Men Should Exercise Control Over Themselves and Their Women

God said to Cain in Genesis 4:7 “sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him”.  He was telling Cain that his sin nature desired to control his actions and to make him do things which violated God’s will for his life.

In our modern society where humanism and feminism dominate the culture, the word “control” is often seen as swear word while “consent” is seen as a holy and sacred term.  Yet even humanists and feminists must engage in controlling actions when it suits the humanist agenda.  Just take a look at the censorship by all the major tech giants, as well as colleges and universities which are dominated by all the various forms of humanists including feminists, globalists, socialists and environmentalists.  They have no problem exercising control over what opinions may or may not be voiced on their platforms or in their classrooms or on their campuses.

Socialist humanists have no problem with governments controlling wealth distribution by engaging in theft of private property from upper and middle economic classes and redistributing that to lower economic classes.  Environmentalist humanists have no problem controlling what people eat, what cars they may drive or how much energy resources they may use.

The reality is that humanists don’t really have a problem with themselves exercising a great amount of control over all elements of society.   They just don’t want to submit to God’s order or control in their lives.

And this is why humanists utterly hate and consider evil the control which God called men to exercise over the lives of their wives in Genesis 3:16 when “Unto the woman he said… thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.

Genesis 3:16 uses the same language structure as God used when talking to Cain in Genesis 4:7 about sin trying to control him.  Sin attempts to control our actions.  The sin nature will attempt to get us to do the very opposite of whatever God commands.  If God says to do something, the sin nature will try and get us not to do that thing.  If God says not to do something, the sin nature will tell us to do that very thing.

And here is a very important truth that every Christian man must take to heart.

In the same way that God has ordained husbands as human instruments of sanctification in the lives of their wives, sin attempts to use wives as human instruments of temptation in the lives of their husbands.  We see this in the very first act of sin committed by Eve when she gave Adam the forbidden fruit.

Man was ordained by God to rule over woman from the very start of creation.  Man exercised his authority over woman when he named her just as he named all the animals God created before her.  And we know, contrary to Christian feminists’ claims, that man’s rulership over woman was part of God’s design to picture the relationship of himself to his people.  To call man’s sacred trust to rule over woman a result of sin is to call Christ’s rulership over the Church to which it is directly compared to in Ephesians 5:23-24 a result of sin as well.

But man’s rulership became that much more important after the fall.  Now his rulership or his control of his wife would be far more difficult.  This is what God was saying when he told Adam his wife’s desire would be to him.  He was not saying she would have some lovely desire just to be by his side as the Christian feminists so wrongly claim.  He was saying that sin would corrupt his design of the feminine nature causing women to act in opposite ways of which God designed them to act.  God designed the feminine nature to be submissive, dependent, cooperative and to seek be under the control and dominance of man.  But sin would corrupt the feminine nature making it rebellious, independent, contentious and it would ultimately drive women to seek to control and dominate their husbands.

Conclusion

Humanists of all stripes have no problem controlling what opinions people may voice as long as they are the ones doing the controlling.  Humanists have no problem controlling what people eat, what people can spend their money on, how much energy people can use, where people can live or how people can defend themselves.  Again, they have no problem with control, as long as they are the ones doing the controlling.

But humanists have a big problem, a colossal problem, with any one trying to exercise any control over the “personal” decisions of women.  Nope don’t go there.  If women want to have all kinds of sex with different men outside of marriage men better just shut their mouths and stop “slut-shaming” women. And if women want to murder their unborn babies in their wombs, often a result of their whoring around, no one can control that.  If wives want to commit adultery with other men there should be no negative consequences or shaming of such women.  If women don’t want to have sex with their husbands, men better not coerce them into having sex in any way otherwise that is “marital rape”.

But God calls men to exercise control over their own sin natures as well as well as the human instrument of temptation that sin often uses, which is a man’s wife.

Our Existence as a Species Depends on Women Being Able to Murder Their Unborn Children?

“Our existence as a species really relies on women’s ability to be able to control their fertility. If women can’t control if, when, how many times to be pregnant, then they can’t control their education destiny and they can’t control their economic destiny and they can’t control their ability to really reach their full potential in society. And so, because of all of those things, I think abortion care is justice care.”  This is what traveling abortionist Colleen McNicholas claims is her motivation for traveling 400 miles per week between various abortion clinics to help where no abortionists are available.

McNicholas may help to murder up to 60 babies per day according to what she said in an interview with Kendall Ciesemier of Mic Dispatch.

Believe it or not I actually agree with one thing Colleen McNicholas said in the above statement.  We do need women to reach their full potential.   But the question is what does it look like for a woman to reach her full potential in this life?

Colleen McNicholas along with other feminists today believe that unless a woman has a college degree as well as a successful career outside the home, she has not reached her full potential.  But the Bible has a very different definition of what a woman reaching her full potential is.

The Biblical Definition of a Woman’s Full Potential

God did not create women to live for themselves and do whatever made them happy.  This is the lie that Christian feminists tell women today.  The Scriptures are clear that God did not make men or women to do whatever they wanted, but to fulfill his plan for his glory.

The Bible clearly states in 1 Corinthians 11:9 that “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.  And the Bible tells us the larger spiritual purpose for which God created woman for man in the following passage:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:23-24 (KJV)

God created woman for man so that together they could model the relationship of God to his people and in the New Testament age – Christ and his church.  The Bible gives us details below of how a woman was meant to submit to and serve her husband and thus picture the church’s service to Christ:

“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)

Unless a woman is one of the few who have the gift of celibacy that they “may attend upon the Lord without distraction as 1 Corinthians 7:35 states, a woman can never reach her full potential as God has defined it without being married, bearing children and caring for the domestic needs of the home.

A woman reaching her full potential in God’s eyes has nothing to do with her having a college degree or a successful career outside the home. But rather it has everything to do with her fulfilling the purpose for which God created her which was to marry, bear children and care for the needs of her husband, her children and her home.

And women of ages past fully understood that this was what a woman’s full potential looked like.  This is why barren women were always so grieved.  The Bible speaks of what gave women their joy in the following passage:

“He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the Lord.”

Psalm 113:9 (KJV)

Is bearing children and keeping the house what brings women joy today? Sadly, the answer for the majority of women in our nation today is no.  And this needs to change.

We Need Women to Have More Children, Not Murder Their Children

We need women to have more children, not kill the ones they get pregnant with. Over the past half century since Second Wave Feminism of the 1960s and 1970s fertility rates of American born women have been consistently below the “replacement” level they need to be at.  Even liberal news outlets like Vox.com recognize this fact:

“The “replacement” fertility rate of 2.1, enough to renew the population, is typically viewed as the optimal level for stability. But in 2017, the total fertility rate, or number of births each woman is expected to have in her childbearing years, dropped to 1.76 in the US. By 2018, it declined again — to 1.72, another record low. “The rate has generally been below replacement since 1971 and consistently below replacement for the last decade,” the new CDC report, which is based on more than 99 percent of US birth records, reads.

It’s not yet clear exactly what’s driving the trend, and the CDC authors don’t offer any guesses.”

But of course, to liberals, it is “not yet clear what’s driving the trend”.  Why? Because they refuse to admit exactly what is right in front of their faces.  Women are having less children because they believe the lie that Colleen McNicholas believes that a woman cannot reach her full potential without getting a degree and having a career.

They are told to spend their most fertile years pursuing education and a career and of course engage in all the sex they want along the way.  And then if they do happen to get pregnant, they can just kill the little inconvenient human life living in their womb.

And even if a woman did not ever have sex until she finished all her higher education and was well established in her career the stats show that such career women only have one or two children at most.  This is not even enough to replace the current population.

Will Humanity Go Extinct?

I do not believe humanity will go extinct.

The first reason I do not believe humanity will go extinct is because the Bible says so.  The Bible tells us in the following passages that Christ will return to a world with nations of men, maybe not the same nations we have today, but there will still be humanity here on earth and it will still be divided into nations.

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;  When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.”

2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 (KJV)

In the Book of Revelation, we are given more detail on Christ’s coming reign on earth:

“And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”

Revelation 19:15 (KJV)

This is not the “nice guy” or feminized version of Jesus that all our liberal Christians friends like to portray.  This is the vengeful God of the Old Testament that liberal Christians like to pretend does not exist. In Christ’s first incarnation he came as a lamb to pay for the sins of the world, in his next incarnation he is coming as the Lion of Judah and as a conquering king.

But there is a second reason that the world will not go extinct which does not require the supernatural event of the Second Coming of Christ.  Even if Christ does not return in the next few hundred years or the next thousand years God’s natural law of reaping what we sow will not allow the current despotism of women in Western countries to continue.  And I will explain why next.

The population of individual nations, western or otherwise, can only fall so far before their governments will collapse and new governments will come into power to take measures to address the problem of low fertility.

The United Nations Report “WORLD POPULATION TO 2300” admits that if the low fertility rates of Western nations continue ,even with higher fertility rates in non-westernized nations, the total world population could begin to drop as soon as the year 2050.  And if women continue having low fertility rates the world population will drop from its peak just over 8 billion to just over 2 billion by 2300.

If you think the world population dropping by 75% is not going to cause political unrest, civil wars and revolutions across the globe you are very naïve.

Let me put that in perspective.  In World War II no country lost most than 25% of its population and most were around 15%.  No period in human history has seen a population loss of 75% except one which was the great flood recorded in the Bible.

It is in this world that many nations will finally recognize feminism for the cancer on society that it is and the despotism of women in Western countries will be overthrown and replaced with the historic societal order of patriarchy being reestablished.

There is a third possible way that abortion and the despotism of women will end.  And it would be the least bloody.   Conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims could simply outbreed liberals to the point that they have no political power.   It not an impossible scenario, as conservative religious families have far more children than liberal families do.  However, I must return to what the Scriptures say.  The Scriptures do not indicate that the world will get better and better before Christ returns.  It shows the world will get worse.  So, I am thinking this third possibility is less likely unless God means for things to get a little better before they get worse before his return.

Conclusion

Fellow believers, we can take rest and find comfort in the blessed hope of our Savior’s return.  One day he will wipe out all this evil.

But in the mean time we must do as the pro-life rally sign at the top of this article suggests.  We must mount a societal and political resistance to abortion at every place we can.   We also need to be educating our children about the link between abortion and feminism. Abortion was a direct result of feminism.

Rolling back abortion is the first step in destroying feminism and taking down the current despotism of women that exists in America and other Western nations.

We need to get out and vote for candidates that support a Biblical worldview which includes being pro-life. This means standing behind pro-life candidates for all public offices including President Trump.

Pregnancy Kills? Abortion Saves Lives?

The New York Times published an article yesterday entitled “Pregnancy Kills. Abortion Saves Lives.”.   This is just the latest salvo in the cultural civil war going on in America.

Below is the absurd premise of this article written by Warren B. Hern who is described as “a physician and epidemiologist who specializes in late-abortion services”.

“Pregnancy is a life-threatening condition. Women die from being pregnant. We have known that for thousands of years…

The measure of risk to a woman’s life from pregnancy itself is called the “maternal mortality ratio.” That is the number of women who die of causes related to or aggravated by pregnancy per 100,000 live births.

In Alabama, the overall maternal mortality ratio in 2018 was 11.9 per 100,000. Among white women, the 2018 maternal mortality ratio was 5.6; among black women, it was 27.6, making black women in Alabama almost five times more likely to die as a result of pregnancy than white women. For the United States overall, the maternal mortality ratio was 20.

By comparison, a study in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology on abortion mortality from 1998 to 2010 found that for the 16.1 million abortions performed during that time, the overall death rate was 0.7 per 100,000 procedures. The death rate for early-abortion procedures — those that took place within the first eight weeks of the pregnancy — was less: 0.3 per 100,000.”

Yes, women have known for thousands of years that pregnancy carried with it the chance of them dying either before birth or while giving birth.  But women took this risk as a badge of honor because they knew that without taking this risk their people would become extinct. They cared more about their family and their culture then they did their own lives.  Women of ages past had something that most women and sadly even many men have lost today.

They had a sense of duty and honor.

Think about it.  What kind of parent would kill their child to save their own life? Only the worst and most selfish type of parent.

So yes, there is a tiny fraction of a percent of a chance, 0.02%, that a woman could die as a result of her pregnancy and a smaller tiny fraction of a percent of a chance, 0.0007%, that a woman could die from an abortion.

But guess who has nearly a 100 percent chance of dying from an abortion and only a tiny fraction of a percent chance of living? The human being living inside the woman who has the abortion procedure.

Only in our backward and evil culture would we ever say that a procedure that has killed over 60 million human lives since 1973 actually saves lives!

The only way they can make such an absurd statement is to say that the human being living in their mother’s womb is not a human life.

The Scriptures rightly describe this wicked generation we find ourselves in:

“1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

2 Timothy 3:1-7 (KJV)

Some Christians may take the position of giving up, that there is nothing that we can do nor should we try.  And liberal Bible hating unbelievers and even many professed believers hope we will give up.  But the Bible does not give us the option to give up and stop trying to influence this world for God.

The Apostle Paul after writing the words above about the evil that would happen then wrote this in response to that evil:

“1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.”

2 Timothy 4:1-5 (KJV)

Pray that more Christians will have the courage to speak their faith and take a stand against the rising tide of godlessness we find in our nation.

Unplanned Review: Truth Triumphs Despite Suppression

You have to know that the message of a movie cuts to heart of our secular humanist and feminist society when no major network except Fox News would show commercials for it.  The producers of the movie “Unplanned” were told their money was no good at these other networks due to the “controversial nature” of their film.

So, what is so controversial about this film? Well it tells the life story of Abby Johnson, a pro-choice woman who rose up quickly in the ranks of Planned Parenthood to become one it’s youngest clinic directors ever.  She even won the Planned Parent Employee of the Year Award.  While she had two abortions herself, she had never seen the procedure from a spectator’s viewing point, and certainly not from the view point of an ultra-sound.

But after assisting with an abortion and witnessing the baby being torn apart on an ultra-sound as it struggled for its life her views completely changed.   She immediately resigned from Planned Parenthood and walked down to one of the groups that had protested outside her clinic for years, the Coalition for Life, to tell her story.

Her defection from Planned Parenthood was a gut punch to the organization.  She has since helped hundreds of abortion workers to leave the abortion industry and the clinic she once directed shut down in 2013.

Not only did major networks refuse to accept advertising dollars for the film, even the MPAA (The Motion Picture Association of America) attempted to limit the exposure of teenage girls to film by giving it an R rating meaning that those girls under 17 cannot see it without a parent.

The executive produce of the Unplanned, Ken Rather, made the following statement according to HollywoodReporter.com:

“A 15-year old girl can get an abortion without her parent’s permission, but she can’t see this movie without adult supervision? That’s sad”

Even after appealing the R rating, the MPAA would not budge unless the abortion scenes were removed from the film although it had no sex, no violence.   Yes, this film did have one scene of explicit violence.  It showed a baby on an ultrasound being violently pulled apart by a doctor using a suctioning tool.  And it had a scene showing Abby bleeding and clotting after taking an abortion inducing drug and another girl bleeding from a botched abortion.  So yes, this movie did show several implied murders of unborn children through abortion although it only showed one in explicit detail with the ultra-sound.

But now let’s contrast Unplanned with another one of my favorite movies – “Taken” which came out in 2008. Taken tells the story of former government operative, Bryan Mills played by Liam Neeson, who has retired to spend more time with his daughter from his previous marriage.  His daughter goes to Paris and is kidnapped by a human trafficking ring.   Bryan uses his “very particular set of skills” to find and rescue his daughter while at the same time racking up a body count by killing 32 members of these human trafficking groups until finally rescuing his daughter at the end of the movie.

I loved Taken for its sense of primal, Old Testament, Avenger of blood justice.  But how does a movie as violent as Taken with sex trafficking and a lot of brutal killing get a PG 13 rating yet a movie about abortion which shows one explicit murder of a baby on an ultra-sound gets an R rating?

The answer is obvious that it was given this rating as part of a larger effort to limit the message of this film getting out as much as possible.

Unplanned Beat Expectations at the Box Office

Unplanned cost 6 million to make and was only expected to make 2 to 3 million its opening weekend but doubled expectations in bringing in over 6 million dollars despite only being shown in a little over 1000 theaters.  To put that in perspective, Dumbo, which cost Disney over 170 million to produce, had ads on every major channel for weeks, and showed on over 4000 theaters and it grossed around 45 million well under expectations.

Just imagine how well Unplanned would have done if it had the advertising Dumbo had and the amount of theaters Dumbo had and it had it a PG 13 rating as it should have had? The numbers would most likely have been far greater.

My Own Experience with the “Unplanned” Movie

My 17-year-old daughter is a huge pro-life advocate and designs her own shirts for pro-life and talks to girls at her school about it all the time.   She was trying to take one of her friends to see it and at the last minute when her friend’s mother found out what movie we were going to see she would not let her go because her mother was pro-choice.

I found it to be well produced and well-acted despite all the critics in the media saying it was just a “propaganda” film.

In UnPlanned we saw the greatest tool God ever gave us in the fight against evil shown when a Pastor quoted the following passage from pulpit:

“13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.”

Psalm 139:13-14 (KJV)

The Word of God is clear – human life begins at conception.  Period.

But Unplanned also uses another tool.   It uses the human heart.  I often rail against our society’s mantra of “listen to your heart”.  And I do so based on upon the explicit teaching of the Word of God:

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV)

But Christ also made the following statement in the Gospel of Matthew:

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.”

Matthew 22:37 (KJV)

So, we are told that our hearts can deceive us, yet we are also told to love God with all our heart.  What then does this mean and how does this apply to the movie Unplanned?  The following Scripture ties all this together:

“Teach me thy way, O Lord; I will walk in thy truth: unite my heart to fear thy name.”

Psalm 86:11 (KJV)

We should all seek to learn how God feels about our every action and our feelings should reflect his.  Our hearts should be after his heart as King David’s was.  Our greatest empathy as believers should be toward God, to understand how he feels and why he feels as he does and to unite our hearts and our feelings with his.

And with our hearts united with God we as Christians should feel sorrow for millions of innocent lives snuffed out by abortion and at the same time feel a righteous anger and resolve to end abortion in our nation.

Over 60 million innocent babies have been murdered since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision made abortion legal.

We need to fight abortion by protesting it as we saw in this film but also in how we vote. We must continue to fight against this in State legislatures to make abortion as difficult to get as possible and ultimately, we need to pray that our Supreme Court can revisit this decision one day and overturn it.

I highly encourage all Christians to bring their friends to see the movie Unplanned.  This truly film could truly be used of God to change many lives.  Click here to go to their site to find movie times and tickets.

And to learn the true roots of Antinatalism in America, including abortion, see my article “The Root Cause of Antinatalism in America”.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does a Christian wife have to submit to a sinful request from her husband?

Should a Christian wife have to participate in a threesome or abort her child because her husband tells her to? Some Christians teach that women should submit to any and all requests their husbands make even if they believe that in doing so they would be directly sinning against God. Other Christians believe that if a husband is not living a righteous and holy life he has no authority over his wife at all regardless of whatever requests he asks of her.

How should a Christian wife handle such situations?

The Two Extremes on Submission

When it comes to the submission of wives to unrighteous husbands there are extremes on both the left and the right side of this issue.

On the left we have Christians who believe women only have to submit to husbands that are righteous and treat them right (as they see right).

This comment I recently received from a Christian woman illustrates the left position on wives submission to their husbands:

“In your blog you speak a lot about women submitting to the authority of her husband. Even when her husband is sinning (i.e.denying her sex, which you admit is her right to have) she must still submit to him. She cannot do as men and deny him dates, gifts, etc. Here you say a husband should show love toward his wife and can please his wife, but he must please God above her. I agree with that. However, isn’t a woman’s duty to please God before her husband also? If he isn’t treating her as a Christian husband should, should she follow an unrighteous man?

Authority is given from God, if we do not follow God we lose the power that comes with that authority. Therefore, his authority becomes useless. Would a sinful man have her well-being in mind? I would think not. I agree a man is the leader of the home, but I also believe a woman is only obligated to submit to her husband’s righteous desires the same as a man should only please a woman when her desires are righteous.”

There are so many things wrong with this statement it is hard to know where to begin.

I have never stated that a wife has to stay with her husband if he sexually denies her.  I have shown from the Bible that a Christian wife may divorce her husband for these 4 reasons:

If he fails to provide her with food and clothing (shelter is implied with clothing).

If he refuses to have regular sexual relations with her (sexual defraudment).

If he physically abuses her or makes attempts on her life.

If he abandons her.

For a detailed discussion on each of these four items please see my article “For what reasons does God allow divorce?

However this woman is not looking for serious reasons she may divorce her husband.  She is looking for reasons that she does not have to submit to him. These grave sins I have described are not reasons for a wife to stop submitting to her husband’s authority – they are reasons to end the marriage so he is no longer her husband. If the woman chooses to stay even if he is chronically sexually denying her, physically abusing her or refusing to work then she must continue to submit to him.  As long as he is her husband she must submit to him.

So if a woman were to come to me and tell me “I am not divorcing my husband for refusing to work and playing Xbox 7 days a week while he sends me out to work.  But I won’t submit to him either.” –  I would tell that woman she is wrong.  She has two choices – submit to her husband or end the marriage so he is no longer her husband.  Those are her only two choices.

A wife does not submit to her husband because he is “treating her as a Christian husband should” or because he has “her well-being in mind”. She submits to her husband because God has commanded it.  A husband, Christian or non-Christian, does not lose his authority over his wife if he does not follow God’s Word.

This woman and a whole host of Christians today ignore this passage from Peter on the subject of submission of wives to unrighteous husbands:

“3 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.”

I Peter 3:1-2 (NASB)

This passage makes it crystal clear – wives are to submit to sinful and disobedient husbands.  Whether your husband is a Christian, a non-Christian or a professed Christian who is living in disobedience if you are his Christian wife you are to submit to him despite his sinful behavior.

This attitude toward submission is by far the biggest problem today with Christian’s attitudes toward marriage.

But there is another extreme – the far right extreme.   And while this far right extreme may be a small minority and some think it is not worthy of our time even to address their false teaching – as Christians we must also stand for the truth and stand against false teaching.

It does not matter if many people are teaching a false doctrine or just small groups are teaching it – false teaching is false teaching and it must be exposed.

Should we not talk about exceptions to submission?

Some of the people on the far right of on this topic of Biblical submission believe we should not talk about exceptions to submission.  This is demonstrated in recent comments by the blogger Deep Strength:

“You’re falling prey to the same trap that women do. It’s an obvious diversion! You don’t answer the question to an obvious diversion or if you do then you have to tie it back to righteous attitude and actions.

Good answers to a question like “But what if my husband commands me to sin?” are:

  1. “lf that ever happens, feel free to call me at any time and we’ll look through the Scriptures to discuss it. Now, as I was saying about submission…”
  2. “When’s the last time you heard a husband command his wife, much less to sin? Now, as I was saying about submission…”
  3. “You should find where it says it is a sin in the Scripture. Then you come to him with a respectful and submissive attitude and say: ‘Hey, I think this may be against what God says in the Scripture here and my conscience. Is there anything else I can do instead to make it up to you? Now, as I was saying about submission…”

The point is to stay on topic because the desire to divert a topic away from uncomfortable Truths is one of the strongest temptations that women have which is the desire to be rebellious. Submission is righteous and holy. Discussing it is good, and diversions away from it are to play right into temptation.”

Deep Strength argues that it is a “diversion” and a “temptation” to even discuss exceptions to a wife’s submission to her husband.  He acts like it is so rare and unfathomable that a husband would ask his wife to sin.   Does he forget how many Christian women are married to unbelieving husbands? Husbands that might ask their wives to do drugs? Husbands that might as their wives to have sex with their friends or participate in a threesome? Yes these things happen.

And yes even professing Christian husbands may ask their wives to do sinful things.  Just because it is rare does not mean it does not happen.

I really don’t see the fear these men have of discussing exceptions to submission.  Since when is the truth a “distraction” or “temptation”?

It is actually very easy to address these exemptions and then continue on in the topic of submission. We don’t ever have to be afraid of the truth as Christians.

Now are there Christian bloggers who add to the exemptions to submission like the way the female commenter did above? Yes and they do it all the time.  But just because people add to God’s Word does not mean we can take away from it.

We are to teach the whole counsel of God.  We are not to go to the left or the right:

“Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.”

Proverbs 4:27 (KJV)

People on the left and right extremes of submission both have something in common.  They both dismiss those passages they don’t like and they both add things to the text that are not there.  But we are not to take away from God’s Word or to add to it – but instead we are to follow the entire Word of God:

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

Deuteronomy 4:2 (KJV)

So truth about the submission of wives to their husbands is very simple. A wife is to submit to her husband in all areas of her life and everything he wishes her to do or not do as long as he does not ask her to sin against God. Even if he asks her to sin against God she should respectfully refuse his request but this does not mean she stops submitting in every other way. Even if her husband is living a sinful life either as a Christian or non-Christian she must submit to him.  She is not responsible for his sin, she is only responsible for hers.

But this then brings us to the final part of submission to sinful requests by husbands to their wives.

Is a wife responsible for doing something sinful if her husband commands her to do it?

This statement was made by the blogger Moose Norseman in his post “For clarity’s sake

But perhaps the last one tells the most. Do these blogs and ministries teach young women to be obedient to their husbands, or do they teach things like this:

“Submission does not mean that the men in authority, whether in the church or in the home, are always right. They aren’t. They’re sometimes and often wrong. They sin, as do we. Submission does not mean blind obedience. It does not mean that we sin in order to submit. It doesn’t mean that you overlook sin in the authority. “(emphasis in original)

And this:

Now, what if he asks her to participate in a threesome, abort her baby, or help him commit robbery by stealing from a bank? Should she submit in these instances? NO!

A reminder about headship and covering: The one that is covered bears no iniquity. It is the authority that bears the iniquity.

Moose first presents a false dichotomy – If a Christian teacher teaches that there are any exceptions to God’s command that wives are to submit to their husbands then the person is said to be negating the entire Biblical teaching of the submission of wives to their husbands.

So according to Moose – a Christian wife should participate in a threesome, abort her baby, help her husband commit a robbery and do anything else her husband requests of her even if she believes that action would be a sin against God.  If she does God will not hold her accountable – in fact he honors her for participating in acts she believes are sinful if her husband asks her to do it.

This teaching by Moose Norseman is not just simply absurd – it is the very definition of heresy.  Any teaching that tells someone it is ok to sin against God is heresy.

As believers we will often disagree on Bible interpretations and what is and what is not sin.  But to acknowledge that something is a sinful activity and then say God is ok with us doing that sinful activity under certain circumstances is the height of heresy.

The Apostle Peter made this point abundantly clear:

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

Acts 5:29 (KJV)

Moose bases his heresy on a passage from the book of Numbers which is linked from the phrase “the authority that bears the iniquity.”

“13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.

14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.

15 But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.

16 These are the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father’s house.”

–  Numbers 30:13-16 (KJV)

The key verse Moose is pointing to is verse 15 of Numbers chapter 30:

“But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.

This is a great passage of Scripture that I have spoken about several times on my blog. I do not disagree that this passage demonstrates the headship of man over the women in his family whether it be his wife or his daughters.

But what it does NOT show is that a husband can ask his wife to directly participate in an activity that she believes is a violation of God’s law and that God would honor her for obeying his sinful command and participating in these kinds of sin.

In this case with her broken vow the husband by not overriding the vow his wife has made when she made it has taken on the penalty for her not fulfilling that vow if he stops her from doing it.  If he tells her he has changed his mind and does not want her to fulfill the vow she made then he bears what would have been her sin.  It is his sin now since he approved her vow.

A simpler way to say this is – when a woman makes a vow to do something in her husband’s presence and he either remains silent or actively agrees with her vow then as her husband he takes on the responsibility and the penalty if he stops her from fulfilling that vow.

Conclusion

God’s Word teaches us two important principles as it relates to the submission of wives to their husbands. God tells wives to submit to their husbands in “everything” (Ephesians 5:24) but the Apostles when told to disobey God said that “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).  So when we take the whole counsel of God on the matter of submission we see that wives are to obey their husbands in all things unless their husband directly tells them to do something that would violate God’s law.

It really is that simple.

Christians on the left of Biblical submission want to find every way they can out of submission so they abuse the principle that “We ought to obey God rather than men” by saying things like if your husband chooses a church you disagree with you don’t have to follow him there which is utterly false. But then on the far right of Biblical submission we have those like Moose who claim that there are no exceptions for wives submitting to their husbands and even if their husband asks them to participate in a threesome or kill their child they must do these things.

The people of God must avoid all extremes.  We must instead walk the straight path – following the whole counsel of God and not veer either to the left or the right.