Sexism Is a Virtue Because the Bible is a Sexist Book

“So the Bible is a sexist book, and that fact alone should make Christians want to acknowledge that sexism has to be a virtue. And because the Bible has been assiduously ignored when it comes to these matters for lo, these many years, this should make us realize that it is also a lost virtue. Therefore it must be renewed, or restored, or recovered, or perhaps even reupholstered. But how?”

The statement above was made by Douglas Wilson on his “Blog and Mablog” site in an article he entitled “Restoring Sexism: The Lost Virtue”.

That is a bold assertion to state that “the Bible is a sexist book”.  So it is in fact true that the Bible is a sexist book?

Well first we need to define what sexism is.  According to Webster’s Online dictionary the definition of sexism is as follows:

“1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex especially : discrimination against women

2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

So, the questions are does the Bible treat people different based on their sex and does it foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex?

The answer is a resounding YES.

In Ephesians 5:24 the Bible states “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” and in Titus 2:5 the Bible commands women to be “keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands”. It also states that women are not “…to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” in 1 Timothy 2:12 and in 1 Corinthians 14:35 it states “And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home…” .

If those are not sexist statements right of out of the Bible, I don’t know what is. But we as Christians need to stop allowing humanists to frighten us into hiding with their labels.

And this is where Doug Wilson is taking a stand and I agree with him on this.  I have previously written an article on this same subject about two years ago entitled “Why Christians Should Be Proud Sexists”.  Some of my readers took offense at my attempt to redeem the term “sexist” as a badge of honor rather than a term of derision.   Others took offense at my use of the word “proud” quoting passages like James 4:6 where the Bible states “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble”.

I explained however, that my statement about us as Christians being proud was not a pride in ourselves, but rather a pride in God and in his Word.  It is pride that means to be “unashamed” as the Apostle Peter stated “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf”.

So, should we as Christians be ashamed of the fact that our Bible and our God who gave us our Bible treats people differently based on sex and fosters “stereotypes of social roles based on sex”? The answer for any Bible believing Christian should be “No I am not ashamed of God or his Word or his design of men and women”.

Let me give some other great statements by Doug Wilson in this article on this subject of sexism:

Sexism is certainly a sin against the gods of egalitarianism, but those gods are not gods at all. They are rather little wisps of aspirational fog floating off the sewage lagoon of late-stage secularism, and so we have no reason to feel bad about committing any such “sins.” If they are not gods at all, then sins against their commandments are not sins at all.

The living God has given us His Word, and nowhere in that Word does it say that sexism is a sin against Him. That means it is not a sin at all. In fact, various things that our culture defines as sexist are enshrined as virtues in Scripture, and this means that Christians should stop their furtive glancing from side to side, and simply acknowledge that it is high time for us to recover the lost virtue of sexism.

But what would such a recovery look like? How might we recover our sexist heritage? How shall we know when we have recovered it? The heart and soul of a restored sexism is to recognize that God created men and women with different natures, and has commanded us to recognize those natures as different, and to treat men and women differently simply because they are men and women respectively.”

Amen and Amen Mr. Wilson.   Mr. Wilson is absolutely right that “Sexism is certainly a sin against the gods of egalitarianism, but those gods are not gods at all“.  And we as Christian need to stop reverencing these false gods that our culture worships.  I have said many times that Western Civilization does indeed have a religion and that religion is Humanism.  And Humanism like some pagan religions of old is polytheistic in that it has many gods.  Some of those false gods are equality, education and the environment.  If you are not willing to bow down to these gods, and if you speak anything against egalitarianism, higher education or environmentalism you are speaking blasphemy in many parts of the Western world today.

The sad part is that many Christians today believe they can worship the false gods of equality, education and environment and place their faith in humanity while at the same time claiming they worship and place their faith in the God of the Bible.

But our God is a jealous God and he will not tolerate the worship of other gods.  In Exodus 34: 14 God says For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”.

In the end we all have a choice.  It is the choice that Joshua gave to Israel and it is the same choice we must give to America and the Western world today.

“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)

Is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative Biblical?

In the first two parts of this series “Is Red Pill Biblical?”, we established the fact that some observations in Red Pill do indeed match with Biblical teachings on gender roles.  We also showed that Red Pill is not just objective intersexual behavioral theory even though its most vocal advocates would like to think it is.  While Red Pill is built on observations of nature, specifically human biology and behavior, it also interweaves these findings with its own philosophy and its own moral judgements as to how we should act based on these observations.

Now that we have looked at Red Pill from a very high level we will dive into more of the specific concepts in Red Pill starting with the Red Pill concept of the Male Imperative.

What is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative?

Rollo Tomassi wrote an article for his Red Pill blog, TheRationalMale.com, entitled “The New Paternity”.  In that article he states that “Men’s biological, masculine, imperative is to spread the seed – unlimited access to unlimited sexuality”.  In “Pseudo-Virginity” he writes that men have “polygynous sexual strategy”.

Tomassi writes in “Women & Sex” , “One of the single most annoying tropes I read / hear from men (more so than women) is the “Women are just as / more sexual than men” canard… Patently false. A healthy male produces between 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone a woman does. It is a biological impossibility for a woman to want sex as much as, or as often as men. Trust me, when a woman says, “I don’t understand why sex is so important to guys” she’s speaking the literal truth”.

And in “The Truth About Standards”,  Tomassi states “Men are so motivated by sexual experience that it supersedes the need for food. Research shows brain cells specific to men fire up when mates are present and override the need to eat. Take this as you will, but it does reinforce the idea that for men, sex is in fact a biological need”.

So, to summarize what Tomassi has stated, Red Pill teaches that the Male Imperative is for a man to spread his seed to as many women as possible and as a direct result of this men are polygynous in their sexual strategy.  And a man’s sex drive is more than 10 times what a woman’s sex drive is and it is a biological need.

Is the Male Imperative Biblical?

Some people wrongly think a need is only something you will die from if you do not meet it but this is untrue.  There are many human needs that left unmet will not kill us, but they will indeed cause greater    or lesser psychological damage depending on the person.  Some men, if their sexual needs are not met, will lash out and commit rape or other wrong actions.

The Bible agrees with Red Pill that sex is indeed a need unless a man or woman have the gift of celibacy as seen in the Scripture passage below:

“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.”

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 (KJV)

In the follow passage speaking to the needs of women, God compares a woman’s need for sex to that of her need for food and clothing:

“10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”

Exodus 21:10-11 (KJV)

Would a woman physically die from not having food? Certainly.  Would a woman die from not having clothing and being constantly exposed to the elements? Probably.  Would a woman physically die from not having sex with her husband? Not at all.  But yet it is still shown as a need for a woman to have sex with her husband.  Why? Because while she may not physically die from not having sex with him, her intimacy with her husband would certainly die and this could in fact end the marriage as God allowed.

But then God goes even further when speaking of a man’s need for sexual relations with his wife in the following passage:

“15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well… 18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:15 & 18-19 (KJV)

God built a much greater need for sex in the masculine nature than in feminine nature.  Rather than comparing a man’s need for sex to the human need for food like the Bible does for a woman, instead the Bible compares a man’s need to for sex to the human need for water.

With a constant supply of water, a human being can go 60 days to 70 days with no food.  However, the average human being can only go four to seven days without water.  The human body is made up of 60 percent water.  Our cells, our joints and every organ in our body needs water to operate.

Just as water is a fundamental driving force in the human body, so too sex is a fundamental driving force in the masculine human nature.

Tomassi is absolutely correct that while women need sex too, a woman can never truly grasp the substantially greater physical and psychological need for sex in men.

The Bible also agrees with Red Pill that men have a polygynous sexual nature and the drive to “spread the seed” to as many different women as possible.  And this polygynous sexual desire in men is not a corruption of the masculine nature by sin as many Christian teachers and preachers have falsely claimed over the centuries.

The Bible shows that God blessed and rewarded Leah for giving her servant girl to her husband as another wife.  God allows for polygamy and sets rules for its practice in Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17 and Deuteronomy 25:5-7.  God warns kings against multiplying wives or hording wives in Deuteronomy 17:17 but tells King David in II Samuel 12:8 that he gave him the wives of his master (King Saul) and would have given him many more wives.  In Ezekiel 23:1-5 God pictures himself as polygamist husband to two women – the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah.  And in the New Testament in Romans 10:19 God says he is taking on a new bride the form of the New Testament church to make his first wife, the nation of Israel, jealous so that she might return to him one day.

So, as we can see from an abundance of the Scriptures, polygamy is not sinful corruption of the masculine nature but it is in fact by God’s design.

For more on subject of polygamy and answers to objections some Christians may still have to it, see my series “Why Polygamy Is Not Unbiblical” .

What the Bible says About Man’s Sexual Nature that Red Pill Does Not

A fundamental flaw of Red Pill, one which we will continually remind the reader of, is that it takes an evolutionary approach to analyzing human biology and behavior. Red Pill’s natural science approach to analyzing human behavior and biology as it currently exists can reveal interesting facts about human beings.  But once they get into evolutionary science, which is a forensic science, they are just guessing in the wind.

This is where the Bible offers something Red Pill cannot.  Red Pill using scientific analysis of human biology and behavior can often (but not always) tell us the “What” of human behavior and biology but it can never provide us with the “Why”.  Only the Bible can do this.

The Bible reveals to us that the male sexual nature is about much more than reproduction.  In fact, while the Bible commands us to “Be fruitful, and multiply” it never tells us that God made sex primarily for reproduction.

The Bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:7 of the male human being that “he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man” and then in verse 9 of that same chapter it says “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.   God created man to image him, to display or live out his attributes with his life.  And this is why God made woman.   Man needed someone upon which to play out the image of God in him.  He needed someone to love, lead, provide for and protect as God exhibits these attributes.

Another attribute of God’s nature is that he longs to be one with his people.  Man’s desire for sexual union with woman helps him to live out this aspect of God’s nature.

But there is still one more aspect of God’s nature that many Christians throughout the centuries have ignored or just plain denied due to their ascetism.  And that aspect of God’s nature is that he actually seeks out and enjoys pleasure.

The 8th century theologian John of Damascus wrote “But God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.”  What he was saying is that God only created the male and female sex organs knowing that sin would enter the picture and they would need some way to reproduce.  In other words, sex in human beings, and by extension sexual pleasure, was a result of sin in human beings and never God’s perfect intention.

Such a position is of course not supported by the Scriptures.  If sex in human beings was only an allowance by God for reproduction because of sin, then God would never have commanded men to satisfy themselves sexually with their wives’ bodies in Proverbs 5:18-19 nor would he have given us the entire book of the Song of Solomon which is dedicated to sexual love in marriage.

The Bible tells us God’s desire for the beauty of his people when it states in Psalm 45:11 “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him”.  And in Psalm 149:4 we read “For the Lord taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation”.

So, man’s sexual desire toward woman does not just display God’s desire for oneness with his people, but it also fully displays God’s desire for the beauty of his people and his desire to take pleasure in his people.

The Corruption of Man’s God Given Polygynous Sexual Nature

We have just shown from the Bible how a man’s desire to take pleasure in the beauty of and bodies of women is a reflection of God’s nature within him.  However sin corrupted the masculine nature as God originally designed it.  And one of the ways sin corrupts man’s God given polygynous sexual nature is by tempting men to become whoremongers and adulterers.

And this is why the Bible warns that God will punish men if they act on this corruption of their sexual natures when it states in Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge“.

God also shows that men can allow their sexual nature to control their lives causing them to make wrong decisions.   In Proverbs 6:26 the Bible states  For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adultress will hunt for the precious life”.  A man can literally be led to the slaughter by his sexual nature if he allows it to happen. 

Ecclesiastes 7:26 states And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her”. And this is why men are exhorted to flee from this temptation and escape the corruption of their sexual nature which would enslave them to women.

Conclusion

The Bible would agree with Red Pill that sex is a much stronger need for men than women when it compares a man’s sexual desire to the human desire for water.  The Bible would also agree with Red Pill that man’s sexual nature is polygynous.

But as we can see based upon the teachings of the Bible, man’s imperative is much more than simply reproduction.  Instead the Bible reveals that man’s sexual desire is only a part of his larger true “imperative” which is to image God and live out or display all the attributes of God’s nature in his life.

And while God indeed created man with a polygynous sexual nature, he also intended for man to bond with each of the women he had sex with and be a husband to each of those women and a father to their children.

Is Red Pill a Theory or a Religion?

Rollo Tomassi has been an ardent defender of Red Pill as a theory, not an ideology, political movement or religion.   In his article “The Political is Personal”, Tomassi wrote the following:

“This is the degree to which the Feminine Imperative has been saturated into our western social fabric. Catholic women in the Vatican may have very little in common with Mormon women in Utah, but let a Mormon woman insist the church alter its fundamental foundational articles of faith with regard to women in favor of a doctrine substituted by the Feminine Imperative and those disparate women have a common purpose.

That is the depth of the Feminine Imperative – that female primacy should rewrite articles of faith to prioritize women’s interests…

It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.”

In “The Believers” vs. The Empiricists”, Tomassi writes:

“Red Pill people… believe that whether something is “good” or “bad” is a matter of opinion, and that all systems of morality are things societies invented to get a result, and it is therefore pointless to argue about whether something is “evil” or not, instead of about what effect it has. They are moral relativists They believe that the goal of a debate is to establish what the facts are, and how this knowledge can be used to control outcomes. They argue about what is true.

They believe that debates are a cooperative process between two or more people who have the shared goal of achieving a more accurate picture of absolute reality, and that, while people may stick vehemently to their positions, they can also reverse them on a dime if new information comes to light, because the only real attachment is to the truth. They believe debates occur between theories, not people. Thus questioning someone’s character is off-limits, because it is irrelevant.”

So, as we can see from the quotes above, Rollo reflects the feeling of many Red Pill people that Red Pill is and must remain theory (or a collection of theories) about intersexual dynamics.  And it must stay out of political, racial and other arenas and strictly stick to intersexual dynamics.

We Can’t Avoid the Necessity of Religious and Political Reforms

I totally agree with Tomassi that that both men and women across political and religious spectrums will close ranks and join together when Red Pill theories are presented.

The feminine imperative was kept bound and in check by patriarchal societies which existed throughout the world for six millennia.  It was only during the mid-19th century that Secular Humanism based on the combination of individualism, naturalism and blank slate released the feminine imperative from the control of patriarchy.

And once it did that, the feminine imperative brought us the feminine reality.

But again, what was it that released the feminine imperative to do all the damage it has done to Western civilization? It was Humanism.

In “Unmarriageable”, Tomassi gives the following lamentation:

“The way we do marriage today has the potential to be the most damaging decision a man can make in his life. It may even end his life. But despite all that I still believe men and women are better together than we are apart. We still evolved to be complements to the other.

It’s the coming together and living together, and all the downside risks to men today that I have no solution for at the moment. Maybe it’s going to take a war or a meteor striking the earth to set gender parity back in balance, but at the moment there’s only a future of sexual segregation to look forward to.”

If Tomassi and other Red Pill folks want to keep Red Pill non-political and non-religious then more power to them.  But I would argue based on Tomassi’s own comments they can’t really solve the underlying problem and all Red Pill is then is a band aid to help men have sex in a feminine primary world with no answers for getting out of it.

But as Bible believing Christians, we must delve into the political and religious side of this.  Humanism unleashed the feminine imperative upon Western civilization and the only way to put the feminine imperative back under control is to return to patriarchal and religious societies once again. A return to Christian patriarchy would solve the problem of the feminine imperative.

Now I know right now that seems like a fantasy.  And Red Pill folks, Humanists and many Christians reading this are all laughing.  But let me tell you about a man who laughed about gender equality almost 250 years ago.

In 1776, John Adams wrote the follow response to his wife Abigail who asked him to push the founders for women’s equality with men in the new America nation and this was his famous response:

“As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh…Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems… and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight”.

The “despotism of the petticoat” meant the “despotism of women”.  John Adams predicted that if the Patriarchal order which had served human civilization for six millennia was given up, that it would be replaced by a new Matriarchal order. In other words, John Adams predicted what Red Pill calls “the feminine reality”.

It took almost 200 years for what John Adams laughed at the possibility of to be fully realized.

So, is it so outlandish to believe that Patriarchy, and specifically Christian Patriarchy could return over the next two centuries? I think not.

The feminine imperative was released because of religious (humanism) changes that lead to political changes in this nation.  And the only way the feminine imperative will finally be placed back under control is through the same means – through bringing the teachings of the Bible regarding gender back to our families and churches which will then lead to changes in our societies and governments.

It must begin as a grass roots movement.  It must start with men teaching men. Then men teaching their women.  We need to be reaching our teens when they are young and more easily able to change.  And then when larger groups of families in churches band together, they can demand changes in their church leadership and a return to teaching the whole Bible, including the Biblical doctrines concerning gender roles.

Red Pill People Are Not Completely Moral Relativists

Tomassi says Red Pill is completely about scientific theory concerning the behavior of the sexes.  That is just about “the facts”. That its not about what is “good” or “bad” or “evil”.  But the quote below, from Tomassi’s article “The Desire Dynamic” , shows that Red Pill does actually take moral positions:

“You cannot negotiate Desire…

Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance.

This is why her post-negotiation sexual response is often so lackluster and the source of even further frustration on his part. She may be more sexually available to him, but the half-hearted experience is never the same as when they first met when there was no negotiation, just spontaneous desire for each other…

Genuine desire is something a person must come to – or be led to – on their own volition. You can force a woman by threat to comply with behaving in a desired manner, but you cannot make her want to behave that way. A prostitute will fuck you for an exchange, it doesn’t mean she wants to.

Whether LTR or a one night stand (ONS) strive for genuine desire in your relationships. Half of the battle is knowing you want to be with a woman who wants to please you, not one who feels obligated to. You will never draw this genuine desire from her by overt means, but you can covertly lead her to this genuine desire. The trick in provoking real desire is in keeping her ignorant of your intent to provoke it. Real desire is created by her thinking it’s something she wants, not something she has to do.”

Throughout his writings Tomassi denigrates what he calls “transactional”, or “obligated” or “duty” sex in favor of men only receiving “validational” (genuinely desired) sex from women.

This is taking a moral position.

This violates the male imperative for men to sow their seed as often as they can.

The male imperative is not to have perfect sex with the perfect woman, it is to have sex as many times as possible.

This is actually a glaring contradiction in Red Pill which perfectly aligns with feminist ideology that no woman should ever have to have sex with a man if she does not genuinely desire it.

Conclusion

Red Pill in a sense is only a band aid for the problem of the feminine reality and it has no answers for overturning the feminine reality.  The solution to these problems isn’t learning how to game women into having sex, it is about a return to the Biblically based world view that this nation and Western civilization once had.  It is about a return to Christian Patriarchy.

Only a society based in Christian Patriarchy can take on the feminine imperative and bring under control as it once was.

And as to the question that is the title of this article “Is Red Pill A Religion?” I would have to say the answer is yes.  Any system which offers answers to moral questions, even if it is a naturalistic system like Humanism, is a religion.  And Red Pill does in fact take moral positions.

Red Pill is hybrid of scientific research and moral beliefs.   So, if we separate the moral beliefs from the scientific research and simply look at the research into human nature this can give us valuable insights.

I look at Red Pill the same as I would a biology or psychology class in college.  I know there will be humanist or naturalist teachings in these classes that I will need to weed out.  But I can still glean truths about human physiology and psychology in these classes.  The Bible tells us that God reveals himself and his truths not only through the Bible, but also secondarily through nature:

“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”

Romans 1:18-20 (KJV)

Is it possible that Tomassi and other Red Pill people have discovered some truths about God’s design in human nature? Absolutely it is possible.

But as Christians we must always remember that our only infallible source for truth is the Word of God.

Is Red Pill Biblical?

In 2015, a popular Red Pill Blogger named Rollo Tomassi agreed with some traditionalist Christians that “Christianity was already Red Pill before there was a Red Pill”.  “Red Pill” refers to a  collection of theories of how human intersexual dynamics work.   The Red Pill theory has been spreading across the internet for almost two decades.  The phrase “The Red Pill”, as it is used in the Manosphere, is based upon the 1999 sci-fi movie “The Matrix” starring Keanu Reeves. In this film’s dystopian future, all of humanity has been enslaved by machines in a simulated reality known as “The Matrix” by an artificial intelligence that mankind had created long ago.

In the movie a character named Morpheus offers Neo, the movie’s main protagonist, a choice between a blue pill and a red pill in the famous quote below:

“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”

This Red Pill/Blue Pill paradigm was adopted by the manosphere over the past two decades to compare and contrast two different collections of theories of how human civilization should be conducted.

Even though I will be quoting from Tomassi’s blog during this series to compare and contrast Red Pill with the Bible, I want to make clear from Tomassi’s own words that he is not the inventor of Red Pill theory.

In his article entitled “The Purple Pill” , Tomassi, wrote this about the origins of the Red Pill:

“While I am humbled to be accounted as one of the Red Pill’s prominent writers I will never lay claim to having created it. The Red Pill in its truest sense belongs to the collective that has contributed to it as a whole. It belongs to the men who’ve fostered it, who’ve risked their livelihoods and families apart from it to make other men aware; it belongs to those who understand that its objectivity is what’s kept it open and honest, discussable and debatable.”

Rollo Tomassi began studying psychology and behaviorism in 2001.  His emphasis was on behaviorism and specifically behaviorism as it relates to how the human genders think and act.

He began by taking his gender centered behaviorism theories to an online forum called https://www.sosuave.com/ where he debated and discussed them with others to refine his theories.

10 years after starting his journey, in 2011, he started TheRationalMale.com blog.  His blog was an instant success becoming one of the most popular blogs in the Manosphere.  In 2013, he published his book “The Rational Male” which was essentially an edited version of his first year’s blog posts along with many questions he had from commenters and his answers to them.

This then leads us to the most important question Christians must answer about Red Pill.

Do the doctrines of the Bible, upon which Christianity was founded, agree with any part of Red Pill theory?

The answer to this question can be found in the following two statements by Tomassi.

In his article “Male Authority Provisioning vs Duty” :

“I’ve been watching Outlaw King on Netflix recently. There’s a part where the wife of Robert the Bruce says ‘Power is making decisions, and whatever course you are charting, I choose you, my husband’ It struck me that my own wife had said almost these same words to me in 2005. When I’d decided to take a job in Orlando that would uproot us from family and friends. There was no “,…but what about my friends, career, etc.?” from her and I had no hesitation to consider anything but taking the position. She said, “You are my husband, I go where you go.

How many men hold a default Frame in their marriage? Many women are reluctant to even accept their husband’s last name today. There’s a lot of bullshit reasons for this, but the core truth is that women have no confidence in their man in the long term. They don’t trust his ‘course’. There’s holding Frame, and then there’s establishing a long term Frame, a paradigm, a reality of his own, that defines a man’s authority in his marriage and family relationships. Women today still want marriage, but few want to defer to their husband’s ‘course’. They don’t trust him with her life.

And then there is this second quote from Tomassi from his article “Male Authority Be a Man” :

“There are numerous ways a feminine-primary social order removes the teeth from male authority today. First and foremost is the social pretense of blank-slate equalism. A default presumption that men and women are coequal agents in every aspect – physical, emotional, psychological, intellectual – is the cover story necessary to remove an authority that was based on the conventional differences between the sexes. To the blank-slate equalist gender is a social construct, but gender is only the starting point for a social constructionist belief set. Social constructionism is a necessary foundation upon which blank-slate equalism is built, but ultimately it’s a means of control. By denying each sex its innate differences social constructionism denies men their innate advantages and strengths. Once this became the normalized social convention it was a simple step to remove male authority…

The authority men used to claim innate legitimacy of in the past is now only legitimate when a woman wields it. Men need to retake this authority and own it as is their birthright once again.”

The sentiment that Tomassi has just stated, that a man’s authority over his wife and his children is his “birthright” and that a wife should trust her husband with the course he has plotted for them and with her very life is 100% Biblical.

The Bible agrees with Red Pill that male authority over woman is indeed the birth right of every man.  In 1 Corinthians 11:3 we read “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man” and in 1 Timothy 2:12 the Bible states that women are forbidden to “to usurp authority over the man”.   In Ephesians 5:23 we read “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church”.

I also want to return to Tomassi’s first comment about women in our modern era having no trust or confidence in their husbands. The Bible speaks to this trust women are called to:

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

I Peter 3:5-6 (KJV)

The Bible calls on women to obey and be in subjection to their husbands because they trust God and his design of male headship over women.   In other words, women should trust their husbands ‘course’, to use Tomassi’s language, because they trust that God has given their husbands the ‘course’ he wishes them to follow.

So, the answer to the question of “Do the doctrines of the Bible, upon which Christianity was founded, agree with any part of Red Pill theory?” is a resounding YES!

But just because the Bible would be Red Pill in some areas does not mean it is Red Pill in all areas.

And this is what I will be exploring in this new series “Is Red Pill Biblical?”  There are a lot of different aspects of Red Pill to cover and I want to break them down into bite sized pieces so that Christians can fully understand the Red Pill Theory and where Red Pill is in agreement with a Biblical world view and where Red Pill is in conflict with a Biblical world view.

If You Are Not Following Paul, Then You Are Not Following Jesus

Whose words have more weight? The words of Jesus Christ or the words of the Apostle Paul? This is the question that many Christian feminists pose to us as Bible believing Christians.  Yesterday Lori Alexander published an interesting article on her Transformed Wife blog entitled “Do Not Be a Red Letter Christian” were she addressed a statement by the Christian feminist Beth Moore which goes as follows:

“No, I was not subtweeting the apostle but I would like to say something here. I believe wholeheartedly that ALL Scripture is inspired by God. Authoritative. Truth. But the persons themselves – Paul and Jesus – are not equals. I know this is hard for some to swallow, but Paul is not our Savior. Paul would be horrified, I believe, by the way he has been deified.”

Lori then pointed out the problem with Beth’s statement:

“This is a very slippery slope, dear women. I know too many people who have begun elevating the words of Jesus in the Bible over Paul’s words and end up walking away from the faith altogether. I know no one who has deified the apostle Paul, do you? I do know that his words are as valuable as Jesus’ words since the Holy Spirit used Paul to write what he wrote (2 Timothy 3:16).”

Lori also pointed out some responses by some Christian teachers to Beth Moore’s statement:

“James White wrote this about Beth’s tweet, “All egalitarians end up diminishing Paul’s authority. It is a necessary step, even if taken in slow, little movements.”
Another man wrote, “Being a ‘red-lettered’ Christian is dangerous. You’re on a path towards liberalism, if you’re not already there yet.”

The last statement is where Lori got her title “Do Not Be a Red Letter Christian”.

The Gospel is the Most Important Doctrine in All the Bible

I have said it many times on this blog.  Believing in and practicing the doctrines of Biblical gender roles will not save you.  This is why on the main menu for this blog right at the top I have a link to my article entitled “What is the Gospel?” and in that article I give the Gospel as follows.

The word “gospel” literally means “good news”.  The Apostle Paul tells us in his epistle to the Roman Christians what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about:

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” – Romans 10:9-10 (KJV)”

And then I give what we must do to be saved according to the Scriptures:

  1. We must confess that we have sinned against God. (I John 1:9)
  2. We must believe that Christ died and rose again to pay the penalty for our sins. (Romans 10:9 -10)
  3. We must believe that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, the sinless and spotless Son of God. (Philippians 2:5-8)

The Gospel truly is the most important doctrine in the Bible for two reasons.  The first is that it is the only doctrine we must fully understand and fully believe to inherit eternal life.  If we disbelieve any part of the Gospel, we will one day find ourselves in a place called hell.  The second reason that the Gospel is the most important doctrine in the Bible is because only when we have believed and been indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God can we live the life God has called us to live through his power.  We cannot transform ourselves and we cannot live the life he has called us to live in our power – we need him each and ever day of our lives.

However, just because the Gospel is the MOST important doctrine in the Bible does not mean it is the ONLY important doctrine in the Bible.  The Scriptures tell us in 2 Corinthians 5:15 “And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again”.  We were not saved to live for ourselves and do whatever makes us happy, we were saved to live for Christ!  This then leads us to our next question.

How Do We Live for Christ?

In the Gospel of Luke Christ tells us how we are to live him:

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

Luke 4:4 (KJV)

Living for Christ is living by “every word of God”.

This leads us to our next question.

What is the Word of God?

Jesus made the following statement about the Word of God:

“17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 5:17-19 (KJV)

In the passage above Jesus alludes to the moral law of God found throughout the Old Testament.  Those who think they can throw out the Old Testament will be called least in the kingdom of God, that is what Christ said.

Jesus gave authority and supernatural power to his Apostles to speak and write the very Word of God.

“18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”

Matthew 28:18-19 (KJV)

And he gave the following warning for those who would not hear the words of his Apostles:

“14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

Matthew 10:14-15 (KJV)

The Words of the Prophets, Christ and His Apostles Are All Equal in Authority

In Hebrews 3:3 the Scriptures tell us concerning Christ that “For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house” .   And Apostle Paul speaking of Christ in Philippians 2:9 wrote “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name”.

Believing that the words of the Prophet Moses and the Apostle Paul are equal in authority to Jesus’s words is not “deifying” Moses or Paul or placing them above Christ.  It is simply a recognition of the truth that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

To all the Beth Moore Christian feminists out there, while it is true that “Paul and Jesus – are not equals” it is true that the words of Christ and the words of Paul ARE equal.  Why? Because Jesus stated of himself “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) meaning he was God in the flesh.

The Word of God, all of it from Genesis to Revelation is Christ’s Words.  That means Moses’s Words as recorded in the Scriptures are Christ’s Words.  That means the Apostle Paul’s Words as recorded in the Scriptures are Christ’s Words.   So, it is for this reason that every letter in the Bible should be considered a “red letter”.

Babes in Christ Who Don’t Know Paul’s Words

The Bible encourage us to grow in our faith and go further than our just understanding the Gospel and repentance:

“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby”

1 Peter 2:2 (KJV)

“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.”

Hebrews 6:1-2 (KJV)

We are called to “go unto perfection” which means “completeness”.  In other words, we need to have a complete understanding of God’s will and plan for our lives and then by his power live out that plan.

Some people don’t reject the doctrines of gender roles.  They simply don’t know them because our churches have failed in their duty to teach “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).

And this is the reason God burden me to start this ministry more than five years ago to stand in this gap that most churches have left and he has truly blessed this ministry.  If you would have told me when I started this blog 5 years ago that this blog would reach more than 8 million views, I would not have believed you.

It is so encouraging for me to hear from young Christians for whom God has used this ministry to literally change the course of their lives.  Over the 5 years I have had this ministry, I have seen numerous young women quit college to become home makers as God has intended them to do.  Just last week I had a young woman write me telling me that she had dropped out of college where she had just begun pursuing a degree in law to pursue being a wife and homemaker.  And just in the last week I was so encouraged to hear from a young 17-year-old man who was standing for Biblical gender roles in his church youth group taking other teens through the doctrines of Biblical gender roles as shown in the Bible.

And this is why it is so important that we as Christians disciple and teach other believers in these important doctrines.  Yes, you can be saved without knowing or believing in the doctrine of Biblical gender roles, but you cannot live a holy life or the life God has called you to live without knowing and incorporating these doctrines into your life decisions.

Blasphemers Who Know What God Spoke Through the Apostle Paul

But some people are not babes in Christ who simply don’t know about the doctrine of Biblical gender roles that was given by the inspiration of God through Paul.  Some are ignorant regarding the concept of the inerrancy the Scriptures, that all the Bible is the Word of God.  Others blaspheme and distort it because they refuse to live by what it says.

The Apostle Peter warned of such ignorant blasphemers in the following passage:

“15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

2 Peter 3:15-16 (KJV) 

And the Apostle Paul also stated that those who reject God’s role for women are blaspheming the Word of God:

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

Titus 2:4-5 (KJV)

So yes, based upon the Word of God we must see Beth Moore as an ignorant blasphemer for falsely pitting the words of Christ while he walked this earth against the words Christ which he gave to the Apostle Paul after he ascended to heaven.

Beth Moore stated that “Paul would be horrified” by Christians ascribing the same value to the Word God gave him as the Word Christ spoke while he walked this earth.  Well we know how Paul would feel about this because he told us so in his first letter to the Thessalonians:

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

1 Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV)

Rather than being horrified, he would be thankful.  But you know what Paul would be horrified by? He tells us that in his first letter to the Corinthians:

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

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

The Apostle Paul would be horrified and ashamed to see Beth Moore standing in a pulpit preaching to men.  He would be ashamed of her teachings telling women they do not have to be under obedience to men in all areas of their lives especially in the church and in the home.

If You Are Not Following Paul, then You are not Following Jesus

Another ignorant, blaspheming feminist blogger wrote that when Lori Alexander warned against the dangers of elevating “the words of Jesus in the Bible over Paul’s words” instead of treating them equally that she was saying “Don’t Follow Jesus, Just Follow Paul”.

Just listen to her ignorance and blasphemy on full display:

“Let that sink in for a moment. Jesus, the figurehead of everything to do with Christianity, a religious named for him. A man that suggested you should be nice to everyone, and hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, fishermen and others society sneered at. God in the flesh according to the Bible, part of the Holy Trinity, yet Lori is telling you to ignore his words and rely on the words of someone who never even met Jesus? That is just wacky!”

Jesus is no more “the figurehead” of Christianity than a husband is “the figurehead” of his wife.  He is “the head of the church” as “the husband is the head of the wife” according to Ephesians 5:23. Lori’s warning against “elevating the words of Jesus in the Bible over Paul’s words” said nothing about ignoring Christ’s Words.  She was saying they should be treated equally. It is this ignorant, blaspheming feminist blogger who ignores even the words of Christ when he told us we must listen to the words of his Apostles.

And this feminist blogger displays her ignorance yet again in saying Paul was “someone who never even met Jesus”. Has she not read Acts 9:1-6? Or she is rejecting Luke’s account as well?

She also makes the false statement that Christ and the Apostle Paul had “radically different takes toward women” in the following statement:

Funny how Paul and Jesus have such radically different takes towards women. Jesus talked to women like they were equals, equally valuable in the eyes of God, not walking, cooking, cleaning uteri.”

Really? Did Christ view women as social equals to men? Do you see any women listed among the twelve apostles in the Scripture passage below?

“1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”

Matthew 10:1-4 (KJV)

And surely if Christ was such a feminist, he would have chosen a woman to replace Judas but he goes and replaces him with the Apostle Paul, another man.

Some feminists point to the story of Mary and Martha below to falsely saying Christ was a feminist:

“38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. 40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. 41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: 42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

Luke 10:38-42 (KJV)

It is true that Jesus did break many social taboos of the Jews by talking with tax collectors and others of lower social classes.  His encouragement for women to sit and hear his words alongside of men most likely would have broken some taboos of the Jews as well.

But the question is this. Did he do anything that was “radically different” than Paul? Did He teach anything that would contradict what Paul would later write under the inspiration of God? The answer is no.

Did he ask Mary to lead the teaching? No. But rather the Scriptures tell us she simply listened and “heard his word”.

Jesus never encouraged women to teach, but rather it was the Apostle Paul which encouraged women to teach other women:

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

Titus 2:3-5 (KJV)

Paul even singled out a woman and her husband who had a church in their home:

“3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: 4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.”

Romans 16:3-5 (KJV)

Does the Apostle Paul sound like some misogynist hater of women and is his approach to women so “radically different” than Christ’s? The answer based on the Bible is no.

Conclusion

The Apostle Paul wrote almost half of the books of the New Testament with his 14 epistles.  To ignore his teachings as the inspired Word of God equal to what is recorded in the Gospels is to have an incomplete and ignorant view of God.

It is patently absurd to say that if Christ did not speak on a topic, that we can ignore clear teachings on that topic found elsewhere in the Bible.  To do such a thing is to tear down the entire inerrancy of the Scriptures.  It is also an inconsistent position for those who hold it.

You cannot say you live only by the words of Christ during his earthly ministry while ignoring the words of the prophets before him or his Apostles after him. In the Gospels Christ said that you must live by the Word of God given through the prophets and the Word of God given through his Apostles together with his Word which then forms the complete Word of God.

As the Apostle Paul said so let us be.

“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.”

1 Corinthians 11:1 (KJV)

Men Should Be Attracted to Loud and Opinionated Women?

Are men wrong for finding educated, opinionated and boisterous women unattractive? And conversely, is it wrong for men to desire women that are “quiet” and “delicate”? The answer according to Paul Maxwell is a resounding “yes” to both of these questions.  And he condemns men for having these preferences toward women and admonishes such men to “grow” as in “grow up” and get with the times.  He says men need to stop being “insecure” in finding such women who are “outperforming men” in areas of education and their careers as “intimidating”.  Instead he argues that men need to rethink and change what they find valuable in women so that they will find “female strength captivatingly attractive”.

And Paul Maxwell is not some secular feminist.  In fact, he is a Christian blogger who often speaks against feminism in churches. He attempts to base his argument that men should in fact be attracted to loud and boisterous women on the Bible.  The question is, did he succeed in trying to build his argument on the Scriptures?

Below is the introduction to an article written by Paul Maxwell for DesiringGod.org entitled “Real Men Love Strong Women”:

 “I’ve heard it too many times: “A man likes a quiet woman.” “Guys don’t respond well to smart girls.” “Educated women are too intimidating to attract good men.

I understand why we believe these things. It’s a nice story. It makes sense of the success of some women to find husbands, and the failure of others. As Christians (and as humans), we feel very clever when we get to diagnose the cause and cure of singleness. “You’re too opinionated.” “You’re too boisterous.” “A woman should be small, quiet, and delicate.

Yet, it’s easy to forget in the midst of all our diagnosing: whether a woman is “intimidating” is a factor of male perception, not female personality. Do we want women to be less intimidating? That’s a question to be put to men who experience them as such, and we can only wait for such men to grow. The real question we need to ask is: Do we want women to be weak? And the answer must forever be, on the basis of Scripture, “May it never be.”

 

Maxwell tells us that when men seek women that are quiet, delicate and less educated that they are in fact seeking women that are weaker and “on the basis of Scripture” he tells us men should never be looking for these “weak” women as he calls them.

 But What Does God say about Quiet Women?

Right from the outset, Maxwell shows his disdain for men who “like a quiet woman”.  But listen to what the Scriptures below say about quiet women.

“1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

I Peter 3:1-6 (KJV)

Mr. Maxwell thinks men are wrong for placing high value on a woman having a quiet spirit.  But God says that women who have a “meek and quiet spirit” are of “great price” which would mean “great value” in his sight. So right out of the gate we can see that Mr. Maxwell has built his entire premise in direct contradiction to the explicit teachings of the Word of God.

Then to support the false opening premise of his article, Mr. Maxwell does what a lot of liberal Christians do and he engages in using examples of women doing various things in the Bible as the basis of his false belief when we have clear Scripture statements to the contrary as we have just shown above.

Strong Women Reject the Requests of Evil Men?

Maxwell tells us that “strong women expose evil men” and he give us the story of Jael in Judges 4:21 who drove a peg into the Canaanite General Sisera.   He tells us the following of Jael:

“Thank God Jael wasn’t meek and submissive and respectful toward this friend of her wayward husband. She wasn’t one to be trampled on. Strong women reject the requests of evil men.”

Does God tell women to reject the requests of evil men or does he tell women to reject evil requests from any man?  I would argue the answer is the latter.  Acts 5:29 tells us that “We ought to obey God rather than men” and 1 Timothy 5:22 tells us we are not to “be partaker of other men’s sins”.

In fact, the Bible says the opposite of what Mr. Maxwell has just said.  God actually tells women to obey the requests of evil men as long those requests are not sinful in nature.

A man who does not “obey the word” is by nature a sinful man, and could in fact be an evil man.  God tells women to submit to men who “obey not the word”.  A woman’s submission to her husband IS NOT conditioned on him being a good and obedient man to God.

Jael did not reject Sisera’s request because he was an evil man or because his request was evil but rather, she rejected his request and instead killed him because he was an enemy of her people and God wanted him to die.  The story of Jael is not a model for the normal relationship that God meant there to be between men and women, especially that of husbands and wives.

Strong Women Rebuke Good Men?

Maxwell next tells us that “Strong women rebuke good men” and he gives us the example of Abigail in I Samuel 25:39.

Maxwell states:

“David was attracted to this strong woman for her strength, for her rebuke, and for her character. Abigail made life harder for David…

Strong women rebuke good men, who need help in their weaknesses, who need someone to help them see how to be strong.”

 

NOTHING in this passage says Abigail rebuked David.  But rather she humbled herself before him constantly calling him “my lord” and then David said this of what she said to him:

“32 And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me:33 And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand.”

1 Samuel 25:32-33 (KJV)

Abigail did not come to David to rebuke him, but rather to humbly plead with him and to give him advice.

Strong Women Raise Believing Men

Maxwell in this section reveals how his upbringing shaped his view of the role of women.  His father was not in the picture at an early age and his mother had to raise him doing the job of two parents.  Below are a few statements he makes based on the reality that sometimes women are abandoned by their husbands and must raise children on their own:

“In an ideal world, men and women would partner together in their strength. But we live in a world where we need strong women to make men strong, because sometimes there simply are no men there to do it…

in an age when fathers often fail to bestow the gift of faith to their children, the future often hangs on the strength of women to do that gospel work.”

 

Notice Maxwell’s condescension toward men saying they “often fail in bestowing the gift of faith to their children”.   What about women who fail to be the example of a wife and mother God intended them to be? What about fathers who have to take of children whose mother’s abandon them or do not lead a life of faith before their children?

This is an example of how sometimes we cannot see past our own upbringing.  This is similar to how children who were abused growing up can tend to see most parents as potential abusers or how women who were raped or molested can tend to see all men as potential rapists and molesters.  In this same way Maxwell presents a very dark and dismal view of how men will “often fail” women and children in this world and so we should raise women to prepare for this.

According to Maxwell, in raising women to be ready for the failures of men we must raise them to expose evil men, not submit to any request by evil men (even it if not a sinful request) and also to rebuke good men.  In his view, we should raise our daughters to be loud and opinionated, rather than quiet and delicate and we should raise them to take men head on in their failings and weaknesses.

But is this really the attitude we want to put in our daughters toward men as they seek marriage?

Men Should Find Women Who Outperform Them to be Attractive?

In the conclusion of his article Maxwell makes the following statement:

We live in a time when women are outperforming men in many areas of professional and personal competency. And men have two choices: to find female strength captivatingly attractive, or to be insecure and intimidated. Real men love strong women, because God’s glory is beautiful, and “woman is the glory of man” (1 Corinthians 11:7).

Jesus, give men the grace to see the beauty of glorious female strength.”

 

By what standard is Maxwell saying women “are outperforming men in many areas of professional and personal competency”?

If Maxwell is referring to the fact that more women are in high school honor rolls than men, 70 percent of valedictorians are women and women now represent more than half of college and university students then he is right that women are “outperforming men”.

But does a high GPA in high school and a college degree equal “competency”?

Absolutely not. On the contrary, below are several facts that show men can be and often are more successful in their careers than women despite having lower GPA’s in high school and less representation among college graduates.

  1. Valedictorians rarely become rich and famous — and the average millionaire’s college GPA was 2.9.
  2. More than half of independent business owners do not have a college degree.
  3. New firms are overwhelmingly started by men. While women start 30% of businesses, men account for the remaining 70%. This is more than a 2 to 1 ratio.
  4. In high paid skill trade jobs like welders, carpenters, plumbers, electricians and HVAC techs women make up less than 5 percent of the workers in these industries . And a shortage of skill trade workers due to pushing young people into colleges is driving skill trade wages even higher

And here is something far more important than the facts I have just laid out.

It is absolutely true that God judges a large part of a man’s competency by his ability to make an income that can provide for his wife and children.   The reason for this is because man is meant to image God in being a provider to his wife and his family.

The Scriptures tell us God calls on men to provide for the needs of their wives as Christ does his Church:

“28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”

Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

A lazy man who has no ambition or desire to work to the best of his ability to provide for his wife and family is not imaging God and is therefore not fulfilling one of the purposes for which God created him. Such a man truly is incompetent in the eyes of God.

However, from God’s perspective, a woman’s competency is not judged by her high school GPA, having a college degree or having a successful career outside her home.  Instead, the Bible tells us God judges a woman’s competency by her service to her husband, her children and the affairs of her home.

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

1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV) 

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

Titus 2:4-5 (KJV)

But having showed that Maxwell’s understanding of what makes men and women competent does not match God’s view of what makes each gender competent we will now address the “strength” question. Is there a strength that Christian men should find attractive in women?

The answer is yes.

Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.”

Proverbs 31:25 (KJV)

But what of strength are we talking about here? The strength that is mentioned is found toward the end of Proverbs 31:

“Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.”

Proverbs 31:30 (KJV)

The strength that men should find attractive in women is the strength of their faith which means they fear God and it shows in how they live their lives.   As men we should want to find a woman who loves God more than she loves us.  Because if she loves God more than she loves us, then she will always love us because God commands her to love us.

“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children”

Titus 2:4 (KJV)

But if a woman truly fears God, then she will also fear her husband as Ephesians 5:31 and I Peter 3:2 exhorts her to do.

“1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear [Greek Phobos].”

I Peter 3:1-2 (KJV)

“Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence [Greek Phobeo which has Phobos as its root] her husband.”

Ephesians 5:31 (KJV)

So, while there is certainly this special type of strength, a strength of character and a strength of faith which we as Christian men should admire and be attracted to in women the Bible also tells us there is a type of weakness in women that we as men are to honor and thus be attracted to as well.

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

I Peter 3:7 (KJV)

We are to honor the fact that God has put our wives in a weaker vessel, thus man’s vessel is stronger.  So, the question is why did God put women in weaker vessels?

The answer is found in two New Testament passages.  The first is seen below:

“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)

Do we see anything in the above passage about “the beauty of glorious female strength” as Maxwell earlier alluded to? The answer is absolutely NOT.  It tells us that man is “the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man”.  Nothing about her glory being her strength. So how does a woman bring a man glory? She brings both God and man glory by playing the role God designed her to play in his creation which is seen in the next New Testament 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.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”

Ephesians 5:22-29 (KJV)

Men should and do find women that embrace their weakness in comparison to men to be attractive. Women who realize that God meant for men to lead, provide for and protect them are actually intoxicating to a lot of men.

When a woman is ashamed of or denies being weaker than a man and denies her need for man’s leadership, provision and protection this makes her unattractive to the vast majority of men.

 Why Highly Intelligent and Educated Women are Not Attractive to Men

There is nothing wrong with a wise or prudent woman.  In fact, God says these things are good qualities in a wife in the following passages:

“She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.”

Proverbs 31:26 (KJV)

Nothing wrong with a prudent woman (one who exercising good judgement):

“House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the Lord.”

Proverbs 19:14 (KJV)

But a woman does not need to have a bachelor’s degree in economics or theology or medicine to be a wise woman or prudent woman.  A woman with a high school or even a junior high education could turn out to be a very wise and prudent woman from a Biblical perspective.

The reasons why most men are not attracted to highly intelligent and educated women are twofold.

The first is that the Bible tells us that men are to teach and mold their wives:

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

1 Corinthians 14:35 (KJV)

“1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, 2 Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. 5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,

6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.”

Jeremiah 18:1-6 (KJV)

Most men want a wife that is teachable and moldable. A woman that will look up to them for both spiritual and worldly knowledge.  They want a woman to reverence them as the Scriptures call on women to do and they want their woman to respect them.  And a woman who thinks she knows more than her husband will have a much harder time respecting him, this is a simple fact of life.

And this desire in men is both God given. It is not a matter of sinful pride or of a man feeling intimidated by a woman.  It is a matter of him knowing what he wants in a woman and what his mission is in life.

The second reason highly intelligent and highly educated women are unattractive to most men is because intelligent and educated women, especially in our modern feminist culture, tend to be contentious with their husbands and they often shame their husbands.

“It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.”

Proverbs 21:19 (KJV)

“A foolish son is the calamity of his father: and the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping.”

Proverbs 19:13 (KJV)

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

Proverbs 12:4 (KJV)

Conclusion

The Scriptures tell us there are some types of weakness that we should glory in and honor as seen in the passage below.

“And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”

2 Corinthians 12:9 (KJV)

All of us as men and women of God should glory in the fact that God has designed us to need him for his leadership, provision and protection.  And women should see their God designed weakness in comparison to men and their need for men to lead them, provide for them and protect them as something to honor about themselves.  They should see the glorious part they have to play in being weaker in that they help to paint a beautiful picture of the relationship of Christ to his Church.

So, when women want to compete with men in the areas of physical strength, intelligence, leadership, provision or protection most men rightly find this type of behavior highly unattractive in women.  When a woman seeks to outperform her man in these areas or compete with him, she breaks the model of Christ of and the Church.

This is why if a woman truly wants do what God designed her to do and model the church in its relation to Christ then she should seek out a man that is more intelligent, wiser and educated than her and one who can teach her the Word of God.  One that can provide for her and protect her.

Real men are not attracted to women who will be contentious with them, shame them or rebuke them.

Real men are not attracted to women who think they must show they have no need of a man and can do it all on their own.

Real men do not seek out women that will compete with them in their ability to lead, provide for or protect their family.

Real men love women that have submissive, teachable, meek and quiet spirits.

Real men honor women who acknowledge their weakness in comparison to men and their need of a man’s strength, his teaching, his leadership, his intelligence, his provision and his protection.

Baptist Preacher Says Homosexuality Should Be Capital Crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalm 139:21-22 (KJV)

God Both Hates and Loves Sinners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalm 97:10 (KJV)

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

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

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)

This is Both a Religious Issue and a Political Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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