their children, that some abused their God given authority to administer corporal chastisement.

But that fact that some husbands abused their power to exercise corporal chastisement did not give civil governments the right to remove this God given power from husbands.   What they should have done was deal with those extreme cases on a case by case basis.

Conclusion

In this second article we have shown that the early feminists declared war on Biblical patriarchy from the very beginning of their movement in 1848.   They utterly rejected God’s design of male headship over women. 

These early feminists or “suffragettes”, knew they had to play on the emotions of the American people to win their cause.  And they did exactly that.  They found the most extreme and outlandish cases of abuse they could find to bring before courts and state legislators to prove that all men were potential abusers or “wife-beaters” and the only way to protect women from the abuses of men was to completely strip men of their power of corporal chastisement over their wives.

But we also learned something else in this article.  Something that husbands and wives of today needed to see.  This idea of a husband using corporal punishment to chastise his wife is not some recently invented behavior by some far-right Christians.  It is not just some kinky BDSM thing.  But rather, before the late 19th century it was the protected law of the land and Christians believed husbands had a Biblical right and duty to exercise corporal chastisement on their wives for the good of their wife’s moral development and the health of their marriages.

The Biblical Case for Domestic Discipline

What is the Biblical view of domestic discipline (aka wife-spanking)? What were cultural views of wife spanking in America before the modern era? These are two different questions that we will be answering in this new series.

There are many behaviors and teachings that were the norm from ancient civilizations to just before the modern age that we as Bible believing Christians would disagree with. I have written on my own disagreements with some of the teachings and practices of the early church fathers, the reformers and even traditions of my own church upbringing in Independent Fundamental Baptist churches.

In other words, I would be the first to say just because something was taught or practiced in past eras does not make it moral or right. On the other hand, just because our modern culture thinks something is moral or immoral does not make it so. The question then becomes how can we determine the morality of a given belief or practice?

Jesus Christ answered this question of how we can determine the morality of a belief or practice when he said in Matthew 4:4 “…Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God“.

And the Apostle Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe”.

The Word that God gave to the Prophets before Christ, the Word that Christ himself spoke and the Word of God given to the Apostles after Christ collectively form the Scriptures. In 2 Timothy 3:16 we read that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”.

The Scriptures then are what we are to build our beliefs and practices upon. However, does that mean history has no value? Of course not. We can learn from past civilizations and compare their behavior to moral standards found in the Word of God. We can then see how some past cultural practices which align with the teachings of the Bible helped to keep those cultures strong. And we can also see how past cultural practices which violated Biblical principles or commands ultimately led to the weakening and downfall of those earlier civilizations.

In this first article we will demonstrate how the practice of domestic discipline aligns perfectly with Biblical principles and commands regarding marriage. And then after that we will spend several articles looking at cultural views of domestic discipline in America before the modern age.

The Biblical Case for Domestic Discipline

Throughout the Bible, God pictures his relationship with us in one of two ways.  As individuals God pictures his relationship to us as father to his children.  But he pictures his relationship to his people as a group as that of a husband and wife. 

In Isaiah 54:5 God said to Israel “For thy Maker is thine HUSBAND; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called”.  And he consistently referred to the nation of Israel as his wife.  When Israel was unfaithful to him, God stated in Jeremiah 3:20 “Surely as a WIFE treacherously departeth from her HUSBAND, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the Lord”.

In Deuteronomy 8:3-5 God speaks of his humbling and chastening of his wife, the nation of Israel:

“And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.  Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years. Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God CHASTENETH thee.”

So, God shows us that a husband chastens his wife as he would his child.  So how does God say a child is to be chastened in the following passages:

“Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.”

Proverbs 23:13 (KJV)

“Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.”

Proverbs 19:18 (KJV)

And now let’s move from the Old Testament to New Testament.

In the Gospel of John we read the following account of Jesus Christ:

13 And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables”

John 2:13-15 (KJV)

Jesus Christ showed that he had absolutely no problem with the Old Testament commands and practices regarding corporal (physical) punishment, aka beating someone with a whip or rod as a form of punishment.

Later in the New Testament, in Ephesians 5:25 the Bible states “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”.  Most churches today stop at verse 25 and bastardize the Scriptural command to say God wants husbands to “give themselves up for their wife’s happiness”.  This of course plays right into the false doctrine of feminism which so infects the churches today.

It is absolutely true at times that a husband must sacrifice himself for his wife.  But his sacrifice is not for her happiness, but rather his sacrifice is for her holiness.  See the full passage from Ephesians 5:25-27 that most churches today ignore:

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

The Scriptures above are clear. Husbands are to model their love for their wives by how Christ demonstrates his love for his church. That means husbands are to wash their wives spiritual spots and wrinkles with the Word of God.

In Revelation 3:19 we see that this washing involves a husband rebuking and chastening his wife:

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

Conclusion

In the Old Testament, we read in Deuteronomy 8:5 that God said he chastened his wife, the nation of Israel, “as a man chasteneth his son”. And God tells parents to use corporal punishment on their children in Proverbs 19:18 & Proverbs 23:13.

In the New Testament, we read in Ephesians 5:25 that husbands are to love their wives “even as Christ also loved the church” and Christ says of his churches in Revelation 3:19 “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”.

The case could not be more clear that the practice of a man using corporal punishment on his wife, also known as wife-spanking or domestic discipline, very much aligns with the teachings of the Bible. A man using corporal punishment on his wife images God’s behavior as a husband to his wife, the people of God.

WARNING

Because of the wicked post-feminist and humanist society we now live in, I must always give this warning when writing on the subject of a husband using corporal punishment to chasten his wife.

First, let me be clear that God’s law no more requires a husband to get his wife’s consent to chasten her than he does a parent to get their child’s consent to chasten to them.

But Jesus Christ also told us as Christians to be “wise as serpents” in Matthew 10:16. This means that we need to be careful in the exercise of our rights as husbands.

Applying this principle of being wise as serpents to domestic discipline means you first need to educate your wife on the Biblical command for husbands to chasten their wives as God chastens his. And only after your wife fully accepts this as part of the Christian faith, and by extension Christian marriage, and consents to you incorporating this into your marriage should you attempt to do this.

If you attempt to do this with a wife who rejects the principle of Christian domestic discipline, you could land in jail.

If you have a wife who rejects the Biblical allowance for a husband to use corporal punishment to chasten his wife, or even if she rejects all forms of chastening, I would refer you to my article “7 Ways To Discipline You Wife“. That article will teach you how to use non-physical means to fulfill your Biblical obligation as a husband to chasten your wife.

No, Larry Solomon of BiblicalGenderRoles.com is Not Steven Anderson

So apparently there has been a rumor going around on reddit and other places that says I, Larry Solomon (aka BGR), am actually Pastor Steven Anderson.  Pastor Steven Anderson is the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. He also founded the New Independent Fundamental Baptist movement in 2017.

Do Pastor Anderson and I have many things in common? Yes.  But we also have significant differences in our teachings as well. 

Beliefs Steven Anderson and I have in Common

What follows are several similarities between my teachings and beliefs and those of Pastor Steven Anderson.

1 – We agree on the most important doctrine in the Bible

Pastor Steve Anderson and I both believe salvation is by faith alone, through Christ alone.

“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.”

Romans 10:9 (KJV)

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

Acts 4:12 (KJV)

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:  Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)

2 – We agree on the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy

The second most important thing Pastor Anderson and I have in common is that we both believe the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God and we are to live our lives by it:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”

Matthew 4:4 (KJV)

3 – We both are Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFBs)

A third thing Pastor Anderson and I have in common is that we both come from IFB churches.

My parents raised me in IFB churches for most of my life.  And as an adult I attended and raised my children in IFB churches.  I attended and graduated from an IFB Christian school.  Some of my class mates in high school went on to become IFB pastors or IFB missionaries.

4 – We agree on Biblical gender roles

Pastor Steven Anderson is one of the few preachers out there that is actually still preaching the neglected doctrines of Biblical gender roles.

In a sermon he preached on March 22, 2015, entitled “Women Working in Light of the Bible”, Pastor Anderson made the following statements which very much align with my teachings based on the Biblical doctrines concerning gender roles:

“The main thing that I want to preach about this morning is the subject of women working outside the home, and the husband not providing and being the breadwinner of the home, but rather both husband and wife working. This has become the norm in our society today. It’s not biblical. It’s not God’s will. It’s not something that is the standard that the word of God says…

What the Bible teaches is that it’s man’s responsibility to provide for his him, and to provide for they of his own house, and that the woman’s job is to be a keeper at home, to be good, to be obedient to her husband, and to raise the children and guide the house and keep the house. I’ll submit to you that that is a full-time job.”

I have said from the beginning of establishing this blog back in 2014, that God had called me to speak on a particular area where I saw a great gap in churches today.   That gap exists even within many IFB churches today.  And that gap is regarding the teaching of Biblical gender roles.

Most churches today have abandoned the basic Biblical doctrine that marriage was created by God to be a picture of the relationship between God and his people Israel in the Old Testament and between Christ and his church in the New Testament.  We find this picture presented to us in the Scriptures below:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  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.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

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

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

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

Ephesians 5:22-33 (KJV)

The Scriptures above tell us that it is “for this cause”, the cause of picturing the relationship of God to his people, of Christ to his Church, that we as men and women are to seek out marriage.   

In marriage, men are to picture God’s love through his leadership, provision, protection, teaching and discipline of his people.  And conversely, women are to depend upon the leadership, teaching, provision and protection of their husbands and submit to and reverence their husbands as the people of God are to do these things toward God.

Certainly, God places within us the drive for human companionship, sexual pleasure and the drive to have children as well and those are some of the other purposes for which God created marriage.  But we must never loose sight of the primary purpose for which God created marriage, and that was to picture the relationship between himself and his people. 

The sad truth is that most churches today teach an abridged and bastardized version of what the Scriptures state about marriage in Ephesians 5:22-33 as well as many other passages.  If they teach anything from the passage above, it is only to tell men that they are to “give themselves up” for and “cherish” their wives. They of course falsely interpret this as husbands needing to live to make their wives happy and worship the ground their wives walk on.

How many churches today teach that wives are to submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord”?

How many churches today teach “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church”?

How many churches today teach “as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing”?

How many churches today teach wives to “reverence” their husbands?

The sad answer to all these questions above is very few.  But Pastor Anderson is one of the few left still preaching these Biblical doctrines concerning gender roles.

5 – We agree that LGBTQ behavior is wicked and an abomination before God

Like Pastor Anderson, I too believe that the behaviors of LGBTQ persons are wicked and an abomination before God.  The Scriptures are clear on this point:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)

“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:  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.”

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

Pastor Anderson and I also have in common that we both reject Dispensationalism and believe in a post tribulation rapture and we also both reject Calvinism. 

On the political front we both are avid Second Amendment advocates.

So yes, Pastor Steven Anderson and I have a lot in common, probably more than most people.   But we also have several major doctrinal disagreements.

Disagreements I Have with Steve Anderson

What follows are several disagreements I have with Steven Anderson what set me apart from him.

1 – I am not KJV Only and Steven Anderson is

The 1611 King James Bible was actually preceded by 9 English translations of the Bible before it.  Those earlier editions were the Wycliffe Bible (1382-1395), the Tyndale Bible (1523), the Coverdale’s Bible (1535), the Matthew’s Bible (1537), the Taverner’s Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop’s Bible (1568) and Douay-Rheims (1610).

In addition to that, there were several revisions of the KJV and one of most commonly used today is the 1873 Scrivener edition.

When Steven Anderson and I both state that we believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, we are basing that belief on different versions of the Bible.   My belief is that the Bible is inerrant in its original writings in the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages.  While no two ancient manuscripts of the Bible agree word for word, I believe that by taking the sum total of those ancient manuscripts that we can arrive at the complete Word of God.  And no doctrine of the Bible is lost based on the differences between these ancient manuscripts.

The position of Steven Anderson and those hold the “KJV Only” position is that the 1873 Scrivener edition of the KJV Bible is the inerrant and preserved Word of God by which all other translations whether in English or any other language before or after this edition must be judged as accurate.   They even believe that if the KJV has wording not found in any ancient manuscript (majority or minority texts), that God providentially wanted it to be there.

In contrast with Steven Anderson, I hold the “KJV Preference” position.  I quote from the KJV the majority of the time on my blog because I admire its literal translation and its historical value as a world-renowned version of the Bible.   But I also use the NASB from time to time because it is the most literal modern translation of the Bible in English and sometimes it is actually more literal to the original texts of the Bible than the KJV.

To those outside the Biblicist community of Christians, this might seem like a silly difference.  But I have seen many IFB churches split into different churches based on this KJV Only issue.

2 – The IFB church I attend is NOT part of the Steven Anderson’s New IFB church movement

IFB churches originated in the late 19th and early 20th century as a reaction to modernist views which had infiltrated many churches, including some Baptist churches in America.  It was also a reaction to the overreach of Baptist conventions like the Northern and Southern Baptist conventions. 

This is where the term “Independent Fundamental Baptist” came from.  “Independent” meaning a church not part of a convention (i.e. Southern Baptist Convention).  “Fundamental” as in a church that teaches the fundamentals of the faith such as the Trinity, salvation in Christ alone by faith alone, the inerrancy of the Bible, the reality of miracles and a belief in a literal 6-day creation account. Historically, IFBs have also been some of the strongest adherents to Biblical gender roles.  And finally Baptist, in holding to the historic Baptist beliefs of believers baptism by immersion, the autonomy of the local church, the priesthood of the believer, communion and baptism being the two ordinances of the church, only two church officers those of pastor and deacon and membership in the church being only those who have been made public professions faith and have received baptism by immersion.

Another core tenant of the IFB movement was an utter rejection of all forms of ecumenicalism and that is why until the last decade or so you would never see any IFB church doing joint ministries with any church except another IFB church.

KJV Onlyism was also a core tenant held by most IFB churches.

Many IFB churches also had added some additional rules not found in the Bible including prohibitions against using play cards, attending movie theaters, mixed bathing (going swimming with members of opposite), women wearing pants or shorts, smoking, drinking alcohol and gambling.   When rock and roll music came out, the IFB churches added prohibitions against their members listening to any music with a “rock beat”.

As of 2020, there are an estimated 6000 IFB churches in America.

The IFB churches I grew up in, as well as the IFB high school I attend, had all these rules.

As a teenager in my IFB Christian school, I had a great love of studying and discussing the Scriptures.  My history teacher once said to someone who asked about me- “I predict that Larry is going to be either a pastor, a programmer or a politician”.  He was referring to the passion he saw in me for the subjects of theology, computer programming and history.   In the end I chose the programming route, but I was able to teach Sunday school in IFB churches over the years and then I was able to start this ministry 6 years ago to further use my God-given gifts for the kingdom of God.  So, thanks to God and his providence, I have been able to pursue all three God given passions the Lord has laid on my heart since I was a young man.

But while I greatly admired the IFB legacy of a zeal for living by the Bible and its adherence to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, I came to reject some of the more traditional IFB beliefs which I found to be lacking in Scriptural support.

I started having some of these differences with my IFB upbringing as early as my late teens, while many others I came to in my early to mid-20s.    Some I did not come to till much later in life well into my 30s.

I came to reject the IFB traditional rules against using play cards, attending movie theaters, mixed bathing (going swimming with members of opposite), women wearing pants or shorts, smoking, drinking alcohol, gambling and listening to music with rock beat.  I found that all these rules lacked clear Scriptural support.  And the biggest change for me was coming to reject KJV Onlyism after an extensive study I did on the history of the making of the Bible when I was in my early 20s.

Eventually I knew I had to leave the IFB church I attended and move to one that was closer to my position on these issues and I found that in the IFB church I have now attended for more than a decade.  I still have some differences with my current Pastor, but far less than I would with some of these other IFB churches.

Just this last Sunday, my Pastor was telling me before the service that he found an old sermon that a previous pastor of our church had preached many decades ago against play cards.  He actually did a whole series against playing cards!  We both laughed.

My pastor and I agree that many of these older IFB rules are what Colossians 2:22 refers to as “the commandments and doctrines of men” rather than the commandments and doctrines of God.

When I first came out with my differences on these positions more than 20 years ago, some of my IFB friends called me “liberal” even though I still strongly believed in the fundamentals of the faith and Baptist church practices.  Eventually though, during those same two decades, many of my IFB friends, as well as their churches, changed their positions on some or all of these issues.

And that brings us to Pastor Steven Anderson.  Pastor Anderson did not agree with these moves away from traditional IFB rules of “holy living” and especially the move away from KJV Onlyism and this prompted him to create his “New IFB” church movement in 2017.

In 2020, there are about 30 IFB churches that have joined his movement.

3 – I don’t believe the government must have the death penalty for homosexuals, Steven Anderson does

Steven Anderson has said in so many words on more than one occasion that he would like to see gays put to death.  I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he means the government doing it, and not Christians running in the streets randomly killing gays.  He bases that belief on the following Old Testament passage:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”.

Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)

When we look at the Old Testament, we must be careful to separate the moral law from the civil penalties imposed for breaking God’s law under the theocracy of Israel which God instituted.  The New Testament church is not a physical nation, but rather a spiritual nation made up of believers from all physical nations of the world.  The church has no civil authority to execute punishments like these imposed for the theocracy of Israel.

So no, the United States government is not Biblically obliged to execute homosexuals as Steven Anderson believes.  But there is a difference between executing homosexuals, and approving of their behavior as the American government now does.

The Scriptures tell us the role of all civil governments:

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;  Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well”.

1 Peter 2:13-14 (KJV)

All civil governments have a God ordained duty to condemn behavior which God condemns in his Word.  God condemns activities like prostitution, premarital sex, incest, adultery, men having sexual relations with men and transgenderism.  Therefore, the civil government by the command of God has an obligation to punish these “evildoers”.

The punishments of course are not defined for any civil government outside the theocracy of Israel which no longer exists, therefore the punishments are left by God to the discretion of the civil authorities.

Someone might ask “Ok, so Leviticus 20:13 does not mean all civil governments for all time must execute men who have sex with other men.  But does it allow civil governments to do this if they wanted to?”  The answer to that question is YES. Now to the humanists (Christian or atheist) reading this, they may see this as a distinction without a difference. But it is a very big difference between me and Steven Anderson.  He believes the government is compelled to execute men who have sex with other men, while I believe the civil government is only compelled to condemn this action and may punish this behavior in other non-lethal ways.

4 – Steven Anderson and I would strongly disagree on Biblical sexology

If the people spreading rumors that I was Steve Anderson had really done their homework, and simply searched for “Steven Anderson” in the search bar of my blog, they would have found an article I wrote way back in 2015 refuting Steven Anderson’s position on what the Bible says about lust.  The article is entitled “What is the Lust of the Eyes in I John 2:16?”.   I had it slated for migrating over to my new blog BiblicalSexology.com, but I will leave it here for a while longer although I have turned off the comments for it.

I teach that Matthew 5:28’s prohibition against a man looking on a woman “to lust after her” can only be understood by the Biblical definition of lust.  The Biblical definition of lust is given to us in Romans 7:7 when the Apostle Paul states “for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet”.  After being told that lust is covetousness and a violation of the 10th commandment, we must then look to the 10th commandment.  In Exodus 20:17 the Bible states “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”.

So, this leads us to the following conclusions regarding lust.  If lust was merely desire of any kind, then all real-estate transactions would be sinful.  You don’t buy someone’s house without first finding it desirable, and then going through the process to purchase it.   

What Exodus 20:17 teaches us is that covetousness (aka lust) is when we desire to use or take something or someone in an unlawful manner.  In the context of sexual lust, that would mean a man desiring to entice a woman into having sexual relations with him outside of marriage.  

Lust is not merely a man finding a woman sexually desirable.  It is not a man enjoying the view of a woman’s body or even him having sexual fantasies about her.  Lust is not normal heterosexual desire. 

It is only when we desire to entice someone into having sexual relations outside of marriage that we have committed the Biblical sin of lust in the sexual sense of the word.

Also, Steven Anderson and I would disagree on the subject of Biblical polygamy.  He does not see it as allowable for the New Testament age and I do.

For more on these topics regarding Biblical Sexology, please go to my new site BiblicalSexology.com.   And if you want to discuss these topics on sexuality, I would ask that you comment over on that blog on the relevant topics which you can easily find right on the home page of that site.

Conclusion

I am not Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. 

Anderson would call me a “KJV denier” for not being KJV Only.  

Anderson would call me a “worldly man” because I play Texas Holdem with my friends and family, because I love movies and have a massive DVD and Blu-ray collection of sci-fi, horror movies and action films.  Because I let my daughter wear all kinds of pants and shorts and because I let my daughter go “mixed bathing” (aka swimming at beaches). 

Anderson would also consider me an “ecumenical” because I associate online with other conservative Bible believing Christians of all denominations who embrace the Biblical doctrines of gender roles.  Pentecostals, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Catholics – Oh my!

And if he ever read my views on BiblicalSexology.com he would deny that I am even a Christian, let alone an IFB Christian.

So no, I am not Pastor Steven Anderson.  Nor would I encourage any of my children, family or friends to join his church or any of the new IFB churches.  

The Candace Cameron Bure Boob Incident

Last week when celebrating their 24th wedding anniversary, Candace Cameron Bure, with her husband’s approval, posted what was meant to be a fun and light hearted picture of her husband cupping her fully clothed breast.  And right after she posted it, the Christian modesty mob came for her.  The sight of a married man cupping his wife’s clothed breast was just too much for them to bear.

If you have read her writings for women and compared them with mine you will know that I am definitely to the right of Candace in many areas including her views of submission and careerism among women.

But I will give credit where credit is due. Candace may not be where she needs to be on these subjects, but she is FAR closer to the target than most of the Christian female authors and bloggers today.

And I love the statement she made in response to those who criticized her posting the picture of her husband cupping her breast:

“He can touch me anytime he wants, and I hope he does. This is what a healthy, good marriage and relationship is all about”.

You can read my full take on this “Candace Cameron Bure Boob Incident” as well as an interesting Scriptural parallel I show on my new blog BiblicalSexology.com.

Sex Change Surgeries and Hormones Don’t Help Transgenders

The American Journal of Psychiatry was forced to retract the primary conclusions of a 2019 study that stated that sex change surgeries help to reduce depression, anxiety and suicide rates in transgender persons. It appears the authors of the study ignored key evidence which directly contradicted their conclusions, almost as if they “cherry picked” evidence to get the desired outcome which was most politically correct.

When taking all of the evidence from the study into account, the study actually showed that even after undergoing sex change surgeries, transgender persons still had the same continued higher rates of depression, anxiety and suicide than the general population….

Unlike our humanist friends, we as Biblicist Christians do not base our moral view on studies, but rather on the Bible. But it is nice to see some honesty applied to some of these studies from time to time.

But let’s just say for argument’s sake, that people with the mental disorder of gender dysphoria did receive relief from the depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts after having sex change surgeries and receiving hormone treatments to appear more like the opposite sex they were born as. Would that make these kinds of surgeries and hormone treatments, right?

In my full article on this subject on BiblicistReport.com, you can read what the doctors who challenged this study said about both the flawed study methodology, as well as the transgender political movement that is trying to manipulate the scientific community to do their bidding. As always of course, I also go where the doctors don’t go, and that is into the moral and spiritual side of transgenderism from a Biblical perspective. You can read the full article here.