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.

 

 

Pastor Publicly Rebukes Drag Queen in Church Service

Antonio Rocquemore, Pastor of Power House International Ministries in Chicago, publicly rebuked a member of his church dressed in drag and then asked him to leave the service.  Not surprisingly the LGBTQ community is up in arms about this.

During the service the Pastor made the following statement just before calling out the young man in drag:

“if you stop believing, standing for something, you will fall for anything. And God can’t move the way he wants to because of the standard. He set a standard. Stand by him, even if it costs you friends because you’ll always be approved by heaven. I’m at a point in my life where I’d rather heaven be pleased with me than people speak to me…”

He then pointed to the young men and made the following statement to him:

“Can you step out into this aisle. Please. Can you leave my church and go put on man clothes. And don’t come dressed like that no more.  I hold a standard in here. Whatever you do on the outside is your business, but I will not let drag queens come in here. And if you’re gonna come in here you’re gonna come in here dressed like a man … If you’re a man, dress like a man. If you’re a woman, dress like a woman. I’m not going to allow it … you will not be wearing weaves and heels and fooling people up in here.”

You can view a partial cell phone video of what happened here.

After many false accusations against him regarding his public rebuke of the young man dressed in drag, Pastor Rocquemore, posted a video reply to all his critics clarifying why did he what he did and reemphasizing that he had no regrets about doing it.

In that clarification he makes the following facts known.

The young man in question was a member of his church.  Not some random stranger off the street.  The Pastor also makes clear the when coming to join the church as a member the young man told the Pastor he wanted to learn how to be a man.  The Pastor made clear to him the rules of the church including dress codes for both men and women for the services. He told him he could not dress as a woman while attending their services but what he did outside of the service was between him and God.

This Pastor even tried to love on this young man and gave him some of his own money. The young man showed up in women’s attire a few times after joining and the Pastor quietly pulled him aside and told him he needed to stop doing this.  The young man finally stopped wearing women’s clothing for a period of time.

Someone, outside or inside the church, encouraged this young man to defy the Pastor by wearing full drag again to a service.  This time after several quiet and private admonishments, the Pastor felt that he needed to take a public stand against what this young man was doing as he was challenging the Pastor’s position on men wearing women’s clothing.

You can watch Pastor Rocquemore’s full video reply here.

Now that we have the full truth about what happened in this church let’s look at what the Bible says about this.

The Bible Condemns Transvestism

In Deuteronomy 22:5 the Scriptures tell us:

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

So, we can see here that God’s unchanging moral law makes it crystal clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that a man is never to wear that which pertains to woman or try to change his appearance in anyway to look like a woman.  The same goes for women – a woman is forbidden from changing her appearance to look like a man.

Deuteronomy 22:5 then is a clear and concise condemnation of transvestism, cross-dressers and transsexuals going through sex changes.

But the Bible Forbids Us from Eating Shellfish and it Condones Slavery!

Among the myriad of comments on line attacking this pastor we will see people dismissing passages like Deuteronomy 22:5 on the basis that the Bible condones slavery and it commands us not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics. If I had a dime for every person, some sadly even professing Christians, who throws this tired old argument at me I would be a rich man.  This is an argument that comes from a complete and utter ignorance of the Scriptures.

The goals of those who use this argument are two-fold.  The first goal is to say “Well you don’t follow all the laws of the Old Testament; therefore, you cannot use any Old Testament passages as a basis for morality.”  A second goal in this attack is to discredit the Bible as a source of moral truth on the basis that it allows for things that our society considers to be immoral like slavery (Leviticus 25:39-46) or forcing a woman to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28–29).

I have written several articles and even done a You Tube video refuting these false arguments which attempts to either dismiss all Old Testament laws or even the entire Bible on these grounds.  See these links below:

What is the distinction between the Moral, Ceremonial and Civil laws of the Old Testament?

What are the Moral Laws of God in the Old Testament?

Why Christians shouldn’t be ashamed of Slavery in the Bible

Shellfish, Mixed Fabrics And Slavery – Oh My!

The short answer to these false arguments against Biblical authority and specifically the authority of the moral laws of the Old Testament is as follows.

God gave moral laws all throughout the Old and New Testaments.  He gave moral laws before Abraham or Moses were ever born and before he instituted the nation of Israel as a theocracy.  But when he gave the new nation of Israel it’s laws, he repeated moral laws he had given before and also gave new moral laws as well.  In addition to his moral laws, God also instituted civil laws for the nation of Israel which were mostly the punishment or restitution to made for the breaking of his moral laws.  He also instituted ceremonial laws which included laws about the priesthood, tithes, festivals, clothing, diet and the sacrificial system.

In the New Testament with the coming of Christ the ceremonial laws are put away because Christ is the fulfillment of God’s law.  He was the sacrifice that believers had always looked for.  The civil laws were also done away with because those were given for the physical nation of Israel and not the spiritual nation called the Church.  God would eventually dissolve what was left of Israel within a century of Christ’s death the Jews would be dispersed throughout the world.

So, the point is that Deuteronomy 22:5 is moral law that is still standing today.

But while Deuteronomy 22:5 could stand on its own the Apostle Paul repeats God’s condemnation of men appearing like or acting like women in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

“9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

But Jesus Did Not Condemn the Adulterous Woman

In the Gospel of John 8:3-11 we read the story of the woman taken in adultery. The scriptures tell us she was found “in the very act” (John 8:3).  The Pharisees wanting to see what Jesus would do threw her before him and reminded him of Moses’s law that commanded that she be stoned.  But Jesus said to them “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7).   And then when all her accusers left by one by one Jesus finally tells the woman “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (John 8:11).

This passage is used by many unbelievers and even professing Christians to say unless we are sinless, we as Christians have no business passing judgement on other’s sins.  But again, such an argument is based on an ignorance about the teachings of the Scriptures.

Some have pointed to the fact that the Pharisees had not brought the man whom she was caught in the act of adultery with to be stoned as well.   The Bible commanded that both the man and woman caught in the act of adultery must be killed (Deuteronomy 22:22).  So, they were not completely following the law by letting the man go and only taking the woman to be judged.

But aside from their half following of Moses law, Christ was trying to demonstrate two important principles to them.  He first was showing his authority as he had previously stated that “that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins” (Matthew 9:6).  Secondly, in exercising his authority to forgive sins he was demonstrating to them mercy and forgiveness as he commanded us all to have toward each other:

“For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” – Matthew 6:14

Pastor Rocquemore demonstrated Christ’s example perfectly toward this young man. He tried to quietly address the issue with this young man.  He forgave him on multiple occasions but in the end the young man became more defiant than ever and the Pastor had to take action.  People often will cite the first part of the story of the woman taken in adultery but they miss Christ’s final words to that woman “go, and sin no more”.  This was exactly what this Pastor did when he told that young man “go put on man clothes. And don’t come dressed like that no more”.

But Doesn’t the Bible Tell Us Not to Judge?

There are a lot of comments by those detractors of what this Pastor did stating that what he did was a violation of God’s prohibition on Christians judging other Christians.

Jesus said “Judge not, that ye be not judged” in Matthew 7:1, but John 7:24 Jesus also said “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.  The Apostle Paul said “Let us not therefore judge one another any more …” in Romans 14:13 but he also said in 1 Corinthians 5:12 “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?”.

So, we can clearly see that both Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul are condemning one type of judging but commanding another type of judging.  What they are condemning is hypocritical judging or engaging in judgement over those whom we have no authority to do so.

In 1 Corinthians 5:1-2 we read of a serious situation happening in the Church of Corinth:

“It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. 2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.”

So, at the Corinthian church a man had his father’s wife (his step mother) and the church was proud of this! This is no different than many so-called churches today that are “proud” of their gay members, transsexual or transvestite members. But unlike so many false Christian churches today the Apostle Paul did not tell them they were right in not judging this couple living in open immorality, but instead he called on them to JUDGE this couple as he had already done before he arrived.

In 1 Corinthians 5:3-7 Paul gives the church the remedy for dealing with those who try to enter the assembly whilst being in open sin against God:

“3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

Paul literally commands that the Church gather together as an assembly and publicly hand this person living in open immorality over to Satan.  He commands them to “purge” such people from the assembly of believers.

The Apostle Paul then goes on to clarify for them those whom they are to judge as a church and those who they cannot judge as a church in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13:

“9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.  11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”

Paul makes it clear that that righteous judgement has to do with those whose claim to be brothers in Christ but are proudly living in some type of sin. We are to having nothing to do with such wicked professing believers and we are to put away such people from the assembly of God.

So, we can see based upon the clear teaching of the Scriptures that what Pastor Rocquemore did in this instance was righteous judgment according to the Word of God.

But Doesn’t the Bible say “Come as you are”

Another common argument in the comments condemning Pastor Rocquemore’s actions toward the man dressed in drag at his church is that his actions violated the Biblical principle that we can come to God as sinners.  In other words, we can come to God as we are.

The Bible tells us in Romans 5:8 “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”.  It also tells us in Revelation 22:17 “Come! Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely”.

The problem with this argument is that it mixes apples and oranges.  The “apple” in this case is coming to God and taking freely of the water of life by calling on Christ for salvation.  The “orange” in this case is fellowship within the assembled church.

God absolutely takes us as we are, wicked sinners.  But we cannot remain in this state.  If we do remain in sin then we prove we never truly accepted the salvation he so freely offers us.

The Scriptures tell us this:

“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” – Romans 6:1-2

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” – 2 Corinthians 5:17

It is absolutely Biblically true that we can come to God as we are – wicked sinners.  In fact, there is no other way we could come as we cannot cleanse our own sin, only Christ’s shed blood on the cross and the work of the Holy Spirit within us can do this.  But if we truly believe, then our minds will be renewed.  We come as we are but we cannot and will not remain the same if we are truly in Christ.

While God invites all to come as they are for salvation, he only invites those who are not as they were, those who are new creatures in Christ, into to the assembled church.

This Crisis is the Result of the Seeker-Sensitive Church Movement

The fact that it is even debatable as to what this Pastor did in openly rebuking and expelling this man from his church is a direct testament to the massive damage that has been done to many churches by the seeker-sensitive church movement.

The false philosophy of the seeker-sensitive church takes God’s command to the Church to preach the Gospel to the world (Matthew 28:19 & Mark 16:15) and uses it to cancel out all other commands given to the Church.

God did more than just command the Church to spread the Gospel.  In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 God commanded that the holiness of the church assembly be kept above all other concerns and that those who would live in sinful lifestyles while trying to be part of the assembly be expelled from the assembly.  In Ephesians 4:11-15 we read that a core purpose of the church is “the perfecting of the saints” which means helping Christians to learn the doctrines of the faith and apply these doctrines to their lives. And in 2 Timothy 4:1-5 God commands that the Church is to “Preach the word” and “reprove, rebuke, exhort” those in assembly.

The modern seeker-sensitive churches cast aside all these other commands given to the church in order to make their churches more appealing to the outside world and unbelievers in their midst.  They refuse to preach against sin, to rebuke those who sin in their assembly and to keep the church only for those who are new creatures in Christ.

The Bible tells us:

“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” – James 4:4

These seeker-sensitive churches value friendship with the world and being loved by the world more than faithfulness to God’s commands to keep the holiness of his Church.  As a result, these compromising churches find themselves filled with people who are not new creatures in Christ.

As Christian Churches we may disagree on various doctrines.  But standing for the holiness of the church cannot be one of them.  We must stand together on this.

A War on Christianity Has Begun

As Christians we must realize that within our culture a war is being made on Christianity.  Just a few days ago the following news was reported in an article on CBNNews.com entitled “Incoming Democratic Congress Has Hobby Lobby in Their Sights, Hoping to Force Abortion Funding“:

“Having just won back control of the House in this year’s midterm elections, Democrats now have their sights set on an issue near and dear to people of faith: the sanctity of life.

As they prepare to take over the chamber, 50 Democrats have agreed to co-sponsor legislation that would effectively cripple the 25-year-old Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That brings the total number of Democratic House legislators supporting the bill to 172.

According to The Washington Examiner, H.R. 3222 would make it so LGBTQ rights and other progressive causes would take precedence over religious freedoms.

In addition, supporters say the bill would reverse the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakeshop cases.”

The enemies of true Christianity are trying to force church ministries and Christian owned businesses to provide abortion services as part of their health insurance for their employees.  Homosexuals purposefully go into Christian bakeries, florists and wedding photographers to set them up for lawsuits. And now we see transvestites forcing their perverted actions and beliefs on local churches.  I have no doubt that if not in this case that in the future we will see homosexuals suing churches to force them to allow them to be members.

Those who do this believe they fight for civil rights and social justice.  But God grants no such right to live in these wicked ways or do these wicked things.  Thus, they stand in opposition against God and his Word.  Many falsely compare the fight for equal treatment for those of different races in the 1960’s with the fight now for LGBTQ rights.  But the difference is that one was based on race and the other is based on one’s actions.  These two things are as different as night and day. Those who falsely believe they will force by the power of civil law full acceptance of the LGBTQ community on  Bible believing Christians are in for a very rude awakening.

We know what the Scripture tell us when civil authorities pass laws which contradict God’s laws:

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” – Acts 5:29

Christians have been dying for centuries for their belief and adherence to the Word of God and now will be no different than then.  When the time comes, the true believers in Christ will be willing to lose their businesses and even in their lives for the cause of following the Word of God.   But as Churches and other Christian organizations continue to be taken to court many Christians and non-Christian alike in America will grow tired of this. And the fight for the soul of our nation may boil to a point we have not seen since the Civil War.

Better 100 Rapists Should Escape Than One Innocent Man Should Suffer

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

The MeToo Movement’s Assault on Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Only 2 Percent of Rape Accusations False?

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

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

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

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

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

Crying “Rape”!

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

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

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


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

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

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

Putting a Human Face on the Victims of False Rape Claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a MeToo America Would Look Like

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

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

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

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

Better 100 Rapists Should Escape Than One Innocent Man Should Suffer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes Women DO Sit Around Making These Things Up

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

Christine Blasey Ford’s Story

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

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

She has offered no physical evidence of the attempted rape.

She does not remember where the house was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.”

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

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

“One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”

Deuteronomy 19:15 (KJV)

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

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

Sometimes Women DO sit around making these things up

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

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

Genesis 39:11-15 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

But what about the second or third woman?

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

The Bible gives us as men this admonition:

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

1 Corinthians 16:13

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

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