Baptist Preacher Says Homosexuality Should Be Capital Crime

A Baptist Pastor named Grayson Fritts in Knox County Tennessee said God has granted the power to government to arrest and execute homosexuals.  He made these statements while preaching from Leviticus 20:13 which says homosexuality is capital crime.

What is also very noteworthy is that Pastor Fritts was also a Knox County police detective for 19 years.  He had quietly accepted a buyout a couple weeks ago.  Some are calling for his police pension to be reviewed.

He claims that this never affected his job as a police officer equating it to if he worked at Burger King that he would still make food for homosexuals and not do anything to their food because it was his job to do so and this is the same way he carried out his duties as a police officer.

In the recording above, after his initial sermon which caused the media firestorm around him, he made it clear if you listen to his whole sermon, he never called on individual civilians to kill or do anything to homosexuals. He was saying God has invested the civil government with this power to arrest and execute homosexuals.

So those who were saying he was inciting his church members or other civilians to go out as individuals and cause harm to homosexuals are factually incorrect and the recordings of his sermons prove this.

You can read more about him in this article from WBIR.com entitled

Offensive and reprehensible’: Knox Co. DAG reviewing cases involving detective who condemned gay people and called for their executions in sermons

Many Christians on Facebook and elsewhere have said his statements saying he hates homosexuals are the complete opposite of the Christian faith and that hate of any kind has no place in true Christianity.

However, those Christians who say this may want to consider the words of King David in the Psalms:

“Do I not hate those who hate you, Lord,
    and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
    I count them my enemies.”

Psalm 139:21-22 (KJV)

God Both Hates and Loves Sinners

While anyone who reads this blog will know I have some disagreements with John Piper in some areas of theology, on this subject of hatred in regard to sin he has a great sermon and article about this entitled “God Loves the Sinner, But Hates the Sin?” where he states the following:

“The problem with the statement—“God loves the sinner, but hates the sin”—is that it is misleading. It is not a false statement. And what is misleading about it is the word but, but hates the sin, because but should be and. God loves the sinner and hates the sin. But implies he doesn’t hate the sinner—that is not true. God does hate sinners. Psalm 5:4: “You are not a God who delights in wickedness. Evil may not dwell with you. The boastful shall not stand before your eyes. You hate all evildoers.” Or Psalm 11:5: “The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.” So it is just not true to give the impression that God doesn’t hate sinners by saying he loves the sinner and hates the sin. He does hate sinners. His wrath is real. It is not something he pours out on people he approves of.

This infinite disapproval is what the Bible means when it says God hates sinners. He infinitely disap-proves of them. Sin is not sinful except as committed by sinful hearts. Sin is an expression of anti-God human corruption, human hearts. Sinful volitions are owing to sinful hearts. Sin doesn’t just hang out there with its own existence, it is in hearts or it is nothing. Sins do not suffer in hell, sinners suffer in hell. I wonder what people who say that believe about hell, because he is not punishing sin in hell, he is punishing sinners in hell. He hates—now here is the paradox—and he loves at the same time. For God so loved the world that he hates. Hate and love are simultaneous as God looks upon hateful, rebellious, corrupt, loathsome, wicked God-dishonoring sinners.

Now here is the distinctions we need to make. This is just so crucial. I hope people will listen carefully. Hate and love both have two meanings each. Hate can be intense loathing of a quality or hate can be be-yond that the intense intentionality to destroy. Love, similarly, can be an intense delighting in a quality and it can be an intense intentionality to bless even in spite of the presence of some unsavory quality.”

And now after showing Piper’s words on the subject of hatred in the Scriptures I will add a few thoughts of my own on this subject.

If we examine the Scriptures we will find a truth that is uncomfortable for many modern Americans.  We are taught in our American culture that all forms of hate are bad and all forms of love are good.  The Bible however, teaches something very different.

The Bible teaches that hate is sometimes holy and love is sometimes vile.

Consider these two passages from the Scriptures below which illustrate these twin truths:

Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.

Psalm 97:10 (KJV)

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.”

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

This is Both a Religious Issue and a Political Issue

I have quoted the following statement from Leviticus 20:13 multiple times on this blog in past articles and comments:

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.

While no punishment is prescribed for women in Lesbian relationships, the practice of Lesbian relationships is condemned by God in Romans 1:26.  But the government could punish Lesbians in some way short of capital punishment.

However, God has granted the civil government the right to treat men having sex with men as a capital crime and Romans 13:4 says the following of the civil government’s authority by God to perform capital punishments for certain sins which he allows it for:

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

This power DOES NOT belong to individual citizens .  There is no Biblical warrant for individual citizens to execute men for having sex with men, only the civil government has this power.

I understand where this Pastor was coming from and I partially agree with him.  If we are talking about male homosexuals – then I 100% agree that the government has the right to make homosexuality a capital crime for men.  If we are talking about female homosexuals, then I would support criminalization for female homosexuality short of capital punishment.

Conclusion

Many who even disagree with his statements have said it was his free speech right as well as religious freedom right to make the statements he did from his church pulpit. But as I have stated on this blog several times, there are others in this country that want to criminalize what this man did from his pulpit.

But these same people do not realize that if this man were to be led away in hand cuffs for what he stated from his pulpit that this would probably ignite a second American civil war just as there are a few other issues that would as well (like gun confiscation).   So be careful of what you wish for (criminalizing Pastors preaching against homosexuality) because you may just reap the consequences of what you sow.

Are Men Becoming Obsolete?

“The male body is becoming outdated tech” – this is the assertion of Mark Manson in his article entitled “What’s the Problem with Masculinity?”   In this article Mr. Manson uses Pablo Escobar and his own “pilgrimage” to the former Escobar estate in Columbia to try and tell us that traditional norms of masculinity are now “outdated”.

Just a forewarning to my readers – Mr. Manson really likes to use the F-word a lot.  It is even the title of one his books and it appears often in his relationship articles on his blog.

Mr. Manson states this about the origins of masculine behavior:

“Masculinity has historically been all about the three P’s: protector, provider, procreation. The more you protect, the more you provide, the more you fuck, the more of a man you are…

But this version of masculinity evolved for a particularly socially-beneficial reason — to protect us from invaders and protect the town and kill bears and stuff. We needed men to fuck a lot because something like half of your kids didn’t survive into puberty. We needed them to provide because you never knew when the next horrible winter was around the corner.”

Manson then goes on to tell us what has changed.  He states that we now live in “a cushy first world where security is more or less guaranteed” where “Violence has largely been automated or outsourced or just plain eliminated”  and “Service economies mean that women are just as capable (and perhaps even more capable) to work and earn a living than men are at most professions”.  He also says “We have like, women’s rights and equality and stuff. Fact is, we’re much more conscious and moral than we used to be. Therefore, the drawbacks of masculine aggression and dominance present not just economic liabilities, but ethical ones as well”.

Manson goes on in the article to totally denigrate historic masculinity and asks the question “Why are men such dicks? Even the word itself, “dick,” the male sex organ, refers to someone who is being rude and offensive”.  He goes on to denigrate men for being “less likely to report any injury suffered at work”, more likely to “work far longer hours, take fewer vacations and sick days” and even for being more likely to die on job.  He castigates the average man for seeing himself as nothing more than a “walking paycheck”.

He talks about men having five times the suicide rate of women (which is true).  And he further derides men for being “so emotionally incompetent without women, that getting married may statistically be the best thing a man can do to improve his longevity and mental health”.

But then Manson tells us that even when men get married, they are “woefully equipped” to handle it and he tells us why:

Women initiate more than 70% of divorces and separations with the most common cause cited as “emotional neglect” from their husbands. Those divorces also hit men the hardest: recently divorced men are more likely to suffer depression, alcoholism, mental illness, and suicide than women are.”

Now we will move on to Manson’s summary of the problem and his answer to it.

Manson’s Answer to the Problem of the Obsolescence of Historic Masculinity

Manson summarizes the problem of the obsolescence of traditional masculinity when he writes:

“The problem with the traditional masculine formula – protection, providing, procreating – is that they require men to measure their self-worth via some external, arbitrary metric. They require men to mortgage their emotional health for the sake of their physical safety. But in a cushy first world where security is more or less guaranteed, those interest payments start adding up.

Men don’t just do this to themselves though. They do it to each other. Hell, women do it as well. Educated women will complain that men are superficial and only want to date women who look like a Victoria’s Secret model. Yet ladies, how many of you are running out the door to date a janitor?

We unfairly objectify women in society for their beauty and sex appeal. Similarly, we unfairly objectify men for their professional success and aggression.”

And then Manson gives us his answer to the problem of the obsolescence of traditional masculinity:

“In the 21st century, we need to evolve our definition of masculinity. Yes, we’re still protectors and providers. And you’re damn right we want to keep pro-creating. But there need to be new internal metrics for a man’s worth as well — his honesty, his integrity, his emotional openness and ability to remain strong in the face of vulnerability.”

Let me boil this down for you, Manson is saying that men need to stop being stoic which means they need to complain when they get hurt at work, work less hours and stop seeing their value in their ability to be providers, protectors and procreators.  Sure, they can still keep doing these things, but they should not be the basis for a man’s worth.

Instead a man’s worth should be found in his emotional openness and his vulnerability. In other words, men should just learn to deal with the fact we are moving to a service economy and it is taking away their ability to be providers.  They should deal with it by having a good cry and then accepting it and moving on.

Men should learn not to be “so emotionally incompetent” that they need marriage to a woman to be mentally healthy and more successful in their jobs.  Men should be successful and emotionally secure without being married or for that matter even having a good paying job.

And if men get more in touch with their emotions and their wife’s emotions, they might be able to make the new modern gynocentric version of marriage last.  And if they happen to be one of the unlucky men who get divorce papers from their wives, they need to again open their emotions up, be vulnerable have a good cry and move on to the next woman hoping she won’t divorce them either.

A Biblical View of the Obsolescence of Traditional Masculinity

The Bible tells us in Proverbs 19:1 “Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool”.  So yes, as Christians we absolutely believe that a man should place great value on his integrity.  But Mark Manson presents us with a false dichotomy that we as men can place our value in our integrity (as well as emotional openness and vulnerability) or we can place our value in being providers, protector and procreators.

Biblically speaking this is not an either-or proposition – it is both.

The Bible tells us that a man should absolutely find a great part of his value in being a procreator when it states:

“3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.”

Psalm 127:3-5 (KJV)

The Bible also tells us that men should find their value in being providers and protectors for their wives and children:

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

Ephesians 5:29 (KJV)

“A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.”

Proverbs 13:22 (KJV)

“Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.”

Psalm 144:1 (KJV)

It is God who created in man the burning desire to take a wife in marriage, have children and then lead, provide for and protect them.  It is God who put in man the strong desire to be a hard worker and to make his mark on the world outside his home.

It is absolutely true that our modern world is trying very hard to make God’s design of masculinity obsolete in every way they can.  As Bible believing Christians though we need to realize this is part of a much larger insidious plan.  The secular humanists have been using scientific and technological advancements as well as cultural changes to try and make God obsolete.

The attack on what we call “traditional masculinity” which really is just God’s design of masculinity is an attack on God himself.  The Scriptures tell us in I Corinthians 11:7 “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.  Man, the male human being, was created by God to image him and thereby bring God glory.  The Scriptures tell us that woman was created by God for man (I Corinthians 11:9) to bring glory to man.

Men are not “emotionally incompetent” for strongly desiring and needing marriage nor for placing their value in being providers and protectors.  Men cannot fulfill the purpose for which God designed them without being husbands, fathers, providers and protectors.  So, it makes perfect sense that some men would feel suicidal and without a sense of purpose if they cannot do these things.

Our modern world hates this truth.  And that is why we are seeing a cultural war over the gender roles God created in the form of transgenderism and homosexuality being forced into cultural acceptance.  Secular humanists are literally trying to annihilate the distinction between men and women as God created it.

How Christians Can Fight Secularist Attempts to Make Traditional Masculinity Obsolete

The world tells us as Bible believing Christians that we just need to conform to how things are now and get with the program. “Stop living in the past and living by the words of a 3000-year-old book” we are often told.  But if we do this and conform to our world’s eradication of masculinity and femininity as God designed it then we are betraying our Christian faith.

The Scriptures tell us in Romans 12:2 “And be not conformed to this world” and in James 4:4 that “whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God”.

The answer then for us as Christians is to fight back by refusing to conform to this wicked agenda which seeks to make God’s design of masculinity (and femininity for that matter) obsolete.

But how do we fight this cultural war? The simple answer is that we need to reverse the cultural decisions that have brought us to the point we now find ourselves at where we are actually debating if traditional masculinity should be tossed to the dustbin of history.

The two major items that have brought traditional masculinity to brink of obsolescence are feminism and automation

Work supplies man with a great amount of his purpose.  And a service economy does not provide the vast majority of men with an income that can support a family.  Only a production economy can supply men with jobs that can support a family.  Some say people just need to be educated more for the future.  That is false for two reasons.

First it assumes all men have the intelligence and aptitude for high tech jobs and learning.  That is untrue. Second as things become more and more automated, we will need even less and less techs because the machines will fix themselves.

Even the atheist Steven Hawking saw AI as threat to humanity.

So, Christians need to raise their voices about the threat of continued automation and AI advances.  We need to pass laws that outlaw further AI advances and also outlaw robotic automation in all manufacturing.  We also need to outlaw driverless cars as this will put truck drivers and man others out of work.

But we must also work to undo feminism.  We must take away the rights America has granted to women since the mid-1800s.   This means taking away women’s right to own property and limiting the ability of women to work and earn money.  It means placing restrictions on how many women may enter higher education.   In other words, it means making women completely dependent on men for their economic provision.

And it absolutely means taking away women’s right to vote.

It also means removing no fault divorce laws and restricting the allowance for divorce to only the gravest of circumstances such as physical abuse, adultery or abandonment.

When we once again secure the institution of marriage and protect the ability of all men to be able to work and earn a living and we restrict women from being independent from men then true masculinity can be restored to its rightful honored position it once held.

But then the question comes – how do we do all the things I just mentioned? They seem impossible in our current culture and political climate.  The answer is it starts with Christian fathers and mothers sitting their young people down and showing them what God’s Word says about the different reasons he designed men and women. It means teaching our sons to seek out only Christian women who want to be keepers of their homes and depend on their husbands for their provision as the church depends on Christ for its provision.

It means raising our daughters to be women whose goal in life is not education and career, but instead bringing glory to God by bringing glory to their future husbands.  It means raising daughters who want to fully dedicate their lives to serving their husbands, their children and their homes.

Here is another way to look at this.  Godly young men need to shut out feminist women.  Even if a feminist woman wants to stay at home, she will still bring great sorrow to her future husband with her daily contentions.  That means staying away from women who want college and university educations and or careers.

Godly Christian women need to work with their fathers to find a man who fully accepts his God given duty to lead them, provide for them and protect them.  A man who is not fully prepared to provide for a wife has no business even approaching a woman’s father to court her.

And yes, we need to get rid of dating and return to courtship.  We need to guard against premarital sex by re-instituting the cultural norm of a woman never being alone with a man not her blood relative or her husband.

This also means Christians need to return to having larger families.  Conservative Christians (both Protestant and Catholic) already have more children than liberal Christian or secular families do.  And this is actually what lead to a conservative resurgence in the 1980s and 1990s.  While the liberals were out partying and living it up having no kids or just one or two kids the conservatives were having 3 or 4 or 5 kids.  So, if we build on this and increase this, we can literally outbreed liberals and win at the voting box with sheer numbers.

But just having more children is not enough.  We must teach our children the Word of God and prepare them for all the false philosophies they will hear in the secular world.  We need to point out to them all the problems with a system built on individualism and how it is destructive to the family and therefore society as a whole.

Misandrist Teen Girls Attack Teen Boys for Ranking Them by Looks

Another unchallenged case of misandry recently took place at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School in Maryland. It was at that high school that a large group of senior girls demanded that their school administrators discipline a group of boys who had made a list ranking several girls according to their looks.

Below is an excerpt from the Washington Post story:

“A group of male students in their program created the list more than a year ago, but it resurfaced earlier this month, through text messages and whispers during class. One male classmate, seeing the name of his good friend Nicky Schmidt on the list, told her about it, and within 24 hours, dozens of girls had heard about the list.

Lists like this one had silently circulated among teen boys for generations, and it has happened in more recent years at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School, too, the students said. But it was happening now, in the era of the #MeToo movement. Women had been standing up to harassment in workplaces and on college campuses and the high school girls, who had been witnessing this empowerment, decided they weren’t going to let the issue slide.

They felt violated, objectified by classmates they considered their friends. They felt uncomfortable getting up to go to the bathroom, worried that the boys might be scanning them and “editing their decimal points,” said Lee Schwartz, one of the other senior girls on the list

Unsatisfied with the disciplinary action, Schmidt texted about 15 girls she knew, and told them to tell all of their friends to show up at the school’s main office the next day during lunch, “to tell them we feel unsafe in this environment and we are tired of this toxicity,” Schmidt wrote in her text.

About 40 senior girls showed up, packing into an assistant principal’s office as Schmidt read a statement she had written.

“We want to know what the school is doing to ensure our safety and security,” Schmidt said. “We should be able to learn in an environment without the constant presence of objectification and misogyny.””

So, there you have it – a classic case of misandry if there ever was one.  And sadly, the teens, both girls and boys were taught to celebrate the misandry that took place as if it was some sort of moral victory.  But the sad truth is, these young girls probably have no idea that what they engaged in was clear act of misandry and the teen boys involved probably don’t know that they are the true victims of hatred in this case.

Misogyny, Misandry and the Battle of Words with the Left

Misogyny is a word that originated in the 17th century and it is the English form of the Latin word Misogynia which came from an ancient Greek word Misogunía.  It is made from two Greek words Miso meaning ‘hatred’ and Gune meaning ‘woman’.  It literally means “woman hater” or “hater of women”.

Misandry is a term of more recent origins than Misogyny but not as recent as many would like to believe.  The term was coined during the early feminist movements of the late 19th century.  One of its first known uses was in reference to Susan B. Anthony, an early feminist champion. The English word misandry was coined from two Greek words Miso for ‘hatred’ and ‘andr’ for man.  So, this word literally means “man hater” or “hater of men”.

Leftists are masters of taking words and changing their meanings.  “Gay” once meant happy, but the leftists perverted it into a reference to homosexuals.  In the classical sense – “Liberal” meant someone who was for freedom.  But now the term liberal has been taken over by the Leftists in their quest for domination and control every thought, word and deed that people do.

Illegal Aliens are now “undocumented immigrants”.   There are many liberals that would even like to strip the terms “husband” and “wife” from all federal and state law and replace it with “spouse” or “partner”.   And they have re-defined the murder of unborn children, abortion, as “Reproductive Rights”.

Another big word the Left has redefined is “dehumanize”.  Previously this word had been used to describe horrific events in human history such as the way African slaves were brought to America on slave ships or the way the Nazi’s stripped the Jews naked and subjected them to medical experiments and gas chambers.

Now we are told you are “dehumanizing” a person if you treat them as the gender they were born as rather than the gender they would like be known as.

And the biggest word Leftists have redefined is “hate”.  If you disagree with any liberal position on any social issue you are a “hater” of some group.

If you oppose homosexuality as a lifestyle or you oppose marriage rights for homosexuals than you are a “hater of gays” or “homophobic”.

If you oppose illegal immigration and want strict limits on immigration and a merit-based system where American citizens choose through their government who can come to America you are a “hater of immigrants” or “xenophobic” or “racist”.

If you think that families and by extension the world operated better when men were in charge of women and women had less rights then the Leftists bring out their favorite term of derision “misogynist”. Also, the term misogynist is applied to the heterosexual male behavior of sexually objectifying of women.

The Alliance Between Leftists and Non-Leftists Over Misogyny

There are many people who would not consider themselves Leftists or even Secular Progressives that would join together with these groups over their opposition to what they agree is “misogynistic behavior” by men.

Specifically, in the area of opposition to the sexual objectification of women there is much agreement between Leftists, Feminists, Conservatives and Christians alike just to name some groups.

What Does It Mean to Objectify a Woman?

Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines an object as “something material that may be perceived by the senses”. So, by that definition both men and women are objects. But then there are animate and inanimate objects. An animate object is one that is alive while an inanimate object is one that is not.  A pen is an example of inanimate object and a horse is an example of animate object.

So, with this understanding, men and women are not only objects, but they are in fact animate or living objects.

As human beings we use both living and non-living objects all the time.  We use pens to write and in the time before the combustion and steam engines we used horses for transportation and for plowing fields.  Now we mostly use horses for sport(racing) or leisure activities.

We even use people.  When a person goes to a hair salon or a barber, they are using a human being like a tool to work on their hair.  When a person goes to a massage place, they are using that person to massage their body.

The military uses human beings as tools of war and in production assembly plants human beings are used as tools of production.

In professional sports human beings are used as tools of entertainment.  They are ranked by their athletic ability and traded by teams as commodities.  Fantasy football teams are very popular now where people can construct their own teams based on the stats of their favorite players.

This now brings us to the objectification of women.  When people understand the definition of an object no one would argue that women are indeed objects and women are material and can be perceived by the senses.   In fact, those who oppose the sexual objectification of women would not even be opposed to women being seen as objects for use as military tools, production tools or entertainment tools such as athletes, singers or actors.

When people say they oppose the objectification of women what they are saying is that they oppose women being seen as objects to be used for the sexual pleasure of men whether it be visual pleasure or physical pleasure.  So, if a man looks at a woman as an object which brings visual pleasure and could bring potential physical pleasure as well then, he is said to be sexually objectifying her.

Also, they generally oppose advertisers who use women’s body parts to sell products, pornography or any other narrative that communicates that women were created for man’s use.

This objectification of women ideology goes further in attempting to dictate to men how they should value women.  We see it all the time on television where men are castigated for walking up to a beautiful woman and asking for her phone number.  Men are told that it is a woman’s mind, her person that should be what attracts him to her and not her body.  Her body should play no part in her value to a man and in fact all women should be equally beautiful to men and men should never discriminate between or say that one woman’s features are more attractive than another.

So, the question for us as Christians to consider is – should we all jump on this train in condemning men for sexually objectifying women?  Many Christians agree with Leftists and other non-Christians that the answer should be yes! We should work together to wipe out this scourge of men objectifying women.

But before we answer so quickly, we will take a look at what the science of human biology shows us about male sexuality and then what the Bible tells us about God’s design of male sexuality.

It’s not Misogyny, Its Biological Reality

Below are some biological facts about the way men’s brains operate:

““the average man’s brain is sexually stimulated by visual cues and is built for variety…

Using functional MRI scans, researchers examined the brains of young men as they looked at pictures of beautiful women. They found that feminine beauty affects a man’s brain at a very primal level – similar to what a hungry person gets from a good meal or addict gets from a fix. One of the researchers said, “This is hard core circuitry. This is not a conditioned response.” Another concluded, “Men apparently cannot do anything about their pleasurable feelings [in the presence of beauty]”

Dr. Walt Larimore, MD – pg. 99 “His Brain, Her Brain”

“Telling men not to become aroused by signs of beauty, youth and health is like telling them not to experience sugar as sweet”

David M. Buss PhD – pg. 71 “The Evolution of Desire”

So, what does this mean in this conversation about the sexual objectification of women? It means that all men with a normal heterosexual orientation sexually objectify women meaning that their brain draws them to the female body and it automatically gets pleasurable feelings from seeing parts of a woman’s body.

It is interesting to note that homosexual men sexually objectify other men as well.   The only exception to this hardwired behavior is for asexual men.

But We Can Change Men!

One of the girls from Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School stated the following of how her generation was going to change male behavior:

“It was the last straw, for us girls, of this ‘boys will be boys’ culture,” Behbehani said. “We’re the generation that is going to make a change.

And these girls are not alone in their thinking.  We have Christians that are essentially teaching the same thing:

Al Blanton at 78mag.com wrote an article entitled “A Man’s Perspective on Yoga Pants“ where he spoke about how men need to change what he acknowledges is “natural” behavior on their part:

    “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.”

So, there it is – men just to need to suppress that part of their brain, the “barbarian” part, the “Cro-Magnon” part that sees women as sex objects.  Then all will be will be good or so we are told.

But are these proposed programs to change natural heterosexual male sexual behavior, right?

Biblical vs Secular Sexual Conversion Programs

Earlier I mentioned that homosexual men sexually objectify other men in the same way that heterosexual men do women.

And here is the great irony.

Leftists hate gay conversion therapy programs that are run by many Christian organizations and they are seeking to have these programs banned in every state.  So, in their view it is wrong and mentally unhealthy to try and reprogram these men from their homosexual orientation. Yet, Leftists and even many Christians and other non-leftists are engaging in a national conversion program under the guise of “toxic masculinity” to reprogram heterosexual masculine behavior.

I agree that both programs are attempting to change human desire and behavior, but the question is which one is right and which one is wrong?

For those of us who believe the Bible is the Word of God the answer is clear.  One behavior is natural by our creator’s standard and the other is not and Romans chapter one answers this question.

“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.”

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

The Scriptures make it clear that by our creator’s standard – sex is “the natural use of the woman” by a man.  It is unnatural and against God’s design for a man to have sexual relations with another man.

Therefore, we can rightly say based upon the clear teaching of the Word of God that when men desire to “use” women for sexual pleasure that this desire is righteous and holy.  In other words, God designed men to see women as sex objects.

However, while God calls sex “the natural use of the woman” he also clearly stipulates the boundary under which men may engage in sexual relations with women:

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

Hebrews 13:4 (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)

Marriage is the only way a man may engage in any type of sexual relations with a woman – that is God’s standard.  That means virtual sex, phone sex, sexting and all other forms of extramarital sexual relations violate God’s prerequisite for man’s sexual use of a woman.

So, what should type of “conversion” programs should we as Bible believing Christians support? The answer is those which conform to God’s design for sex.  That means we should have programs that encourage heterosexual orientation while strongly condemning homosexual orientation.  It means we should have programs that encourage regularly occurring sexual relations within marriage while strongly condemning all extramarital sexual relations.

It is by God’s Design that Men Rank Women By their Bodies

It is not only natural by God’s design for men to want to use women for sexual pleasure, it is also natural and by God’s design for men to rank women by their bodies.

One of the most famous rankings between women found in the Scriptures is that of Rachel and Leah:

“17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured. 18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.

Genesis 29:17-18 (KJV)

The Hebrew phrase that is translated as “beautiful and well favoured” in the KJV is not as literal to Hebrew text.  In the Hebrew it reads yâpheh[beautiful,lovely,fair] tô’ar [form, figure, shape] yâpheh[beautiful,lovely,fair] mar’eh[sight, vision, appearance].  So, when we take this phrase together it said Rachel had “a beautiful figure and was lovely to look at”.  In modern terms we might say “Rachel was built and was easy on the eyes”.

In the Song of Solomon we are told:

“How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince’s daughter! The curves of your hips are like jewels, The work of the hands of an artist.”

Song of Solomon 7:1 (NASB)

Even when God pictures himself and his attraction and eventual marriage to Israel, he uses the woman’s body as the initial focus of his attraction:

“7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare. 8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.”

Ezekiel 16:7-8 (KJV)

Women Are Like Christmas Trees To Men

In the passage we just mentioned from Ezekiel 16:7-8 we see that God refers to a woman’s breasts and the other changes she experiences in puberty as “excellent ornaments”.  And this passage is really a great passage for illustrating how the male  sexual objectification of women is not wrong, but is in fact by the design of God.

We could compare women to Christmas trees.  There is the tree itself and then the ornaments that are placed on the tree. The tree is like the person of the woman or her mind and her character traits and her body parts like her face, hair, breasts, hips, legs and buttocks are like the ornaments on a Christmas tree.

And remember that a Christmas tree is not a Christmas tree without ornaments, right? So, when we look at various Christmas trees what is the first thing we notice? The beauty of the tree or the beauty of the ornaments? It is the ornaments.  But then as we more closely examine the Christmas tree, we will also rate the tree itself.

And this is the way it is for men when it comes to women.  We notice the ornaments first, and then the tree or in other words we are drawn first to the woman’s body and then to her person.  It does not mean that a woman’s person has no value for most men for indeed it does. And it should.  Many a man has found a woman’s “ornaments” to be attractive only to find her “tree” or her inner person to be sorely lacking.

And when a man finds that the beauty of woman’s ornaments is not also reflected in her inner person then he needs to move on from that woman because such a woman will become a snare to him.  In the book of Ecclesiastes, we read of such a woman:

 “And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.”

Ecclesiastes 7:26 (KJV)

Back to the Boys at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School

Now that we have learned about misogyny, misandry and what is natural heterosexual male behavior according to both science and the Bible we will now apply all these truths to the situation which occurred at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School in Maryland.

The girls said they felt violated by the mere existence of such a list made by the boys.  But where was the true violation in this scenario? The true violation occurred when Nicky Schmidt told his friend who was one of the girls on the list, that her name was there.

Let me put this in terms that teen girls can understand.  Imagine that you were at a girls sleep over and you were making a list of boys that you all agreed you liked and thought were cute and then one of the girls at that sleep over went and told one of the boys that he was on that list.  This would be a violation of a private “girls only” conversation would it not?

So, it was the privacy of the teen boys involved who made that list that was “violated” and there was not violation committed against these girls.

What about misogyny? Was the making of this list by these teen boys an act of misogyny? Remember that misogyny means hatred of women.  Were they displaying hatred toward these girls? The answer is No.  In fact, it was quiet the opposite.  They were displaying the degrees to which they found these girls sexually desirable.  If anything, this was a display of a form of love, Eros love, that God designed men to have toward women.   But we must restate again that according to the Bible men cannot act on their Eros desires toward women until marriage, but none the less they are given to men before marriage to encourage men to seek out marriage.

What about an environment of male “scanning” and “objectification” of these young girls?

I am going to address this answer directly to women both young and old reading this.  You ARE being scanned and objectified by men whether it be in your school, your place of work, where you shop or at home with your husbands. It is a fact of life.

But for a man to objectify you as a woman does not mean he is going to grab you and molest you or rape you or that he is even considering such actions.  The normal male sexual objectification of women does not make you “unsafe” as these girls suggested it does.

As I said all heterosexual men sexually objectify women, but it is what we do with that natural objectification of women that matters.  The overwhelming vast majority of men never molest or rape women despite feminist narratives to the contrary. But the sad reality is there has always has been a certain percentage of the male population that acts wrongly based on their natural sexual objectification of women.

Remember I said God meant for women to be like Christmas trees to men.  We as men are drawn first to the ornaments (the body parts) of a woman but we should also care for the tree (the person) as well.   A rapist or molester completely disregards the person of a woman and only sees her as a sexual object.  A normal man, by God’s design, sees a woman as both a person AND an object of sexual beauty and pleasure.

These young boys were scanning and objectifying these young girls long before this list was created and they will be scanning and objectifying these young girls and other women they meet long after the list has been destroyed. The only difference will be in the suppression and expression of the thoughts and desires of these young men as they try to navigate the misandrist environment that is now America.

And make no mistake this was an act of misandry.  Who hated who in this case? Were the boys hating the girls by making a list of to what degree these girls were sexually desirable? No.  Were the girls displaying hatred toward natural and normal male sexual behavior by seeking to have the school administrators hunt down and humiliate the boys who made the list? The answer is a resounding YES.

And now I am going to address men both young and old reading this.

Masculinity as God designed it is under attack.  Whether in it is in phrases like “Fight the Patriarchy” or “Toxic Masculinity” make no mistake that manhood as God designed it is under siege in America.

The question is will we as men tolerate this attack? How long will we sit idly by and watch our son’s natural masculinity be denigrated by our schools, the media, politicians and even church leaders?

This should be a call to action for men in America.  If care about manhood as it has been defined since the dawn of civilization and most importantly how the Bible defines then you must act in defense of it.

What if my daughter were on this list?

My daughter attends a public high school and could very well be ranked and talked about by boys or even put on ranking list like this.  And it would not bother me one bit.  Not even a little.

Why? Because I have taught my daughter from her pre-teens about the differences between male and female sexuality.  And she has been raised with 4 brothers, two older than her and two younger than her. She fully accepts her part in God’s creation and the way that God has designed men.

Now if boys were coming by her locker and harassing her with the list and putting it in her face telling her where she ranked that would be a different story.  That would be actual and real harassment, as opposed to the imagined harassment of these girls at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School.

Just think about this for a second.  These girls said they were being violated by these boys who were privately expressing their own thoughts to one another about their views of the bodies of these girls in their school?

What if my son was one of the boys who made the list?

If my son were one that made the list and if he was not involved in using it to harass or shame girls at his school I would have absolutely NO problem with this whatsoever from an ethical or moral perspective.

I would go down to the school and ask to participate in the discussions that were being had with the students about this.  I would ask the girls to be honest and tell us if they had every talked about boys they liked privately.  Just because their criteria or the way they made their lists was different does not matter.

I would love to use that opportunity to educate young women as to how men’s brains actually operate and that it is natural and normal and no it does make them unsafe from all these boys that naturally sexually objectify them.

But at the same time there is a small percentage of men that will act sinfully when it comes to their sexual desires and they may sexually assault young women. And this is why a young woman should never ever be alone with man that is not her blood male relative until she is married to him.

The way to keep women safe is not to neuter the male sexual nature or try to redefine it to make it more palatable to women, but rather we must follow God’s rules for the safety and protection of both men and women alike.

Now I know the reality is that my son’s school would not give me the opportunity to speak if I presented my views up front to them before talking to the teens.  So, there are some other ways I could go about it.  I could attempt to write a letter to several local newspapers to see if any were looking for a different view point.

And then there is another option.  I could use a more covert approach to infiltrate the meeting.   I could tell the school that I wanted to speak to the children about sexual objectification as the father of one of the boys who made the list without giving away my position on sexual objectification.  I would tell my son to do the same and not reveal my position.

Then when the school administrators allowed me to speak thinking I will tell a story of how I showed my son he was wrong for his actions and why it was wrong I could use it to expose why this is actually a case of misandry or hatred of the normal heterosexual male behavior.

I would even start gently with asking the girls if they every talk about boys they like privately? I would even ask them if they ever made a list of a few boys they like and ones they would like to ask them out? And then I would go from there in explaining the differences between men and women.

I could get a lot out before the school administrators would realize what I was doing.

See these other posts on BiblicalGenderRoles.com related to this topic:

Why it is NOT Wrong for Men to See Women as Sex Objects

Why Christian men should NOT be ashamed of “locker-room talk”

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 1

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 2

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 3

The Root Cause of Antinatalism in America

Within the span of just a few days we have had a congressional representative ask “is it okay to still have children?“ and yesterday we saw Democratic senators blocking a vote to protect infants that survive abortion attempts.  As Christians and as pro-life advocates we speak out against such evil ideologies as we should.  But many Christians and pro-life advocates fail to even recognize, let alone address the root cause of America’s Antinatalism.

Yes, Having Children is a “moral question”

Fox News reported the following about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “legitimate question” that she asked just a few days ago:

“Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said young people have to ask a “legitimate question” in the wake of climate change and mounting student loan debt: “Is it okay to still have children?”

“Our planet is going to face disaster if we don’t turn this ship around,” she said, as she chopped sweet potatoes. “And so it’s basically like, there is a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult and it does lead, I think young people, to have a legitimate question. Ya know, should—is it okay to still have children?

She continued: “Not just financially because people are graduating with 20, 30, 100 thousand dollars of student loan debt so they can’t even afford to have kids in the house, but there’s also just this basic moral question, like, what do we do?””

I actually agree with Miss Ocasio-Cortez that the decision to have children is a “basic moral question”.  And I am glad she framed it that way as a moral question and not a just a “personal decision” as we so often hear. So, here is the answer to Miss Ocasio-Cortez’s question – It is not only “okay to still have children” but it is actually commanded by God:

“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 1:28 (KJV)

God’s very first command to mankind was to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” and until he rescinds that command, we are obliged to obey it.

For young men that means working toward a career that can support a wife and children and as soon as they can support a family seeking out a wife for marriage.

For young women they should be working with their fathers to find godly husbands who can support them and then getting married not long after high school or even dropping out of high school for marriage if their father finds a man earlier and that he approves of.

But whenever we talk about God’s first command and its continuing relevance for our lives today, we must also talk about his exception to that command which is celibacy.

“7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.  9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”

I Corinthians 7:7-9 (KJV)

God gives some people the gift of celibacy for undivided service to him.  Celibacy is not meant as a “get out of marriage free card” as some like to use it.  It is not meant to allow one to live a selfish life free of the responsibilities of marriage and children. It is meant for undivided service to God and is the ONLY exception to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply which means – get married, have sex and have children.

Abortion on Demand is a Natural Consequence of Giving Woman Equal Rights with Men

What I said previously about young women seeking marriage right after high school or even dropping out of high school for marriage may be offensive even to some pro-life people reading this.  But you must understand that God did not command that women have college educations and careers but rather he commanded that they marry and have children:

“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)

Our society’s push for women’s equality with men and independence from men, whether it be in education, careers or voting has directly led to some very tragic realities that are all but buried by our media and sadly even our churches today.

Before the woman’s rights movement began in the mid 1800’s, divorce rates were 3 percent.

By the time of the passage of Woman’s Suffrage in 1920 the divorce rates had jumped to 13 percent.

In the mid 1980’s divorce rates had peaked at 53 percent.  The only reason they eventually fell to the mid 40 percent range since the 1980’s is because of the wide scale abandonment of marriage.

Today, 60 percent of people ages 18 to 34 are not married. And the majority of this critical age group is not even cohabitating.

Based on all the statistics we know about increased divorce rates and falling marriage rates since the beginning of the woman’s rights movements in the mid-19th century, we must admit the following truth:

Male/female relationships and most importantly the institution of marriage itself has been decimated by the woman’s rights movement in America.

Over 60 million divorces have occurred since the women’s rights movement began pushing for women’s legal and financial independence from men.  And if you are pro-life you probably know that over 60 million abortions have taken place since the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade.

Please hear me as a fellow pro-life advocate, you cannot separate abortion from the woman’s rights movement.  Abortion rights were simply the logical consequence of making women equal with men and making women financially and legally independent of men. God never meant for women to be social equals with men anymore than he meant for children to be social equals with their parents.

The Bible tells us God’s social order in the following Scripture passages:

“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)

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

1 Timothy 2:12 (KJV)

But we in America and Western civilization thought we knew better.  We over turned God’s social order and we have reaped what we have sown.

Abortion leads to Infanticide

Yesterday, we had Democrats blocking the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” as reported by Fox News:

“Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a Republican bill that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don’t try saving the life of infants born alive during failed abortions, leading conservatives to wonder openly whether Democrats were embracing “infanticide” to appeal to left-wing voters.

All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic delaying tactics — seven votes short of the 60 needed…

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that “any health care practitioner present” at the time of a birth “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.””

As a society we have placed women’s rights on such a high pedestal that we are now literally willing to sacrifice the life of not just unborn children, but even those who have been born.  When will we open our eyes to this evil?

Conclusion

We cannot continue to avoid this question.  How did we as a society come to a point where on February 25th, 2019 the United State’s Senate actually blocked a bill protecting infants that are born alive from being allowed to simply die on a table with no help?

The root of this issue started on July 19th, 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York with the first women’s rights convention. After this conference new rights were given to women in divorce making divorce easier and less painful for women which lead to a spike in divorces even before the passage of Woman’s Suffrage in 1920.

Women from 1848 and forward began to rebel against the authority of their fathers and their husbands.  This led to the rejection of courtship and the embrace of the new practice of dating.   Dating led to rampant sex outside of marriage and a jump in out of wedlock births which eventually peaked at what we have today which is a 40 percent out-wedlock birth rate.

This change to woman-centric marriages and relationships also lead to a 53 percent divorce rate at its peak in the 1980’s.  After divorce rates peaked at 53 percent the next generation began rejecting marriage and even dating became dysfunctional to the point that in our current culture 60 percent of people ages 18-34 are not married.

So, we can see the natural progression.

Giving women more rights and control over their lives, bodies and who they married led to more divorce, more sex outside of marriage, more children born out of wedlock, abortion and finally now in 2019 legalized infanticide.

When will we admit the root of all this evil?  When will we admit that overturning God’s design and his social order of men ruling over women was a colossal mistake? How far must we go as a society before we will come to our senses?  Will our civilization have to collapse before we will undo all the rights we have given to women since the Seneca Falls convention in 1848?

John Locke’s Invention of the “Adult” Social Class

John Locke was a 17th century English philosopher who could rightly be called the father of individualism and by extension the modern age.  It is difficult to overstate the influence he had on America’s founding fathers and all of Western civilization.  The following phrase from the Declaration of Independence was basically a summary of Locke’s concepts from his “Two Treatises of Government” published in 1690:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Before John Locke’s individualism took over Western civilization, Patriarchy was the norm of society.  Duty to one’s faith, family and country was paramount and overrode concerns for individual happiness.  People saw themselves more as part of a collective whole, part of their family, part of their tribe, their faith and their nation rather than only as individuals.

The Origins of Locke’s Individualism

Many philosophies throughout history have been born out of a reaction to other philosophies and this was the case with John Locke.  John Locke actually wrote his “Two Treatises of Government” in 1690 in response to Sir Robert Filmer’s “Patriarcha; or the Natural Power of Kings” which was published in 1680. The central thesis of Filmer’s book was that the divine right of Kings was derived from the natural authority of parents with Adam being the first parent and first King of mankind.

So, it would be correct to say that Locke’s Individualism was born out a response to Filmer’s peculiar brand of Paternalism as applied to kings.

But from a Biblical perspective, both Locke and Filmer were wrong.

Kings Are Not Fathers

Filmer was absolutely wrong in saying Adam was the first king of mankind.  Nothing in the Scriptures teaches this concept.

The following passage which was used to try and support the divine right of Kings theory is found in the Apostle Paul’s letter to Romans:

“1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

Romans 13:1-6 (KJV)

Filmer and others interpreted this passage to mean that Kings had absolute authority over their subjects as a father has over his children.  In effect, Filmer’s philosophy reduced all the rights of the citizens of a nation to that of children.

But Filmer was wrong in his understanding of Romans 13:1-6.  This passage is speaking of God’s institution of civil government and his purpose for it.  God created civil government to praise and uphold good behavior based on his law and to punish those who break God’s moral law.  God instituted civil government to protect the rights he had given to man, not to infringe upon those rights as so many Kings had done for thousands of years.

The passage above from Roman’s actually tells us why we pay “tribute” or taxes to government.  It is to pay for our government’s protection of our rights and property.  The purpose of taxes is to pay for things like the salaries of our national, state and local leaders as well as our policemen, firemen, courts and our military.  God did not intend for taxes to be for the enrichment of our rulers or the redistribution of wealth between the upper, middle and lower income classes.  The duty of charitable giving to the poor was given to the churches and to individuals through free will giving.  God never assigned this task to his institution of civil government.

How many rulers throughout history terrorized those who did good works? Many.  How many rulers did not look out for the good of their people, but rather for their own selfish greed they stole and pillaged from their own people? Many.  How many rulers violated the sacred rights of husbands and fathers over their wives, their children and their other properties? Far too many.

Jesus gave us the following statement regarding civil government:

“And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.”

Luke 20:25 (KJV)

The civil government does not have God’s absolute and unlimited authority.  No human authority has unlimited power. Christ told us only to give to the civil government what belongs to the civil government.  And when the civil government usurps its authority and steps outside God’s limits on it, we as Christians have not only a right, but a responsibility to practice civil disobedience to such encroachments.  The Apostle Paul speaks to the Christian’s right and responsibility to practice disobedience to government laws which violate God’s law which would include his purpose for and limits upon civil government:

“27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.

29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Acts 5:27-29 (KJV)

So, as we have seen from the Scriptures, Filmer’s theory of the Divine Right of Kings and kings as fathers to their subjects has no Scriptural merit and actually violates the purposes for which God instituted civil government.

Locke Was Wrong in His Response to Filmer

But as wrong as Filmer was about his theory of kings being like fathers to their subjects, so too Locke was wrong in his approach to Filmer’s arguments.

Locke, instead of centering his attack on the false premise that kings are like fathers, instead chose to center his attack on the authority of fathers so as to limit the authority of kings.

Consider the following statement from John Locke’s “First Treatise of Civil Government” where he addresses the arguments of “our author” speaking to Sir Robert Filmer:

“For had our author set down this command without garbling, as God gave it, and joined mother to father, every reader would have seen, that it had made directly against him; and that it was so far from establishing the monarchical power of the father, that it set up the mother equal with him, and enjoined nothing but what was due in common, to both father and mother: for that is the constant tenor of the scripture, Honour thy father and thy mother…

The rule is, Children, obey your parents; and I do not remember, that I any where read, Children, obey your father, and no more: the scripture joins mother too in that homage, which is due from children; and had there been any text, where the honour or obedience of children had been directed to the father alone, it is not likely that our author, who pretends to build all upon scripture, would have omitted it: nay, the scripture makes the authority of father and mother, in respect of those they have begot, so equal, that in some places it neglects even the priority of order, which is thought due to the father, and the mother”

John Locke made what is perhaps one of the earliest arguments for feminism in this passage by making the father and mother equal in their authority over their children.  Locke actually made a false argument that is easily refuted that the father has no more authority over the children than the mother.  The following passage from the book of Numbers disproves Locke’s assertion of the equal authority of father and mother over their children:

“3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth; 4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.”

Numbers 30:3-5 (KJV)

The context here is of a young adult woman still under her father’s roof. Nothing here is mentioned of the Mother’s authority to override the young adult daughter’s decisions.  It is only the father that has such authority.

Consider also this passage from the book of Exodus:

“16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”

Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)

It is the father which must give permission for marriage and no mention of the mother is made.

The previous two passages prove Locke wrong in his assertion that there are no passages of the Scriptures where “obedience of children had been directed to the father alone”.

Locke goes on to make the following statement about husbands and wives in his “Second Treatise of Civil Government”:

“But the husband and wife, though they have but one common concern, yet having different understandings, will unavoidably sometimes have different wills too; it therefore being necessary that the last determination, i. e. the rule, should be placed somewhere; it naturally falls to the man’s share, as the abler and the stronger. But this reaching but to the things of their common interest and property, leaves the wife in the full and free possession of what by contract is her peculiar right, and gives the husband no more power over her life than she has over his; the power of the husband being so far from that of an absolute monarch, that the wife has in many cases a liberty to separate from him, where natural right, or their contract allows it; whether that contract be made by themselves in the state of nature, or by the customs or laws of the country they live in; and the children upon such separation fall to the father or mother’s lot, as such contract does determine.”

So here is John Locke’s argument about husbands and wives.  Men and women have an equal say over their own lives, but because their wills sometimes are different on certain family matters it is necessary for one to have “the last determination” meaning somebody has to have the tie breaking vote.  So, this falls to man as “the abler and stronger”.  That last statement is one that causes some feminists to dismiss all of Locke’s writings, while many other feminists are willing to overlook Locke’s “sexism” for all the rest of the equality proclamations he makes.

But then he makes this statement which feminists absolutely love that “the husband no more power over her life than she has over his; the power of the husband being so far from that of an absolute monarch”.

So, in his first treatise Locke assaulted the God given authority of the father making his authority equal with the mother when God granted no such thing and now in his second treatise he attacks the God given authority of the husband over his wife.

Locke’s assertion that “the husband no more power over her life than she has over hisis easily disproven by the follow Scripture passage:

“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.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

In no other human authority relationship is the one under authority told to submit to the one over them as unto the Lord.  In no other human authority relationship is the one under authority told to be subject to that authority as the church is subject to Christ in EVERYTHING.

Locke was completely wrong in his assertion that “the power of the husband being so far from that of an absolute monarch”.  But rather the truth of the Scriptures is that is a king’s power is so far from that of a husband.

Biblically speaking, the most powerful human authority God ever established was that of a husband over his wife with the second most powerful human authority being that of a father over his children and especially his daughters. 

The civil government or king’s power comes after that of a husband and father Biblically speaking.

Now again we need to understand spheres of authority.  A husband cannot encroach upon the sphere of powers God has given to government in the same way the government cannot encroach in areas God has given to husbands.

A practical example of this would be that I cannot tell my wife to break the speed limit.  That speed limit comes under the authority of civil government.   However, the civil government cannot tell my wife that she may disobey my order to vote for the candidate that I tell her to.

Before we can tie this all together with one more statement from Locke to show how he invented a new social class, we need to look at the social classes God designed.

God’s Original Design of Four Social Classes

When God created humanity, he designed it with three primary social classes.  These three primary social classes were Men, Women and Children.  After the flood, God caused a fourth hybrid social class, the Citizen, to form from his creation of nations.

In the Old Testament we read that God set the man over the woman making him her owner and master.

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Genesis 3:16 (KJV)

“6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her.”

Numbers 30:6-8 (KJV)

“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)

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an [literally “owned by”] husband [“an owner”], 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.”

Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)

And contrary to the false teachings of some Christians today, man’s headship over woman was not a result of the fall, but rather it was God’s design from the beginning before sin entered the picture and was meant to picture the relationship between God and his people or Christ and his Church as I showed previously from Ephesians 5:22-24.

The Bible does not get rid of the submission and ownership of wives in the New Testament, but rather it explains it more and calls women to emulate the obedience that Old Testament wives had to their husbands calling them “lord” which can also means “master”:

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

I Peter 3:5-6 (KJV)

So, as we can see from looking at both the Old and New Testaments, God created a definite social class distinction between men and women.  Even young adult daughters could have their decisions overridden by their fathers as I showed previously from Numbers 30:3-5 and Exodus 22:16-17.

Now that we have established the first two social classes God designed, those being Men and Women, now we come to the third social class that God designed which was Children:

“3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.”

Psalm 127:3-6 (KJV)

“1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.”

Ephesians 6:1-3 (KJV)

So, as you can see from all the Scriptures presented, God created three primary social classes and those are Men, Women and Children.  Men are the owners of their wives and children.  Children are to obey their father and their mother with the father being the head of the home and having the ultimate veto over all decisions of both his wife and his children as well as his adult daughters.

Together the three social classes of Men, Women and Children form the family unit.  But God wanted to create one more unit of humanity and that was the nation.

God’s Fourth Class of Citizen

The Scriptures tell us that God is the one who caused the spread of humanity across the globe and the first nations to form.

“6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.”

Genesis 11:6-8 (KJV)

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

Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)

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

Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)

The “number of the children of Israel” from Deuteronomy 32:7-8 refers to the 70 people who went with Jacob to Egypt.  So, what these passages are telling us together is – God separated humanity into 70 different ethnic groups (that is literally what the Greek word for nation means), gave these ethnic groups different languages and sent them across on the face of the earth determining where they would eventually settle.

In causing nations to form, God also caused the social class of citizen to form.  A citizen is a member of a nation, a group with shared ethnicity and shared language.  In the next social class we will discuss, we will see that God had different rules for how citizens and non-citizens could be treated in the theocracy of Israel.

God Allowed a Fifth Social Class Because of War and Poverty

Because of the presence of sin in the world which lead to poverty and wars, God allowed for a fifth social class which was that of a slave.  He did not allow for citizens to enslave their fellow citizens, but only those who were foreigners.  And there were two ways that the Israelite citizens were allowed by God to acquire slaves.

The first way God allowed for slavery was that he allowed the Israelites to buy children from their foreign parents either living in Israel or in the nations around Israel:

“39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: 40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile. 41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.  42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. 43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.”

Leviticus 25:39-46 (KJV)

Standing where we are in 21st century America, we may not be able to fathom why a parent would ever sell their child as a slave.  But the reason in most cases was simple and that was poverty.  If you had four children and your family was starving and by selling one of those four children as a slave you could save the rest of your family this made perfect sense.

This money you would receive would help you and your other children to escape poverty and make sure that all your children were provide for.  Even the child sold as a slave would have to be properly provided for and taken care of by their new master as God’s law demanded.

The second way God allowed slavery was to make prisoners of war slaves for Israel:

But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.”

Deuteronomy 20:14 (KJV)

But God did not allow slavery by kidnapping.  Kidnapping is condemned in the following passage:

“And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”

Exodus 21:16 (KJV)

The passages I have just cited prove God’s allowance for this fifth social class, that being a slave with restrictions of course.  For more on this subject of slavery from a Biblical perspective see my article entitled “Why Christians shouldn’t be ashamed of Slavery in the Bible”.

The Creation of the Nobility and Royal Social Classes

John Locke was right about the fact that man in his natural state was designed to be free. But he was designed to be free within the limits of God’s law.  And what freedom looks like for God’s social classes of men, women and children is very different.

Far too often though, men have willingly given up their freedom whether it be for security or to be like others around them.  This is exactly what Israel did.  They begged God to let them have a king even after he warned them that kings would encroach upon their freedom.  You see before God allowed kings in Israel, the nation was ruled through prophets and judges.  These prophets and judges did not take away the wealth of the people, or seize their sons and daughters, but rather they taught God’s will and organized the people for common defense.  They settled disputes between families and they judged when people committed crimes. Israel only lost its freedom when God allowed other nations to invade because of the sin of Israel.  But when they would regain their freedom, they were free indeed. The men of Israel were as free as they would ever be before they insisted on having a king so they could be like other nations.

So, before God allowed it, he gave them a warning of what kings would do:

“11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.  15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

1 Samuel 8:11-18 (KJV)

Is this not a perfect description of what many kings have done throughout history? Kings and other nobility classes have consistently violated the property rights of men and when a man’s property is taken or violated by the government, his freedom is taken as well.

But the royal and nobility classes of men were never part of God’s original design.  He meant for all men, male human beings, to be equal and free as his image bearers.

He meant for all men to share in the joys of owning all these things which he warns men not to covet of other men:

“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)

And God actually calls the enjoyment of a man’s labor his gift to him:

“Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.”

Ecclesiastes 5:19 (KJV)

So, God only designed three primary classes of people – Men, Women and Children along with a fourth hybrid class of citizen.  But in 1690 John Locke would take a hammer to God’s social class structure.

Locke’s Invention of the “Adult” Social Class

In his “Second Treatise of Civil Government” Locke makes the following statement regarding the authority of parents over their children:

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions

Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for some time after; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they art wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy: age and reason, as they grow up, loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal…

The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their offspring, during the imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant non-age, till reason shall take its place, and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to; for God having given man an understanding to direct his actions, has allowed him a freedom of will, and liberty of acting, as properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of that law he is under. But whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his father a free man, the son is a free man too.”

So, what was Locke saying? He was saying that all fully matured human beings, adult human beings, are in fact equal in their freedom.  The subjection of children to their parents is only temporary until they come to full maturity and then when they are adults, they are all equal and free.   When taken together with Locke’s former statement from this same treatise that the husband has no more power over his wife’s life than she does over his he believed that men and women possess equal rights and equal freedom.

So, Locke, with his invention of this new social class, the Adult, based on the maturity of a human being regardless of their gender, effectively eradicated the former social classes of Men and Women which God created in the Garden of Eden.

The founding fathers took a more limited view of Locke’s equality ideas rejecting his views of equal freedom for women.   In fact, John Adams said that giving women the right to vote and total equality with men would lead to “the Despotism of the Peticoat”, in other words the complete domination of women over men.  He told his wife Abigail Adams, one of America’s early feminists before feminism became very fashionable, that many men were already the subjects of their wives in their homes and were “Masters” in name only.

And John Adams was absolutely right.  Giving women the right to vote and fulfilling the Lockean vision of society did lead to “the Despotism of the Peticoat”.  In most cases, women have complete control of male/female relationships whether they be dating, cohabitation or marriage.  And women have made great strides in the business and political world and have been exhibiting huge amounts of influence to the point that most men are absolutely terrified to stand up to this “Despotism of the Peticoat” that has now been fully realized with the last 50 years.

It took a little more than a century for America to fully dismiss the warnings of John Adams of what would happen if women were given total equality with men, but eventually America did.  And now we have reaped the consequences with the destruction of marriage and the institution of the family.

Practical Application for Christian Male/Female Relationships

Whether it is a father with his daughter or a husband with his wife this modern notion of “I am an adult” is something we as men will be confronted with on a regular basis.  Many Christian men have no idea how to respond to the following types of statements from the women in their families:

A daughter to her father:

“You can’t tell me who I can see or not see or who I can marry, I am an adult!”

“Stop treating like a child! I am an adult! I make my own life decisions!”

“It’s my body, I can do with it as I wish.  I am an adult!”

A wife to her husband:

“You can’t tell me what to do. You are not my father.  I am an adult!”

“Stop treating me like one of our children! I am an adult!”

“It’s my body, I can do with it as I wish.  I am an adult!”

So how do we as Christian men address these “I am an adult” statements that we may hear from our wives and daughters?

Suggestion Response for a Father to his Daughter

“I recognize that you are a fully formed postpubescent human being, or an adult human being, but you are still a woman and I am still a man. The fact that you are an adult does not change the fact that I am your father and God has given me a special responsibility to love you by leading you, protecting you, providing for you, teaching you, correcting you and preparing you for your future husband.  Sometimes protecting you means protecting you from your own bad decisions. I have the very serious and important tasks of helping you to maintain your sexual purity and giving my blessing to the man that I believe God would have you to marry.  So no, I am not treating you like a child, but rather I am treating you like a woman and a daughter according to God’s Word.”

Suggestion Response for a Husband to his Wife

“I recognize that you are a fully formed postpubescent human being, or an adult human being, but you are still a woman and I am still a man. The fact that you are an adult does not change the fact that I am your husband and God has given me a special responsibility to love you by leading you, protecting you, providing for you, teaching you, correcting you and helping you to be the wife God has called you to be to me.  Sometimes protecting you means protecting you from your own bad decisions.  God has given you and your body to me for my use and my pleasure.  He also has commanded that I not deny sexual relations to you as well.   So no, I am not treating you like one of our children, but rather I am treating you like a woman and like a wife according to God’s Word.”

The War on the Citizenship Class

Our modern society is truly looking to eradicate all social classes except that of Adults and Minors – they even want to eradicate the social class of Citizen. This is the battle that has been playing out over immigration policies in America. On one side you have nationalists who want to protect our culture and the sovereignty of our nation and on the other side you have globalists who want to eradicate the concept of nations and the concept of citizenship is actually evil in their view because it treats a citizen different than a non-citizen.

Conclusion

Do I think John Locke was an evil man and that everything he taught was wrong? No.  He and the founders were imperfect men just as all men are imperfect.  But they were absolutely right that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.  All men, male human beings, are created equally in God’s image to be his image bearers, but women are not created equal to men.

“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.”

1 Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines “unalienable” as:

“incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred”

And that really is a perfect description of our God given rights.  The men of America’s past had no right to surrender or transfer their rights to women.  They sinned against God in doing so. And we as Christian men have no right to surrender our God given rights either.  In fact we must fight to reclaim what we have lost.

Each of us has our part to play.   It starts in our marriage. Then in our teaching to our sons and daughters in what it means to be men and women of God.  It means getting out and voting for candidates who support Biblical morality.

It will be a long fight for many decades to come, but it can be won.  It more than a century for America to turn against God’s design in gender roles and social classes and it may take a century or more to return to them.

The questions for Christians reading this are these:

Will you accept what the Bible teaches and reject the false “Adult” social class constructed by John Locke?

Will you return to and accept God’s social order of Men, Women and Children?

Will you stand with those who say it is evil to follow God and his ways and his social classes? Or will you stand with God and serve him?

The choice is yours.

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Joshua 24:15 (KJV)

Men Should Boycott Gillette Razors

Gillette Razors decided to jump into the MeToo# movement with an ad telling men they need to be their best – a take on their slogan “the best a man can get”.  Now as Christians we also want to encourage men to be their best.  So, what could be wrong with such an ad? I have attached the ad in question to this article for you to watch and now I will break down some of the key scenes from this “short story” from Gillette.

It starts with a scene of a boy running from other boys who want to hurt him, or in other words bullies. Another scene features young boys sitting on a couch watching TV with an old cartoon where men were catcalling a woman and then another scene where a man on a TV show grabbed the maid’s behind.  Then they then show a scene where a male business man interrupts a female business woman and explains what she was saying and it zooms in on her face to show her feelings were hurt by this action.

In another scene they show a traditional neighborhood backyard barbeque where two boys are fighting in the grass as the fathers look on smiling.

It is here where we see a row of men in front of Barbeques saying “Boys will boys” and repeating the phrase over and over again.

Then the Gillette ad says they “believe in the best in men” followed by a CSPAN clip of the actor Terry Crew speaking before congress stating that “Men need to hold other men accountable” to which Gillette follows his words with “to say the right thing, to act the right way”.

When using the phrase “say the right thing” they have boys at a pool saying something crass to some girls with other boys stepping in to stop them.  For the phrase “act the right way” they have an attractive woman in a tight outfit walking down a busy city side walk with a man checking her out and he goes to walk toward her to say something and another man stops him and says “not cool, not cool”.

We then see a scene of the boy from the beginning of the ad running from the same bullies as another father sees the situation.  We see a video of a father telling his daughter to repeat the phrase “I am strong, I am strong”.

We then see the father on the street intervene to help the boy who was being chased by bullies followed by the Dad in the infamous neighborhood backyard barbeque intervening in the boys fighting in the grass telling them “That’s not how we treat each other ok”.

What is Wrong with This Ad?

The first problem is that this ad mixes in the bad behavior of some men with behavior by most men that may not actually be wrong.

We as Christian men would absolutely condemn bullying at any age. We should teach our sons not to bully others.  So Christian men would clearly condemn the group of boys chasing the other boy or texting nasty things to another boy.

But what about the two young boys fighting at the neighborhood barbeque.  We don’t know how that fight started.  It may have started with one boy actually bullying the other or punching the other boy and then we only see the end of it with the boy fighting back against the bully.

Contrary to our modern cultural ideas, violence is not always wrong.  If violence is done in self-defense or defense of others than it can be noble and right.

King David even speaks of the fact that God teaches men to fight and make war:

“Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight

Psalm 144:1 (KJV)

Men are naturally aggressive, competitive, protective and physical.  Having raised 4 boys, two which are now adults and two who are in their mid-teens, I can tell you boys are all these things.  And yes, sometimes my boys have fought.

And while I have intervened at times when I thought it was getting too rough or out of hand, I certainly was not going to intervene at the first sign of physical aggression from one brother to another.

But our modern world teaches us that male physical aggression in any form or shape is always wrong and it must be immediately stopped.  And that was the message that Gillette was trying to get across.  That is why so many today condemn highly physical sports like football, hockey or boxing which encourage male aggression.

Now let’s take on the catcalling scenes.  No Christian man should approve of a man shouting out crude sexual comments to a random woman he does not know walking down the street.  But what about just telling a woman she is beautiful and asking for her phone number? There was a time in our society when most women would have found this flattering, but now it is lumped in as catcalling by many today.

So, let’s take the scene where a man sees a beautiful woman walking down the side walk, checks her out and wants to go talk to her.  We have no idea what he was going to say.  What if he walked up to her and told her she was beautiful and wanted her number to call her to go out some time?  But instead we have the “white knight” man who steps in to save this poor woman from this other man’s brutish behavior.  Now if he had something sexually crude, I would have been all for the “white knight” treatment.

But we simply don’t know what his intentions were.  And the producer of the video is leaving it vague on purpose.  Why? Because the producer of this Gillette ad wants us to condemn this man for going after a woman simply because she was beautiful.  By doing so he is “sexually objectifying her”.  Instead men should only ask women on dates after they get to know them and are interested in their “full person”, fully appreciating their mind and intellect.  Someone please get me a vomit bag.

Men need to stop being physically oriented visual creatures and instead they need to become more like women who are relational and holistic in their attraction mechanisms, that is one message of this ad.

And before we continue, here is a little something to consider for all my detractors out there.  We are taught today that men can only see women as sex objects to be used for their pleasure or as persons.  They must make a conscious choice we are told because it is supposedly impossible for a man to see a woman both as a sex object and as a person.

I chuckle every time I read an article or watch a YouTube video reviewing my site where they say I believe woman were only made for man’s sexual pleasure.  Anyone who has read my blog for some time and is honest about what I have said will admit that I say ONE of the reasons God made woman was for man’s sexual pleasure.  But it certainly was not the only reason.  But it’s easier to demonize my teachings if someone can say I teach that the only reason a woman was made was for man’s sexual pleasure.  The truth is that most of my detractors find it offensive that I teach woman was made for man at all, whether as a helper, mother, homemaker or lover.

If you want to understand how it is actually possible for a man to view a woman as a sex object and as a person, I encourage you to read my article “Why it is NOT Wrong for Men to See Women as Sex Objects”.

Now let’s return to the Gillette commercial.  So what message were we supposed to be getting with that board room scene?

In that scene we see a man explaining what one of the female members at the table has said.  This is a condemnation of what feminists call “mansplaining”.  This is when a man tries to explain something that a woman has said and this ALWAYS wrong according to feminists. Now of course when a woman explains what a man has said this is always right.  Maybe the woman was a new employee and had struggled to explain something correctly.  But the message is, if a woman has an upset look on her face the man must automatically be wrong. But I digress.

So, like most of the liberal progressive propaganda, they mix some behaviors that the vast majority of Christian and non-Christian people would condemn with situations that may or may not be wrong for men or boys depending on the circumstances. Then they say that men approve of all bad behaviors by men by saying “Boys will boys”.  Like if a man grabs some random woman’s breast or bottom, we will all just laugh and say “Boys will be boys”. Or if some group of boys is chasing down another boy to give him a beat down, we will just smile and say “Boys will boys”.  Such an insinuation is insulting to men as gender.

The Liberal bastardization of the phrase “Boys will boys”

“Boys will be boys” has historically been used to talk about normal masculine behavior.  It was NOT used to talk about abnormal masculine behavior.  So, to say that “Boys will boys” applies to things like bullying, catcalling women with crude sexual language, groping women or raping women is to say this has been normal behavior for men.  In other words, they are saying most men have historically done this and most men today are still doing this.

Such an accusation is demonstrably false!  Most men have not and do not walk up to random women and use crude sexual language, grope them or try to rape them.  Even in work place settings or in dating situations the vast majority of men do not do these things.

Have there always been some men like this throughout the history of mankind? Yes. But to say most men have acted in this way or that most men today act in this way is wrong.

The real agenda with intermixing clearly bad behavior with what might be normal masculine behavior and then lumping it all together saying “Boys will boys” is to attack what is truly normal masculine behavior.

The feminists and secular progressives are on a mission today to erase the two genders God created to form their own new “non-gendered” person.  In this effort they encourage women to be more assertive and competitive like men while at the same time telling men they need to be more like women by being less assertive, less aggressive and less competitive.  In the sexual arena again, they encourage women to be more physically oriented like men and they encourage men to be more relationally oriented like women.  Women need to toughen up and men need to get in touch with their feelings, or so we are told.

Again, this all part of an insidious effort to erase the distinctions between the genders that God created. And this is part of a larger cultural cold war that is only now beginning to heat up.  But secular progressives living in their safe little spaces believe with education commercials like this Gillette ad they can literally reprogram men to be what they want them to be.   This is because they embrace the flawed “blank slate” theory that all human behavior is taught and learned from one’s culture and surroundings.  So, you can just educate people and change the culture to change human nature or so the feminists and secular progressives tell us.

But the truth is that while we are influenced by our upbringing and our culture there are some things that are biologically hardwired into our brains as men and women by God.  And the masculine traits of being more aggressive, assertive, competitive, protective, stoic and more physically sexually oriented are in fact hardwired traits in the brains of most men.

Then of course we have the exceptions, the abnormal men who are more feminine and the abnormal women who are more masculine.  How do we explain that from a Christian perspective? For answers to that see my articles “Masculine Women and Feminine Men Part 1” and “Masculine Women and Feminine Men Part 2”.

The Attack on Masculinity is an Attack on God himself

The Bible tells us why God made the distinct masculine and feminine human natures in the following two passages:

“7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

I Corinthians 11:7-9 (KJV)

“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.”

Ephesians 5:23-24 (KJV)

These passages tell us that God made the masculine human nature to image his own nature and thereby bring him glory.  He created man for his own glory and he created woman for the glory of man. He created woman and by extension marriage to help man fully image him as a husband and father.  Woman was purposefully created as the “weaker vessel” (I Peter 3:7) to symbolize how the people of God are weaker than he is and dependent on his leadership, provision and protection.

So, when people who are Christians or non-Christians attack Biblical gender roles or attack masculinity while elevating femininity, they are in essence elevating mankind to being equal with God.

When we as a culture encourage women to be independent of men and not look to men for their leadership, provision or protection we are symbolizing that mankind does not need God nor should mankind look to God for leadership, provision and protection.

Most secular progressives would stand up and applaud what I just said as they want to rid humanity of worshiping God.  But the Christian Egalitarians on the other hand have a harder task then the secular progressives.  They have to try and keep the parts of the Bible they like while throwing out all this gender symbolism that is seen throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

The Choice Before You

I know we can’t boycott everything.  But changing razors is not a hard thing to do.  I have been using Gillette for probably 20 years, but the next time I go to buy a razor I will associate their brand with this and I will look for an alternative.

As a Christian you have this same choice to make.  Will you stand with a society that has declared war on the masculine nature which is the very image of God? Or will you take a stand not only for masculinity but the God whose image masculinity portrays? Will you fight with your pocket book and your vote for your faith?

I have read and watched many articles and YouTube videos with people saying that the gender roles I teach on this blog straight out of the Bible are “evil”.  Some even go as far as to condemn the God of the Bible as an evil God.  Today many American Christians do not even realize they are worshiping the false American gods of humanity, equality and education.  They give vast amounts of their time and wealth to the furtherance of these American idols.

The choice before you is the same choice Joshua gave to the nation of Israel. Will you call God evil and follow our false American gods or will you serve the one true and living God who created us for his glory?

“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Joshua 24:15 (KJV)

Water is Wet and Women Don’t Belong in Combat

There are some things that are just common sense and this is one of them.

Heather Mac Donald, in her article for the Wall Street Journal entitled “Women Don’t Belong in Combat” wrote a blistering condemnation of this “Obama-era policy”:

“The Obama-era policy of integrating women into ground combat units is a misguided social experiment that threatens military readiness and wastes resources in the service of a political agenda. The next defense secretary should end it.

In September 2015 the Marine Corps released a study comparing the performance of gender-integrated and male-only infantry units in simulated combat. The all-male teams greatly outperformed the integrated teams, whether on shooting, surmounting obstacles or evacuating casualties. Female Marines were injured at more than six times the rate of men during preliminary training—unsurprising, since men’s higher testosterone levels produce stronger bones and muscles. Even the fittest women (which the study participants were) must work at maximal physical capacity when carrying a 100-pound pack or repeatedly loading heavy shells into a cannon

Lowering these physical requirements risks reducing the American military’s lethality. A more serious effect of sex integration has become taboo to mention: the inevitable introduction of eros into combat units. Putting young, hormonally charged men and women into stressful close quarters for extended periods guarantees sexual liaisons, rivalries and breakups, all of which undermine the bonding essential to a unified fighting force.

The argument for putting women into combat roles has always been nonmilitary: Combat experience qualifies soldiers for high-ranking Pentagon jobs. But war isn’t about promoting equality. Its objective is to break the enemy’s will through precise lethal engagement, with the lowest possible loss of American life. The claim that female combat soldiers will perform as lethally as men over an extended deployment entails a denial of biological reality as great as the one underlying the transgender crusade.”

Heather Mac Donald’s is absolutely right that putting women into combat units and pretending that it good for increasing the lethality of  America’s military “entails a denial of biological reality”.

But let’s just remember that modern progressivism is actually a denial of the reality of human nature in general.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that if you take the average 10 men and put them up against the average 10 women in any athletic event the men will win every time.  That is why we have Olympic teams, and professional sports teams segregated by gender.  Now will you get outliers where a woman is as big and muscular as a man? Sure. But exceptions do not negate norms.

And you cannot build something as important as the military around exceptions.  You must build it based on norms.

Heather MacDonald also brings up what she calls the “taboo” subject of sexual affairs happening between male and female military members.  Again, this should be a common sense issue.  When you put a man and woman together, especially in emotionally intense situations bonds will form and those bonds often lead to sexual intimacy.  This is by the design of God and yet progressives want to pretend we can just reprogram human nature and say it isn’t so.

Rob Moll, wrote the following in his article for Focus on the Family entitled “The New Workplace Romance”:

“Today’s workplace has become the No. 1 spot for married individuals to meet affair partners. More men and women are breaking their marriage vows by engaging in office friendships that slowly become romantic relationships — relationships that would have been socially impossible just 30 years ago. As the boundaries that once separated the sexes crumble, so do the boundaries that protect marriage.

In her book Not ‘Just Friends’, Dr. Shirley Glass says, “The new infidelity is between people who unwittingly form deep, passionate connections before realizing that they’ve crossed the line from platonic friendship into romantic love. Eighty-two percent of the 210 unfaithful partners I’ve treated have had an affair with someone who was, at first, ‘just a friend.'” From 1991 to 2000, Glass discovered in her practice that 50 percent of the unfaithful women and about 62 percent of unfaithful men she treated were involved with someone from work. “Today’s workplace has become the new danger zone of romantic attraction and opportunity,” Glass writes.

Today’s careers offer more opportunity for extramarital affairs. Group interaction in coed workplaces, frequent travel and long hours create more opportunity and temptation than ever. Glass writes, “all of these changes and others allow individuals to mix freely where once they were segregated and restricted.” Studies published in the American Sociological Review and the Journal of Marriage and Family show that before 1985, divorce rates were about equal among working and homemaking women; however, “between 1985 and 1992, the annual probability of divorce among employed wives exceeded that for nonemployed wives by 40 percent.””

As any of my regular readers know, I am not a huge fan of Focus on the Family because of how much they pretend to be for the traditional family, yet they utterly gut Biblical gender roles with many things they teach.  But in this instance the author of this article is absolutely right that As the boundaries that once separated the sexes crumble, so do the boundaries that protect marriage.”

One of the many reasons I have argued against careerism for women is that mixing men and women together in a workplace for 40 to 50 hours a week, especially in fast paced or high stress level environments will inevitably lead to extramarital affairs.  And the stats as Focus on the Family has shown prove that.

The only men that women can be close friends with are close blood relatives or their husbands.  That is, it.  Otherwise you always run the risk of that friendship turning into something it should not.  Yet our progressive friends living in their pretend little world want to deny this basic tenant of human nature even though evidence to contrary surrounds them each and every day.

Whether it be socialism or egalitarianism, the only way these systems survive is on the backs of the capitalist and patriarchal systems they so detest.  The capitalists make all the money for the socialists to spend and the Patriarchal families produce the children for egalitarians to later indoctrinate.

So, at some point when enough of the capitalists and patriarchal families get tired of supporting those who detest their way of life and values and actually band together then these horrible social experiments will finally come to an end.

But until that day of reckoning comes, we as Bible believing Christians need to follow the command God gave to parents in Israel:

 “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:  And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.  And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.  And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.” – Deuteronomy 6:6-9

Whitney Houston, like Focus on the Family was often wrong in her life’s philosophies.  But she was right in her song that “The Children Are Our Future”.  That is Biblical.  The struggle for the future is a struggle for the hearts and minds of our children and young adults.

Conservative Christian families in America have far more children than secular progressive families do.  We just need do what Deuteronomy 6:6-9 admonishes us as Christian parents do and heavily indoctrinate our children with the Word of God.

We don’t need to shelter our children from the world, but rather we need to expose each and everything they see in the news and around them to the light of the Word of God.  We need to show them why God’s way is right and the world’s way is wrong.

But at the same time, we need to reach out to a generation of young adults whose minds are still moldable.  Many of these young people came from homes where they have never been exposed to the teachings of the Word of God.  We need to share these truths with them and expose the lies of socialism, egalitarianism and secularism humanism.

We can actually use ridiculous notions like this idea of putting women into combat units with men to open up conversations with young people.  We can show them how a Biblical world view that teaches the reality of gender differences and why they exist is far superior to these views that deny the real and stark differences between the genders.