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

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

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

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

The Origins of Locke’s Individualism

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

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

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

Kings Are Not Fathers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 13:1-6 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

Jesus gave us the following statement regarding civil government:

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

Luke 20:25 (KJV)

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

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

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

Acts 5:27-29 (KJV)

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

Locke Was Wrong in His Response to Filmer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers 30:3-5 (KJV)

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

Consider also this passage from the book of Exodus:

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

Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God’s Original Design of Four Social Classes

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

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

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

Genesis 3:16 (KJV)

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

Numbers 30:6-8 (KJV)

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an [literally “owned by”] husband [“an owner”], then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)

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

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

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

I Peter 3:5-6 (KJV)

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

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

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

Psalm 127:3-6 (KJV)

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

Ephesians 6:1-3 (KJV)

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

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

God’s Fourth Class of Citizen

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

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

Genesis 11:6-8 (KJV)

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

Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)

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

Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)

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

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

God Allowed a Fifth Social Class Because of War and Poverty

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

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

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

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

Leviticus 25:39-46 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

Deuteronomy 20:14 (KJV)

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

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

Exodus 21:16 (KJV)

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

The Creation of the Nobility and Royal Social Classes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Samuel 8:11-18 (KJV)

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

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

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

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

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

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

Ecclesiastes 5:19 (KJV)

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

Locke’s Invention of the “Adult” Social Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practical Application for Christian Male/Female Relationships

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

A daughter to her father:

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

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

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

A wife to her husband:

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

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

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

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

Suggestion Response for a Father to his Daughter

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

Suggestion Response for a Husband to his Wife

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

The War on the Citizenship Class

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

Conclusion

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

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”

1 Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

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

“incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred”

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

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

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

The questions for Christians reading this are these:

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

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

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

The choice is yours.

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

Joshua 24:15 (KJV)

Why God’s Identification as Male Is the Key to Understanding Life’s Meaning

Is the only reason God is identified in the Bible by masculine titles such as Father, Husband, Son and King and not also as Mother, Wife, Daughter and Queen because of the “misogynist” and “patriarchal” times the Bible was written in? Many non-Christians and sadly even professing Christians today would have us belief this.

On the other hand, we have Bible believing conservative Christians who tell us that “Everything created in woman that sets her off from man comes from God and reflects something of him… God is not male and God is not female… And yet God’s self-chosen titles matter”. So, these Bible believing Christians are basically saying God is not masculine or feminine and they don’t understand why he chooses masculine titles or even why he established male headship, just that he did and we must accept it. It is a mystery to them as to why God consistently reveals himself in the masculine sense.

What if I were to tell you that God’s Identification as male in the Bible is not because of the “misogynist” and “patriarchal” times the Bible was written in nor is it a mystery we must just accept. What if I were to tell you that understanding why God identifies as male can actually answer the greatest question any man or woman could ask and that is “Why am I here?

Recently I received an email from one of my readers asking me to tackle this issue. She told me she had people throwing verses at her that seemed to present God in a feminine sense. The people who gave her these verses claimed these passages proved God was both male and female – or that God split the attributes of his nature into male and female human beings so only together do man and woman represent the nature of God.

While writing a response to her concerns I decided to look into a few other conservative Christian sites to see their response to this issue in comparison to my own. I found an article written by Tony Reinke on DesiringGod.org called “Our Mother Who Art In Heaven?”. In this article he was reviewing “The Shack” movie which came out in 2017.

I decided that I would answer this reader’s question by reviewing this “review”. The reason is that while Reinke was right in some of his condemnation of the gender fluid portrayal of God the father in “The Shack” the problem is he really did not go far enough in his explanation of why it was wrong. In fact he and John Piper are both wrong in their position on the nature of God as it relates to gender.

So, I think this will more than answer this reader’s questions and show that even in conservative Bible believing circles there is unfortunately a great degree of ignorance regarding the nature of God.

Reinke starts out his review with the following synopsis of “The Shack”:

“With the recent launch of The Shack movie, we are reminded of a whole mix of theological questions raised by the novel, and the problems of projecting the divine onto a screen. One of the lead characters in the book, for example, is a woman named Papa, who plays the role of God the Father, and her character reignites questions over divine identity and gender language.

I am neither male nor female,” Papa self-discloses in the novel, “even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.”

So now let’s look at Reinke’s response to the issue of God’s nature in relation to gender. He starts off quoting the Words of Christ and then John Piper:

“It’s worth saying from the outset, in the words of Jesus, “God is spirit” (John 4:24). God is not a sexual being, nor is he a biological male. He is spirit. “From eternity,” says John Piper, “God has not had a physical body and, therefore, he doesn’t have male features: facial hair, musculature, male genitals, no Y chromosome, no male hormones. Male is a biological word, and God is not a biological being” (Ask Pastor John, episode 294).”

And here is the first mistake in theology which comes from John Piper and then is repeated by Tony Reinke. Male is not just a “biological word”. Male, in the sense of male human beings, describes a set of both physical and psychological characteristics that are common to men. Here is a list of psychological differences between the typical man and the typical woman:

  1. Men are systemizers and women are empathizers.
  2. Men are logical and duty driven and women are emotional and feelings driven.
  3. Men are physical and women are relational.
  4. Men are competitive and women are cooperative.
  5. Men are aggressive and women are gentle.

I could go on with many more comparisons, but the fact is there is more to male and female than just genitalia and chromosomes. And before the transgender and gender fluid folks say “ya that right!” let me help you here. In Genesis 1:27, the Scriptures tell us “male and female created he them” and God makes the following declaration in the book of Deuteronomy:
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”
Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)

What that means practically speaking is if you are born in a male “vessel” as the Bible refers to our bodies, then you are required by God to dress and act like a male. If you are born in a female vessel then are you are required by God to dress and act like a female.

In other words, being cisgender is not just “a privilege” as some call it today, but is in fact the command of God.

So, in this case, both sides are wrong. I know for sure that Reinke and Piper both oppose transgenderism but they are wrong in limiting male to simply a biological term. Male describes both biology and nature.

Reinke then goes on to list 26 passages where he says “God’s character and actions are revealed by feminine imagery”.

Let’s take a look at a few of these passages that he mentions:
“As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”
Isaiah. 66:13 (KJV)
“I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once.”
Isaiah 42:14 (KJV)
“Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.”
Isaiah 49:15

What do all these passages have in common? They are metaphors for behavior, not titles for God. And Reinke acknowledges this when he states “But even taken together, the evidence does not warrant us praying to “our Mother who art in heaven” and then he gives his “three compelling reasons” why.

In his first point Reinke states:

“in Scripture we find many masculine titles for God: Lord, Father, King, Judge, Savior, Ruler, Warrior, Shepherd, Husband, and even a handful of metaphorical masculine titles like Rock, Fortress, and Shield. While feminine titles for God — Queen, Lady, Mother, and Daughter — are never used.”

And this is a point I have made several times on this blog. Every title for God in the Bible is a masculine title and never ever feminine title.

His second point is in my opinion is quite silly. He tries to show that with the incarnation of Christ in “biological maleness” that there is a “sharp drop-off with the feminine metaphors for God”. He seems to be saying God became more male after Christ took on a male biological form.

I mean no disrespect to Reinke but this argument really is foolishness. The Trinity did not become more masculine because Christ took on a biological form, but rather Christ took on the form of a man because God ALWAYS had a masculine nature as we will show here in this article.

Now that I have been so hard on Reinke for his second point, I will give him some credit on his third point. For his third point as to why we should not refer to God as “Our Mother in Heaven” he states:

“Third, as theologian John Frame points out, it is not uncommon to see in Scripture feminine imagery intentionally applied to men (as in 2 Samuel 17:8). This makes sense to us, as we often speak of the feminine side of men today, meaning that men can (and should) display qualities often associated with women, like gentleness.

The apostle Paul’s anguish over the growth of his churches was for him like the pain of birthing a child (Galatians 4:19). And Paul’s apostolic gentleness was something like the kindness and patience of a nursing mother (1 Thessalonians 2:7). Obviously, Paul’s maleness is never brought into question by these female metaphors.”

That is a fantastic point about the Apostle Paul comparing himself to a mother in his behavior several times.

The point here is that just because I, the Apostle Paul or God himself uses a metaphor invoking the behavior of a woman does not mean we are saying we are both male and female. It has nothing to do with our identity as men.

But even on his third point Reinke makes this statement that needs correction – “we often speak of the feminine side of men today, meaning that men can (and should) display qualities often associated with women, like gentleness”. While I am not against men being gentle when a situation warrants it – one of the worst parts of our modern society is the teaching that men should be more like women. And sadly, this is even taught in many of our churches today.

Reinke concludes his review with the following statement from John Piper on this subject:

““Everything created in woman that sets her off from man comes from God and reflects something of him,” stresses Piper. “Woman was not modeled after some other god. There is no other god. She was modeled after God. When the Bible says she and he were created in the image of God, it means she is also made after the model of her Creator. So, it is important to say that in his essential divine being, not referring to his incarnate union with humanity, but in his essential, divine essence, God is not male and God is not female. Maleness and femaleness are God’s creation, as biological bearers of masculinity and femininity, both of which are rooted in God” (Ask Pastor John, episode 294).”

There are many false statements made here by Piper and repeated by Reinke. But before I show why they are false I need to show you a passage of Scripture that is not mentioned in this review:
“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)

The word “man” in I Corinthians 11:7 is a translation of the Greek word “Aner” which literally means “male human being” while woman is a translation of the word “gune” which literally means “female human being”. Throughout the New Testament aner is translated as “man, men or husband” depending on the context it is used in and gune is translated as “woman, women or wife” depending on the context it is used in.

What this passage is saying is that the male human being is the image and glory of God, but the female human being is the glory of the man. It is a clear comparison and contrasting statement.

In fact, the passage above gives the very reason for which God created man and woman. He created man to image him and thereby bring him glory and he created woman to be the glory of man. The Old Testament tells us that God created the woman for the man as a helper (Genesis 2:18) and it also tells us that a woman is to be her husband’s “crown” or glory (Proverbs 12:4). The New Testament goes further into man’s imaging duties telling us that “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” (Ephesians 5:23). All of these Scriptures passages and many more confirm for us why God refers to himself in the masculine sense in the Scriptures. It is because the masculine human being is the one who is his image bearer.

John Piper even blatantly denies what I Corinthians 11:7 so clearly states for us in another article he wrote specifically on I Corinthians 11 entitled “Creation, Culture, and Corinthian Prophetesses”.

In that article Piper states:

“Verse 7 tells why a man should not have a sign of authority on his head: “He is the image and glory of God’ but woman is the glory of man.” This is parallel to verse 3 (NAS): “Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman.”
These verses do not necessarily imply that Christ is not woman’s head nor that she is not the image and glory of God. Paul’s point is that man was created by God through Christ and woman was created by God through Christ through man. The point is not to lessen the intimacy of her relation to Christ (she is receiving prophetic revelation!), but to clarify and establish her relation to man.

Man is God’s glory in that he came from God through Christ without coming through woman, and so is to reflect Christ’s true nature as his divine head. Woman is man’s glory in that she came from God through Christ through man, and so is to reflect man’s true nature as her human head.”

Is there anything in this passage that states “Man is God’s glory in that he came from God through Christ without coming through woman”? Absolutely not. These verses do not just “imply” that “she is not the image and glory of God”, they EXPLICILTY state it!

This is why I always chuckle when people act like John Piper is this big traditional gender roles guy. He is NOT. Yes, he teaches male headship, but like most complementarians today he does not teach the REASON for male headship.

God did not just flip a coin and put men in charge of women. He put men in charge of women because the male human being “is the image and glory of God”. And because Piper and most Christian teachers refuse to acknowledge this truth that is staring them in the face – they cannot fully understand the purpose in why God placed men over women.

Now let’s return to the final statement by Piper that Reinke uses in his conclusion. I will take several key statements comparing them with the Scriptures:

Piper states:

“Everything created in woman that sets her off from man comes from God and reflects something of him”

This is FALSE. There is not one Scripture passage that says everything that sets a woman apart from man reflects something of God’s nature. In fact, in I Corinthians 11:9 we are told this truth:
“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

That means that everything that “sets her off from man” was created in her FOR MAN, not to further reveal the nature of God.

Piper states:

“Woman was not modeled after some other god. There is no other god. She was modeled after God.”

This is what is called a strawman argument. Who said woman was modeled after some other god? The false argument Piper is pushing is woman must be modeled after a god, and therefore since we know there is only one God then woman must be equally modeled after God in the same way man is.
The fact is that woman is NOT modeled after God or man while she does share common attributes with man whom she was taken from and therefore God as well because man was made in the image of God.

I used to say in error “Man is the image of God, and woman is the image of man” but I realized that statement is also theologically incorrect. The Bible never states that woman is the image of God nor does it state she is the image of man. She shares a common human nature with man but she is not his image as her nature is still very different.

Woman was given her core human traits like self-awareness, creativity, the ability to feel emotions, the ability to appreciate beauty and the ability to learn to make her a “help meet” (Genesis 2:18) for man. Man was given these same core human traits and then addition traits of increased strength, competitiveness, aggressiveness and many other traits we understand as masculine for a different purpose.

Man was given his masculine human nature to image God and thereby bring him glory. Woman was given her feminine nature not to be God’s image bearer, but instead to be a HELP to his image bearer. This is the truth of the Word of God.

Piper states:

“When the Bible says she and he were created in the image of God, it means she is also made after the model of her Creator.”

This is FALSE. No passage of the Bible says “she and he were created in the image of God”. Piper like many Christian teachers attempts to build this false argument on the following verse from Genesis:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

Does that passage say God created “she and he” or “male and female” in his image? It does not. It states two different things. First, it states that God created “him”, not “them” in his image. Secondly it states that he made “them” – male and female. Nothing here states that the female was made in his image as well. Many of tried to argue that the Hebrew word for man here “adam” means “mankind” and sometimes it does. But not when it is used with speech about a particular man. The Hebrew translated as “he him” literally means “this same man” and it is speaking of particularly of Adam the man.

We then learn from the Apostle Paul giving us divine commentary that it is all male human beings “aner” that are “the image and glory of God”. Mr. Reinke and Mr. Piper need only to accept the clear and explicit teaching of I Corinthians 11:7.

Piper states:

“So, it is important to say that in his essential divine being, not referring to his incarnate union with humanity, but in his essential, divine essence, God is not male and God is not female.”

Again, the statement that “God is not male and God is not female” directly contradicts the reading of I Corinthians 11:7 which Piper chooses to explain away and ignore:
“For a MAN (“aner” – the male human being”) 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.”
I Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

If the male human being is “the image and glory of God” then we can we rightly say God IS male in the sense that the Trinity is imaged in the masculine human nature. Now does that mean God is biologically male? Yes and No. Christ is the God man, but God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are spirit as the Bible tells us:
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
John 4:24 (KJV)

Conclusion

God using feminine metaphors to picture his behavior or feelings no more makes him female in his nature than the Apostle Paul using female metaphors for his behavior made him female in his.

There is no conflict in saying that God is spirit and yet God has always possessed a masculine nature even before the incarnation of Christ. God did not become more masculine after Christ took on the form of a man, but rather Christ took on the form of a man because God was always masculine.

To women reading this. The truth that you were made for man and not to image God does not mean God loves you any less than man. The lie you are taught in America and Western civilization is that equality equals humanity.

We are told that if we embrace the truth of God’s Word that woman was not made in God’s image then we are saying women are less human than men, and less valuable to God. This is false. God loves men and women equally and men and women are equally saved by Christ and can both become part of the body of Christ as the Scriptures tell us:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

“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)

The male and female, like marriage itself, is for this world and this time as the Scriptures tell us:
“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”
Matthew 22:30 (KJV)

But in this world and in this life, God has made “male and female”. If we are born in a male vessel than our life’s mission is to be the image bearer of God. We are to display his masculine attributes throughout our life. If we are born in a woman’s vessel, then we are called to find and dedicate our life to serving a person in a male vessel in marriage. This service of the female vessel to the male vessel was designed by God to picture the relationship between himself and his people.

And what I have just described answers the most important question that we as human beings can ever ask and that is “Why I am here?“. If we not only accept that God identifies as male, but accept why he identifies as male then we as men and woman, can know the meaning of life. But if we do as so much of the world today does and reject the fact that God identifies as male and why he identifies as male then we reject our very purpose for being here.

Why A Wife Should Endure Painful Sex with Her Husband

Should a wife always alert her husband at the first sign of painful intercourse? Or should women endure a certain amount of pain and hide this from their husbands? What about women who deal with chronic and un-treatable conditions that will always make sexual intercourse painful? How does the Bible say a Christian wife should respond in these situations?

Since the average person in America today is only capable of reading a title, and perhaps the first few paragraphs let me start off with what this article is NOT advocating for.

  1.  This article DOES NOT advocate for men to have sex with their wives right after children birth or after she has had a surgery or when she is sick.
  2.  This article DOES NOT advocate for sexual sadism (taking sexual pleasure from causing someone else pain).
  3.  This article DOES NOT tell women they cannot or should never tell their husbands about pain during sex, nor is it saying men should never stop having sex when their wife indicates there is a pain issue.

The article is actually taking comments that were sent to me, one from a man and then multiple comments from two women discussing painful intercourse from a Christian woman’s point of view.  This article discusses two types of pain – one that is caused by temporary issues that some of the women allude to below and others that are caused by chronic untreatable conditions.

STOP Reading this Article from this point if…

  1. You are unable to learn new things.
  2. You are unable to emotionally or intellectually process other points of view.
  3. You think sex is not a need and is only for pleasure and no reasoning to the contrary will convince you otherwise.
  4. You think men only want sex from their wives for pleasure and no reasoning to the contrary will convince you otherwise.
  5.  You do not think any person should ever suffer even the smallest amount of pain in order to do something kind for another person and no reasoning  will convince you otherwise.
  6.  You accept that people may suffer pain in order to do something kind for others, except in the area of sex.  You believe there is never a circumstance where a man or woman should suffer even the smallest amount of pain during sex for the benefit of the other person and no reasoning will convince you otherwise.

So if you are the person I just described. STOP READING.  Go on and continue living in your safe space with your beliefs and presuppositions unchallenged. But if you are an open minded person, and are intellectually and emotionally strong enough to have your beliefs challenged and tested and perhaps even changed then continue reading.

But I give you this last warning.  If you continue reading – you may be exposed to Bible passages and ideas that you have never heard in all your life.  You may find truths in the Bible that are life changing.  Truths that give us as men and women purpose for our lives.  Truths that conflict with many values and ideologies that you have been raised with as an American, and even as a Christian.

You may find out that this is about a lot more than just women experiencing painful sex.

And with that said here we go…

The following comments were recently submitted on an article that I wrote back in 2016 entitled “The benefits of being a sexually obedient wife”.

The first came from a person calling himself JDMartin:

“Sex is actually fairly painful for my wife. She has never said flatout no, and absolutely never asked to stop before I am finished shes proud of that and basically wont let me stop or it would “ruin her record” lol. She has a saying or thing she says from time to time that “women have no idea what makes a girl good in bed is what she is willing to let her husband do, and how much pain she can take.”

After some other comments he sent that I blocked and did not approve I became convinced JDMartin was in fact a troll. But I decided to let his first comments remain because of the conversation it evoked with two women. Sometimes even some of the absurdity in comments by trolls can bring about good discussions.

The first woman, Alice, made this response to JD Martin’s comment:

“The idea that what makes a woman good in bed is “how much pain she can take” is not biblical, in the least. It is also repugnant. It has nothing to do with feminism, but with basic biology. If sex is painful for a woman, than something is wrong, either with her or with her husband’s treatment of her.”

A second woman called, Sunny, made this response to Alice:

“Alice I actually disagree with you on that. I’m not going to say if you should or should not continue sex if it’s painful (that is up to the individuals to decide). I will say from personal experience that painful sex doesn’t always mean there is something wrong. Sex can be painful at times with my husband. I’m not sure how else to put this but if a man is larger in the “southern region” then sex can and will be painful at times. Again, I’m not saying if a woman should or should not continue as that is a personal choice. Personally, for us there are times he will stop and other times where it doesn’t really matter or we will just change positions. That’s probably TMI but it’s true and I’m sure many women have dealt with it when their husbands are above average in size.”

Alice then responded:

“Sunny, my husband is also overly endowed. (and why on Earth do women think this is a good thing?!) He takes extra care and patience so that I very rarely experience pain. Not to mention, six babies have made their way through that passage and their heads were certainly much larger! I still maintain that if a woman is crying through the whole experience, the man is doing something wrong, or she has medical issues which should be addressed.

To which Sunny made this final response:

“Alice. You must understand that all women are different. I have one child via c-section. After a c-section the muscles swell and tighten up, that is “normal” after a c-section. My friend had the same problem, she approached a doctor about it and even her own doctor wasn’t concerned about the pain during intercourse. Basically, she told her that is going to happen. I did cry the first time I had sex after my
c-section as I became virgin tight again.
Yes, there are times that painful sex is link to medical conditions or reason for concern but most certainly not in ALL cases.

If my husband and I are not intimate for a few weeks sex does become painful for me. This might not be the case for you, but you must understand that our bodies are not the same. If a woman waits longer periods of time between sex things tighten down there. Add in larger male size the act of slipping it in even hurts. I actually have been on the verge of crying because we waited two months in-between sex. According to a medical professional that’s actually normal.

Maybe your case is different because your sex life is more active and you’ve had children naturally but this is NOT the case for many women (myself included).
I’m also in pain sometimes after exercising that doesn’t mean there is something wrong, you kinda just use logic and deal with it if it’s not a reason for concern.

I really do enjoy sometimes just letting people hash things out a bit before I respond and I actually think it is a great thing for women to speak to each other in candid ways like this. There are things that women need to hear from other women and this is an excellent case of that.

However, contrary to popular belief today, women can also learn about sex from men. God divinely spoke his word through men and he also assigned fathers, husbands, pastors and other male Christian teachers the responsibility to teach both men and women his word regarding sex in marriage.

So, what is the answer to this question of painful sex for women – should a wife endure any pain during intercourse with her husband?

The answer can be found in applying several principles found in the Bible.

Seven Biblical Principles That Form the Christian Philosophy of Sex

Principle #1 – God created man to bring him glory by imaging him. (I Corinthians 11:7)
Principle# 2 – God created woman for man, not man for woman. (I Corinthians 11:9)
Principle #3 – God created man to desire beauty and pleasure to image God’s desire for beauty and pleasure. (Psalm 45:11, Isaiah 46:10, Revelation 4:11)
Principle #4– One of the reasons God created woman for man was to be his source or his “well” of sexual pleasure. God equates a man’s need for sex with his need for water. (Proverbs 5:15-19) The New Testament tells us that sex is “the natural use of the woman” by man. (Romans 1:27)
Principle #5 – A man may only engage in “the natural use of the woman” after he has entered into a covenant of marriage with that woman. (Hebrews 13:4) All sex outside of a marriage covenant (such as prostitution or pre-marital sex) is condemned by God.
Principle #6 – God also created woman with a need for sex and he equates a woman’s need for sex with that of her need for food and clothing. (Exodus 21:10-11) But why did God plant this need in woman? Why did God give woman the desire to have sex and the ability to experience sexual pleasure? For this we must refer to back to Principle #2. This tells us that a woman’s desire for sex and her ability to enjoy sex was not given to her for own sake, but rather for the sake of her husband to compliment and enhance his sexual pleasure. And when a man enjoys the sexual pleasure of his wife, he images the pleasure God receives in his relationship with his people.
Principle #7All Christians, both men and women are called to emulate Christ’s endurance in the face of suffering and pain especially for the benefit of others. (1 Peter 2:21-24)

So, when we tie all the above principles together the answer to whether a Christian wife should endure painful sex with her husband is YES.

Some Clarifications

Should a wife seek out help from her doctor if she experiences painful intercourse? Absolutely yes! Some causes of pain can be helped with medication or sometimes even surgery. But other types of pain experienced by women during intercourse may have no cure and a woman may have to learn to endure and cope with such pain.

Still other types of pain may be temporary as Sunny alluded to like when a wife has not had sex in while it may hurt the first few times afterwards and she may need to very regularly have sex (which is a good thing for her husband and herself) in order to avoid this kind of pain.

Might some types of pain be avoided simply by the husband making some changes in his methods? Of course. And wives should find respectful and gentle ways to direct their husbands in this regard.

Should a woman hide her pain from her husband?

Some women might use visual cues of pain to help their husbands understand what hurts and what does not. This can be used, but should be used carefully. If it used to help improve sex, and not shame her husband then it can be a good thing. It might also be warning to the woman herself that she needs to see a doctor.

However, what if after seeing a doctor the doctor tells her that source of her pain cannot be cured and there is nothing that her husband can do differently to make this pain go away?

The answer is clear, even if it is not easy. A wife who suffers from chronic and untreatable dyspareunia (painful intercourse) must find the strength to endure such pain and not only endure it but hide it as much as possible from her husband.

The reason she should hide this is for her to do her best to fulfill one the purposes for which God designed her and that is the sexual pleasure of her husband.

There is another general principle that applies to all Christians, both men and women and that is that we are to set aside anything that hinders us from fulfilling the purposes that God has for our lives. And when it comes to this issue of painful sex, I encourage wives to truly mediate on this passage from the book of Hebrews:
“1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
Hebrews 12:1-2

Are you willing to lay aside your pride, your discomfort and even your chronic sexual pain and to endure such pain to fulfill one of the purposes for which God created you which was to bring sexual pleasure to your husband? Are you willing to do this without an attitude, without trying to pass your suffering on to your husband in order to make him not want to have sex with you?

If a Woman is Crying Throughout Sex is the Man Always Wrong to Continue?

Alice made the following statement in regard to JDMartin’s statement about his wife crying during sex:

I still maintain that if a woman is crying through the whole experience, the man is doing something wrong, or she has medical issues which should be addressed.

But is it true that if a woman is crying through the whole sexual experience that it is automatically the man doing something wrong? The answer is no.

In the case of JDMartin I think from his own admission of being rough with his wife he may be doing something wrong. But it really does depend though on the woman. What is rough? Some women are like china dolls and any amount of friction or thrusting during sex may be considered rough to them when it really is not and they simply need to endure and strengthen themselves.

For me personally since I have been married to two different women (I divorced my first wife for adultery) I can say I saw this difference play out first hand. My first wife was telling me to be rougher and my second wife was telling me to be gentler. So every woman really is different in this regard.

Husbands and wives both need to adjust to one another when it comes to sex. Sometimes a man may have to make some changes for his wife, but at the same time a woman might have to endure some things for her husband.

So when a woman cries all during sex could it be that the man is mistreating her? Absolutely yes. But from a Christian perspective we must realize that sometimes it could be the woman who is in the wrong for crying throughout the entire sexual experience. If a woman is crying to manipulate her husband because she simply did not want to have sex or to make him feel bad for wanting sex when she did not then the sin lies with her.

Even a woman who suffers from true painful intercourse whether it is from a temporary condition (like some of the examples Sunny gave) or if it is from a long term chronic and un-treatable condition that causes painful intercourse might be in the wrong for crying throughout the entire experience.

The point here on a woman crying during sex is this. It is not always the man that is in the wrong when this occurs. It can sometimes be the woman who is in the wrong for crying. And in some rare cases neither neither one may be wrong in what they are doing. The husband may not be in wrong for continuing and finishing and the wife may not be in the wrong for crying.

The Practical Benefits of a Wife Enduring Painful Sex

Now I want to move from the Biblical reasons a woman should endure painful sex with her husband to the practical benefits of enduring such pain.

My wife, like many women I know, loves flowers. Each year we plant flowers in our front yard and we also get hanging baskets. These flowers need two things to survive. They need sunlight and they need water.

If they get sunlight but no water they will die. If they get water but no sunlight they will also die.

In the same way a man’s affection and his passion for his wife is fueled by two things. Sex and Respect. Sex is like water for a man’s affection and respect is like sunlight for a man’s affection. If a woman gives him both in most cases, she will find that her husband’s affection for her will be strong and healthy. If either of these are missing his affection for his wife may wane and die.

So even aside from spiritual reasons there are very practical reasons that a woman should gladly endure painful sex with her husband in order to “water” his affection for her.

Conclusion

Will you as a woman set aside your pride and unlearn the selfishness that our society has taught you? Will you be strong in the way God meant you to be and not the way the world tells you to be strong? The world tells women that for them to be strong they must stand up for themselves and stand up to men. But God tells women that they were made for men (I Corinthians 11:9) and they are to submit to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:24). The Bible also tells us that strength is not always demonstrated through resistance. Sometimes strength is demonstrated through joyfully exercising patience, endurance and longsuffering.
“10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;
Colossians 1:10-11

So, what will you do with your pain? Will you use it as a selfish excuse to hinder your husband from fully exercising the image of God in him? Will you pass your suffering on to your husband and thus hinder what God designed to be a primary driver of his affection for you?

Or will you demonstrate true Christian strength and with joy endure painful sex for the betterment of your husband and your marriage and thus fulfill one of the most important purposes for which God designed you as a woman?

The choice is yours and the consequences of your choice will be yours as well.

Beth Moore Has A Man Bow to the MeToo Movement

This last weekend, Beth Moore, a prominent charismatic and feminist preacher, had her drummer come forward and kneel on the stage “asking their forgiveness for all hurts & harms they’ve ever received at the hands of men”.

I want to first give thanks to Snapper(one of my regular reader) who sent this my way and I also want to give credit to PulpitAndPen for their powerful rebuke of this wickedness where they stated:

“Moore started her career as a teacher for women, but now preaches to both genders. Evangelical leaders like John Piper have encouraged men to listen to her violations of 1 Timothy 2:12. Not deterred by Scriptural admonitions against women teaching doctrine or preaching to men, Moore has gradually become a chief proponent of evangelical feminism…
Of course, there is nothing in Scripture that suggests any individual can apologize for the sins of someone else, least alone an entire gender. The very notion is Biblically untenable. Neither is it wise to presume that every woman is a victim, but in Critical Race Theory (which is a Marxist political ideology that applies to gender, sexuality and other “identity groups” as well as race) and in the ideology of Marxist Intersectionality (the combining of two “victimized” identity group, in this case Native Americans and women), it is necessary to presume victimhood upon all.”

I say to PulpitAndPen- AMEN and AMEN. What wickedness our generation is now seeing before its very eyes.

Now let me add a few of my own thoughts to what PulpitAndPen said. Much of this error goes back to the roots of Methodism and Pentecostalism.

During the reformation, Protestants rejected both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox position that Church tradition was equally as authoritative as the Bible. Protestants also rejected the Catholic doctrine of Papal authority as well. The Protestants while having diverse opinions on many doctrines were united in the doctrine of “sola fide” meaning “justification by faith alone” against the Catholic Church’s position of faith plus works being necessary for salvation.

One of the main divisions within Protestantism was over the issue of whether the Scriptures alone formed the basis of faith and practice or whether they simply had higher authority than church tradition.

Some Protestants took the position of “prima scriptura” which held that the Scriptures were the “first” or “above all” source of divine revelation BUT not the only guide for faith and practice. The Anglicans believed in following church tradition as long it did not conflict with the Scriptures. The Methodists and the Pentecostal churches that grew out of the Methodists believed visions and other supernatural gifts were also to guide the churches.

And it was this error at the very root of Methodism and Pentecostalism which lead both groups to embrace feminism far before any other evangelical churches did.

Others Protestants like the Lutheran churches, Presbyterian churches and Baptist churches strongly held to the doctrine of “sola scriptura” which meant that the Bible alone was the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

However, the Baptists were the strongest and loudest of all the Protestants in their preaching of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Baptists were heavily persecuted by other Protestants on the basis of another major division between Protestant groups and that is on the issue of infant baptism. Baptists were persecuted by other Protestant groups for rejecting infant baptism as unscriptural and instead preaching believer’s baptism by immersion.

This is why it should come as no surprise that the “Bible Belt” which is overwhelming populated by Baptist churches and located in the Southern United States has the highest concentration of conservative Bible believing Christians in the United States. It is in this place where we find the most Christians in America standing against feminism. That is not to say there are not outliers throughout the rest of the country. I do not live in the south but I can say where I live there are outposts of Christianity that are taking a stand against this apostasy as well.

The Church can never ever base its practices on either the traditions or feelings of men or women for that matter. Our sole source of faith, our rules for church conduct (including offices and those who preach or teach) and our rules for holy living must be founded upon the Word of God and the Word of God alone.

CBNNew reported on the following on this incident:

“Moore said tears began falling and that the Holy Spirit fell on the women. “How much more Christlike could this brother have been?” she asked. “He had committed no such sins against women. But he stood before them representing those who had. It was one of the most powerful things I’ve ever seen.”

The tears flowed like rain. I was told again & again that most of them had never EVER heard these things addressed & had certainly never heard anyone say I’m so sorry. Many hurts also come through other women & I addressed those next but this was when the Holy Spirit fell on us.

— Beth Moore (@BethMooreLPM) October 8, 2018 “

What this drummer did was not Christlike at all. We as Christian men bow before God. Christian men do not bow to the idols of feminism or the MeToo movement. Christian men stand firm in the faith.

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

1 Corinthians 16:13(NASB)

Can a Christian Woman Have Children Without a Husband?

Is it wrong for a Christian woman to desire to have children without having to marry first?  In other words, can a Christian woman simply adopt children and form a family without a husband? What if a Christian woman wants a husband and children but she wants them much later in life so she can pursue educational and career interests?

The questions above are a summary of questions I recently received from a young woman named Jill who is a college student.  Jill, like many young women in recent decades, would like to put off having children longer and even when she does she wonders if she needs to have a husband to have children.  But before I get to Jill’s email we need to talk about the unsettling fact that there are more and more women like Jill who are choosing to wait much longer to have children and if they have children at all they have fewer children than women of previous generations.

Women Are Marrying and Having Children Much Later In Life

wrote an article for BusinessInsider.com entitled “Why having kids later is a really big deal“.  In this article she made the following conclusions based on CDC study that showed women having children much later in life:

“The average age of first-time mothers is increasing because more women are waiting until their 30s and 40s to start having kids and fewer women are having their first kids in their teens and 20s, the CDC report says.

The majority of all births are still to women under 35 (about 85% of the total), but rates for all births, not just of a first child, to women over 35 have been rising over the past 20 years, while birth rates for younger women are stable or declining…

Data from the World Bank show the seven countries where the average age of women giving birth to their first child is above 30 (Greece, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Italy, Switzerland, and Luxembourg, according to the CIA World Factbook) all have general fertility rates below what’s called the replacement rate. That means the generation currently having kids isn’t having enough to replace itself. Countries with low fertility rates have populations that are aging and set to shrink, meaning fewer people of working age have to support more older dependents.”

Let me summarize what this article above just said.  If the world continues down the path of westernization with women becoming more focused on their education and careers than on having children it won’t just be a few countries where the population is shrinking.  Instead it will be the world population that begins to shrink.

Each generation will be smaller than the one that preceded it.   To say this will cause problems for governments and economies is a vast understatement.  And the world population will continue to decline unless this trend of women being more education and career oriented is stopped.

A United Nations Report entitled “World Population in 2300”  states that if the rest of the world follows western countries in having less children than the replacement level needed the world population will drop to 2.3 billion by the year 2300.  To put that in perspective, today the world has 7.6 billion people so that means the world population will drop by 70 percent over the next three centuries.

So as we can see Jill is not in the minority of western women with her thoughts about having a career and having children later in life.  She is in the majority of women who are choosing to put off having children to a much later age than women of the past and there are very real consequences for this decision by the women of this generation.

With all that said as introduction we will now dive into Jill’s email to me.

Jill’s Questions

“I am a Christian female university student in my mid-20s.  I am currently in a Bible college. I want to pursue a Master’s, and I want to be in charge of a library. I have a question. Is this considered “authority?” If I am in charge of a library used by men and women, and in charge of hiring men and women, is this wrong?

I am unmarried. I do not want to get married. I just am not interested in it. 1 Corinthians 7 says that it is okay, and even good, to stay unmarried. I often have asexual feelings and I just do not care for marriage.

I want to have children, much later in life. I know a godly woman who never married, though she wanted to. She adopted a girl who had little chance of ever being adopted by a two-parent family. The result has been beautiful. I have prayed about this, and I still am praying. I desire something similar in my life, if it is God’s plan.

If I ever have children, I will work in a school or other similar setting so that I am home when my child/children is home, and away when they are away during school hours. I will even work from home if I have to. I want to have a child or two, I want a dog, I want to direct a library and if I do not do that then I would like to teach at a Christian school or work in ministry. I want to be a kind boss. I want to show God’s love everywhere I go. I want to help people

If I ever get married, I feel led for it to be an equal-but-different partnership. I pray about these things. I feel led by God in this direction, at least for now.

I would like to hear your thoughts. Please comment on each of these paragraphs and tell me what you think. “

Now as Jill requested I will answer each of her statements.

Should Women Be in Jobs Which Place Them Over Men?

Jill ‘s Statement:

“I am a Christian female university student in my mid-20s.  I am currently in a Bible college. I want to pursue a Master’s, and I want to be in charge of a library. I have a question. Is this considered “authority?” If I am in charge of a library used by men and women, and in charge of hiring men and women, is this wrong?”

Yes someone who hires people is an authority.  If you are hiring men, then you are any authority over men.

The Scriptures tell us that man is to be the head of woman and this is not restricted to just the Church and the Home and would also extend to society in general:

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.

1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

In our modern culture we don’t want to admit it but we know it is unnatural for a woman to be in authority over a man.  Think male secretary to a female a boss. This is because God designed for man to be over woman in all things.

In the Old Testament we are told that women ruling over men is just as shameful as it would be for children to oppress men:

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Isaiah 3:12 (KJV)

Even the heroine of modern day Christian feminists, Deborah, said this when the cowardly men of Israel insisted that she go into battle with them:

And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.

And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.”

Judges 4:8-9 (KJV)

We know that Deborah was refering to Jael, the wife of Heber, who eventually killed Sisera.  But Deborah talked about the honor being removed from Barak and these other cowardly men for insisting a woman go into battle with them. There was no praise  for these men in what they did.

So the second part of the answer to your question is – you as a woman should not seek authority over men.   Now sometimes because of this sinful world we live in women are sometimes placed over men – but Christian women should not seek this out.

Is Celibacy Right Before God?

Jill’s Statement:

“I am unmarried. I do not want to get married. I just am not interested in it. 1 Corinthians 7 says that it is okay, and even good, to stay unmarried. I often have asexual feelings and I just do not care for marriage.”

It is true that Paul calls celibacy “good” in I Corinthians 7 and he honors celibacy in service to God:

“26  I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

35And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

I Corinthians 7:26 & 32-35 (KJV)

Celibacy is an exception that God makes to his first command to mankind in Genesis 1:28 to be fruitful and multiply(to marry, have sex and have children).  God’s normative design was for man to image him by being a husband to a wife and father to children and going out in the world about his work.  He created woman to help man to fulfill his mission to image God by her dependence upon her husband for his leadership, provision and protection and by her serving him and submitting to him. In this way the husband and wife relationship pictures the relation of God to his people with man modeling God and woman modeling the people of God.

Celibacy should only be sought after either because a person has NO desire for a spouse and NO desire for children or their zeal and dedication to serve God is so strong that it makes any thought they would have of having a family seem like nothing. This kind of person wants to dedicate their life in a undivided way in service to God.  Now that does not mean celibate women have to be nuns.  They could be missionary nurses or doctors, they could be school teachers or a host other occupations in undivided service to God.

So yes, celibacy is a good thing and it is even called a gift in the Bible.  But it is only a good thing if it is pursued for the right reasons and not in order for someone to fulfill their own selfish ambitions or for someone to escape gender roles that God has assigned to marriage.

Can a Christian Woman Have Children Without a Husband?

Jill’s Statement:

“I want to have children, much later in life. I know a godly woman who never married, though she wanted to. She adopted a girl who had little chance of ever being adopted by a two-parent family. The result has been beautiful. I have prayed about this, and I still am praying. I desire something similar in my life, if it is God’s plan.”

Many Christian women have had children without a husband over the centuries.  But it is important to understand how they came to be the mother of children without a husband.

Some women were raped and then gave birth to their rapist’s child and they had to raise this child on their own.  Some women did have a husband, but perhaps they became pregnant and then he died.   Other single women have faced situations where they had no choice but to take orphaned or needy children in who had not place to go.   God honors all these situations where these women courageously raised these children on their own.

But these women did not purposefully seek to have children without first being married to a husband.  These situations were thrust upon them by God.

But for you to purposefully seek out having children (even through adoption) without first having a husband is a violation of God’s design for how we are to go about having children. 

The Bible tells us God’s design for when women should have children:

14 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)

God’s design for women having children is simple and straight forward.  First a woman marries a man.  Then she joins with her husband to fulfill God’s command to be fruitful and multiply by freely and regularly giving her body to her husband in the marriage bed.  Then she has children as a result of her obedience to give herself to her husband. She cares for the needs of her husband and children.  She also takes care of the affairs of the home after marriage.  This is God’s order, this is God’s design.

Jill, you are making up your own design for the family by even entertaining the thought of trying to have children without first being married.   And yes God will sometimes still bless us in spite of the fact that we went about something the wrong way, but that does not make it right for us to do.

Can A Woman Work While the Kids Are School?

Jill’s Statement:

“If I ever have children, I will work in a school or other similar setting so that I am home when my child/children is home, and away when they are away during school hours. I will even work from home if I have to. I want to have a child or two, I want a dog, I want to direct a library and if I do not do that then I would like to teach at a Christian school or work in ministry. I want to be a kind boss. I want to show God’s love everywhere I go. I want to help people”

It is admirable that if you had children you would want to make sure you were home when they are home.  But being a wife and mother is about so much more than just being home when your children or husband are home.  It is about caring for the home while they are gone, taking care of their clothing needs, the house needs and preparing food so that when your husband and children come home everything is done and in order.  If you try and work while they are out and get home just before they do then you will have to do all these things in the evening and you will have little time or energy for your family.

A lot of women who aspire to have careers do not consider these things.  The greatest lie of feminism is “you can have it all”.  No you can’t.  You must make a choice. Will you fully dedicate your life and time to your family and the help-meet position God made you for or will you try and dedicate half your time to your own desires and give your family what is left?

You desire to help people is wonderful.  And I think working in a Christian school or other Christian ministry in a full time capacity would be a wonderful thing for you to do.  But you have to make a choice.  You can help people by dedicating your life in celibacy in service to God in a Christian school or other Christian ministry giving up having children and a husband OR you can choose to help your husband and your children by caring for their needs and the needs of your home.  You must be 100 percent dedicated to one or the other – if you try and do half and half you fail at one.

Is Marriage an “equal-but-different partnership”?

Jill’s Statement:

“If I ever get married, I feel led for it to be an equal-but-different partnership. I pray about these things. I feel led by God in this direction, at least for now.”

The Bible tells us we cannot live by how we feel, but by instead by what the Word of God says despite our feelings.  The Bible tells us this about trusting our feelings:

“26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.

Proverbs 28:26 (KJV)

It is foolish for us to follow our feelings, but rather we must trust in the Lord with all our heart and allow his Word, and not our feelings, to direct our path.

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.”

Proverbs 3:5-6 (KJV)

Also in regard to feelings – we can with the Lord’s help over time change our feelings and direct them as he would have us to.  That means that we can as we surrender to  God’s will for our lives come to love what he loves and hate what he hates.  We can feel good about what he wants us to feel good about even if we did not feel good about it before.

So this brings us to the next question. Does the Bible teach marriage as a “equal-but-different partnership”?

“23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:23-24 (KJV)

The passage above from Ephesians tell you as a young woman why God created you.  He created you to play a part in painting the beautiful picture of the relationship of God to his people.  In this model, you play the part of the Church who submits to Christ in everything.  Your service to your husband, who represents Christ in this model, is your service to God.  The only exception to this design is celibacy in service to God – but only if you are truly called to it for unselfish reasons.

“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…

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.

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 3:1-2 & 5-7 (KJV)

While women and wives are joint heirs with their husbands of the grace of life, the Bible never calls husbands and wives equal partners – it fact it never calls them partners (despite the NIV changing the translations to “partner”).

Women are called to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.  Are the Christ and Church equal partners or is one the subordinate to the other?

And God did not just flip a coin and put man in charge of woman.   He made woman for man as the Scriptures tell us in I Corinthians 11:9 “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”   Woman submitting to and serving man is a beautiful picture of mankind submitting to and serving God.  And the man lovingly leading, providing for, teaching and protecting his wife is a beautiful picture of God doing all these things for his people.

Conclusion

As I close let me just point out something based on this statement you made “I want to have children, much later in life.”  Let’s be honest – why would you want to have children much later in life? The honest answer is because your love for education and your career ambitions to be a librarian are more important to you than having children, yet you desire children.  But you desire children outside of God’s designed path which is marriage.   This is by definition a selfish ambition.  Anytime we desire things that outside God’s design for us that is a selfish desire.

When a woman desires to have children without a husband that is just as selfish as a man who desires to have sex with a woman without having to marrying her.  Both the desire for children and the desire for sex are God given desires, but when we seek to go about to fulfill those desires in a way which violates God’s design we sin against God in doing so.

So Jill– you have a choice to make.  If you feel you cannot fulfill the role God designed women in general to fulfill – to be subordinate helpers to men to help them paint the picture of God and his people – then you can exercise the celibacy option in service to him.  But you cannot take half measures and actively seek to have children and make a family the way you want it, instead of the way God designed family to be.

Even if you decide you will follow God’s design for having children and marry a husband first if you do as you have stated and “have children, much later in life” this could still be selfish ambition on your part.

It is one thing if you are vigorously as young woman pursing a husband and family and during that time you are working to support yourself.  There is no sin in this.  But God knows your heart.  If in your heart you know that you are purposefully delaying finding a husband and having a family so that you can pursue educational and career interests and then later you will do the “family thing” that is utter selfishness before God.  That is NOT why God created you.  He created you for man, he created you marriage and the only exception to that is true dedicated celibacy in service to him.

 

The Case for Christian Nationalism

Were the American founders wrong for not building in safe guards against secularism? Is there a way to have freedom of religion and at the same time guard against secularism? I believe the answer to both these questions is YES.

Nations from the dawn of human civilization have been built on three pillars much like the three legged stool I have pictured at the top of this article.  These three pillars are a common religion, a common ethnicity and a common language.  The more diversity you have in any of these three areas the weaker the unity of your nation becomes eventually leading to its collapse.

In my previous article “Is Ethno-Nationalism a Sin against God or by His design?” I gave this quote by Victor Davis Hanson from his article in National Review entitled “America: History’s Exception”:

 “The history of nations is mostly characterized by ethnic and racial uniformity, not diversity.

Most national boundaries reflected linguistic, religious, and ethnic homogeneity. Until the late 20th century, diversity was considered a liability, not a strength…

Countries, ancient and modern, that have tried to unite diverse tribes have usually fared poorly. The Italian Roman Republic lasted about 500 years. In contrast, the multiracial Roman Empire that after the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212 made all its diverse peoples equal citizens endured little more than two (often violent) centuries.

Vast ethnically diverse empires such as those of the Austro-Hungarians, the Ottomans, and the Soviets used deadly force to keep their bickering ethnic factions in line — and from killing each other.” [1]

In that article on ethno nationalism I argued that America’s change from laws protecting ethnic homogeneity (via the 1790 Naturalization Act) have led to a weakening of the American nation and fractures along ethnic lines.  Why? Because even though we have tried to stamp out racial hatred (which is good thing) you cannot stamp out racial clustering in other words, racial preference.  I showed statistics in my article “Is Self-Segregation a Sin?” that the vast majority of people of all ethnicities prefer to marry and live around people of their own ethnic group and this natural racial preference among human beings will inevitably lead to division in a nation.

So this common ethnicity, one of the three pillars that is crucial to any nation’s unity, has been badly weakened over the last century and it is continuing to degrade more each year.

In this article I want to talk about another pillar that is essential to national unity and that is common religion.

Why America’s Founding Fathers Wanted Freedom of Religion

The first amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The founding fathers gave us this to protect the people from state churches like the Anglican Church in England as well as state churches that existed in the American colonies.

One the greatest champions for religious freedom and separation of Church and State was a Baptist minister name John Leland(1754-1841). Hundreds of Baptist ministers had been imprisoned throughout the colonies for “disturbing the peace” or in other words not going along with the Anglican or Congregational state churches in various colonies.  John Leland brought the plight of these Baptist ministers to the attention of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.  James Madison had already heard of Baptist imprisonments in Virginia and was fighting for their freedom in there.

In order to secure the support of Leland and his many Baptist followers in Virginia, James Madison had to promise Leland that he would add specific protections for religious liberty to the new Constitution.  This is why Leland is credited by many historians as the greatest influence of religious liberty on Madison and therefore the first amendment.

In 1790, a year before the first amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights was ratified Leland wrote:

“The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever. … Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” [2]

In 1791 Leland again wrote:

“Is conformity of sentiments in matters of religion essential to the happiness of civil government? Not at all. Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear–maintain the principles that he believes–worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse or loss of property for his religious opinions. Instead of discouraging him with proscriptions, fines, confiscation or death, let him be encouraged, as a free man, to bring forth his arguments and maintain his points with all boldness; then if his doctrine is false it will be confuted, and if it is true (though ever so novel) let others credit it. When every man has this liberty what can he wish for more? A liberal man asks for nothing more of government.” [3]

And in 1804 Leland Wrote:

“Experience, the best teacher, has informed us, that the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity, has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did.” [4]

Were America’s Founding Father’s Secularists?

While men like Thomas Jefferson and John Leland were champions of religious liberty they were not the advocates of a purely secular government as some of their statements have made them look.  We need to look at their actions, not just their words to see what they truly meant.

In a speech he gave at at Beeson Divinity School on May 2nd, 2000  Richard Land made the following historical observation comparing Jefferson and Leland’s words on separation of church and state to their actions:

“Clearly, Jefferson saw no contradiction between his concept of church and state separation and having a gift personally presented to him at the White House with a promise of continued prayer by a prominent Baptist preacher on the morning of the very day he wrote to the Danbury Baptist ministers, and less than 48 hours later attending a Sunday morning worship service where that minister — John Leland — preached from the Speaker’s podium in the well of the U.S. House of Representatives” [5]

Were there secularists among the founders like Thomas Paine? Yes.  But the truth is it can be easily proven by their diaries, personal letters and public statements that the vast majority of the founders were indeed Christians.

In response to Thomas Pain’s “Age of Reason” John Adams wrote:

“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.” [6]

And Adams was not the only founder to attack Paine’s secularist views.   Samuel Adams, Benjamin Rush, Charles Carrol, Patrick Henry, William Paterson and John Jay were amongst just a few of many founders who condemned Paine for his work. Zephaniah Swift stated at the time the following of Paine’s work:

“He has the impudence and effrontery to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” [7]

The Error of the First Amendment

As much as Americans cherish the first amendment there was a fundamental flaw in design which came from men like John’s Leland’s “experience”.   As we previously noted Leland said that “Experience, the best teacher” regarding his views of the separation of church and state and religious liberty.  We also gave his statement that “…Let every man speak freely without fear–maintain the principles that he believes–worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing”. 

The problem with this thinking, which also heavily influenced Madison, is that it opened the door open for secularism to poison American culture.  If Leland could witness what happened over the next two centuries and “experiance” what happened as a result of having no protection for Christianity or Christian principles in this country I think he might have reconsidered his positions.

The first amendment – which was meant to protect freedom of religion and conscience was actually turned into a weapon by secularists to drive Christians from the public square.

After reading much about his life and what he fought for I can see where Leland was coming from.  His intentions were good.  I agree 100% with Leland that what the Anglican and Congregational state churches did to Baptists and other Christians was wrong.  But Leland and the founding fathers he influenced went too far in the matter of religious liberty.

They could have put protections in for the freedom to practice the Christian faith according to one’s conscience and they could have clearly outlawed  state churches.

They could have put moral laws in the Constitution straight from the Scriptures like do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not commit fornication as well as protections for family rights and male headship while protecting the right of Christian churches to assemble and worship as they pleased.

Instead they set up a system of government that allowed for secularism, atheism and religious pluralism to eventually erode the unity of the nation.  This erosion of common religion among Americans will eventually lead to the end of the great experiment the founders began more than two centuries ago.

The Founding Fathers Believed Our Rights Came From God Not Government

The rights of government, the church and individuals and families do not come from government, they come from God as our American founding fathers so clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved”

The founders referred to God as our “Creator” from whom our rights come and the “Supreme judge” who will judge our intentions and actions. They were absolutely right in this regard that governments are not the source of rights but instead God instituted government to secure the rights he had given. The Scriptures state:

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

Romans 13:4 (KJV)

Therefore we can rightly say that Government is there to protect our God given rights and punish those who violate the God given rights of others.  It is not the purpose of Government to grant new rights or nullify rights that God grants.  When a government becomes “destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.

What “Creator” and “Supreme Judge” did the American Founders Have in Mind?

Decades before the American Revolution a young John Adams wrote this in his diary:

“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!” [8]

Then in the decades that followed the birth of our nation this great American founder stated the following in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” [9]

 

What Can We as Bible Believing Christians Do?

As believers we must take a page from the story of Joshua in the Bible.

“14 Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord.

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

Joshua 24:14-15 (KJV)

America and the Western world have forsaken the God of the Bible, the God of their ancestors, for the false gods of emotionalism, feminism, secularism, humanism, egalitarianism, materialism and education.

We as believers in the God of the Bible must stand faithful in the midst of a faithless generation and follow Joshua’s example that no matter what others did – he and his family would serve the Lord.

But we must also take another page from earlier in Joshua’s story.  When the children of Israel were looking to build a new nation a powerful city lay as an obstacle in their path and that was the city of Jericho.  In Joshua chapter 6 we see that God told them he would destroy the walls of Jericho and all they had to do was follow his commands one of which was to shout:

“2 And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour. 3 And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.

4 And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. 5 And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.”

Joshua 6:2-5 (KJV)

We know from the rest of the story that the Israelites followed God’s commands and God caused the walls of Jericho to fall flat to the ground.

In the same way we as Bible believing Christians must shout out against the wickedness of secular humanists, feminists and others who oppose the knowledge of God in our culture. Sadly we must even shout out against those who claim to be Christians but stand in lock step with secularists in opposing a Biblical worldview.  We cannot simply stand by in the shadows.  God calls us to be a light in a dark place.

Secular humanism, feminism, egalitarianism and a host of other false gods have fortified themselves much like Jericho did.  They control the courts, legislatures and media.  Only God can take down the stronghold of these false gods that are entrenched in our society.  But we must do our part as Christians to call it out until he does and when he does we as Bible believing Christians need to be prepared to go in after God brings the walls down.

The Fatal Flaw of Secular Humanism That Will Bring Down Its Walls

Below is the definition of Secular Humanism from secularhumanism.org:

“Secular humanism is comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity. Thus it is broader than atheism, which concerns only the nonexistence of god or the supernatural. Important as that may be, there’s a lot more to life … and secular humanism addresses it.

Secular humanism is nonreligious, espousing no belief in a realm or beings imagined to transcend ordinary experience.

Secular humanism is a lifestance, or what Council for Secular Humanism founder Paul Kurtz has termed a eupraxsophy: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life. As a secular lifestance, secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life.” [10]

Obviously the most glaring flaw of secular humanism is its denial of the existence of God, the creator of all things including humanity.  But another flaw that comes from the denial of our creator is that secular humanists fail to recognize the natural consequences for not following God’s owner’s manual – the Bible.

It is absolutely true that God instituted the spheres of “family, church and state” and gave each of them different “controls”.  When you remove the controls of these three spheres that God created in any nation eventually that nation will fall.

It would be like having a car and going into the engine and switching all the spark plugs around and switching other plugs for various components and then expecting the engine to function properly.  If you don’t follow the design of the car, eventually it will fail.

A critically important control for any functioning nation is the control of family. If parents fail to exercise their God mandated control over their children or husbands fail to exercise their God mandated control over their wives this will cause any nation to eventually crumble.  Marriage and family form the bedrock of both churches and nations – without strong marriages and families neither of these other institutions will continue to exist.

While parents today still exercise a small amount of control over their children, husbands for the most part have completely given up all control over their wives.  They no longer lead their wives, teach their wives or discipline their wives.

The result is that because men allowed feminism to take control of our nations and because men ceded their ownership of and responsibility over both their wives and daughters we have nations in the Western world that are in moral chaos.

Marriage rates have plummeted since the early 20th century, divorce has skyrocketed, birth rates have declined and of the fewer births we have almost half of them that are born out of wedlock.

This will eventually culminate in the fall of not only the United States, but all of the Western World.  Another way of putting this is – when men abandoned their control of women (their wives and daughters) they broke God’s design for this world. They took their hands off the wheel of the car that is civilization and now that car is headed toward a cliff and eventual destruction.

When will the America as We Know It Fall?

The Roman Empire fell about two hundred years after it embraced multiracialism and multiculturalism and it lost its identity as an Italian Roman empire.  I predict that the time line will be similar for the United States.  The United States began to lose its identity as a nation of northern white European protestant Christians near the end of the 19th century.  It was not long after this that secular humanism, multiculturalism and feminism secured strong footholds in American culture.  So if we use that as our starting point it is most likely that America as a nation will crumble by the end of the 21st century or by beginning of the 22nd century.

The causes of this collapse could come from any these factors:

  1. Racial Wars – As Whites in America begin to lose their majority numbers and Africans, Hispanics and other ethnic groups rise this growing diversity of ethnicities will lead to more division and eventually war.
  2. Secular Humanists vs Christians – As Secular humanists seek to push the Christian faith further and further from American culture eventually lines will be crossed that cause Christians in mass to practice civil disobedience and then eventually military revolt against the secular powers.
  3. The falling fertility rate – America’s fertility rate is 1.84 which is well beneath the minimum 2.1 to 2.33 that needed just to keep the population rate from falling.

The third reason, falling fertility rates, is the factor which I believe will most likely be the final straw that breaks the back of Western Civilization.  Consider these other countries that have even worse fertility rates than the United States:

WorldBank.org reports that Germany’s fertility rate is 1.5, Japan is at 1.5,  the UK is at 1.8 and Greece is 1.3.  [11]  Below is a chart from WorldBank.org that displays the sharp decline in births across the world.

A recent article from Bloomberg.com actually applauds the decline of its own species:

“So far, the prophets of overpopulation have been defeated by technology. But human ingenuity alone can never deliver a final victory in the battle to feed the world — eventually, population growth will overwhelm the Earth’s ability to provide calories. That’s why in order to put Malthus and Ehrlich finally to rest, a second component is needed — lower fertility rates. To save both the environment and themselves, humans must have fewer kids…

The world is now approaching that magic level, thanks to a phenomenon known as the fertility transition. In most countries, total fertility falls from a high level of about six or seven children to two or below, and stays there. Once smaller families become the norm in a country or region, they very rarely go back up. There are a number of theories for why this happens. The shift from agriculture to urban life means less incentive for families to have kids to work on farms. Urban life also increases the cost of raising a kid. Higher education levels for women, freeing them from traditional gender norms, are probably a big factor as well. Importantly, none of these factors are temporary.” [12]

Of all the sins Western Civilization has committed at the behest of secular humanists, environmentalists and feminists – the sin against God’s command “to be fruitful and multiply” is most likely to be the cause of their undoing.

It is a simple matter of math and the law of sowing and reaping.

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Galatians 6:7 (KJV)

If you sow less children, you will have less children.  And if you have less children and continue to have less children eventually your civilization withers up and dies.

And why is a shrinking human population a bad thing? Well think of it this way.  How will a business do if it continues year over year to have less customers? It will die. How will a government do if it continues to bring in less taxes each year with the same rates of spending? It will collapse.  People don’t think about this.  A social safety net is predicated on the fact that you have a larger population of young people to help care for the needs of its older population as well as its poor and disabled.  If the younger population is only a fraction of the size of the generations that came before it the social safety cannot be sustained.

So when will world population numbers start to plunge? The approximate year is given at OverPopulationIsAMyth.com:

“The United Nations Population Division (UNPD) is the most reliable source of population statistics in the world, which is why we use their numbers for our videos. And, according to the UNPD, population growth will continue to slow down over the next few decades. In fact, if current trends persist, our growth will halt right around 8 billion by 2045. After that, our numbers will start to fall off, slowly at first, and then faster.” [13]

So in 27 years we will see the world wide population of the earth begin to decline matching the already declining numbers of Western nations.  2045 will most likely be the beginning of the end for America Western Civilization which will most likely fall by the end of the 21st century.

The New Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics

Out of the ashes of the fall of Western Civilization, I propose that Christians could introduce new Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics.

These new nations like the United States would be a Republic where the rights of both the government and the people are limited by a core set of laws much like our current Constitution.  As I said previously and as the American founders once said – our rights as individuals come from God and God has spoken these rights through his Word, the Bible.  Therefore this New Constitution would be based explicitly on Biblical moral law  or in other words this nation would be a theonomy. This of course would take into account progressive revelation in the Bible and the realization that the Old Covenant has been replaced with the New Covenant.

These new types of Christian nations would not be theocracies– as a theocracy is directly ruled by God through his prophets and only God himself can institute a theocracy as he did with Israel.  Also unlike the totalitarian theonomic military dictatorship in the popular fictional “Hand Maid’s Tale” these new nations would still be ruled democratically but within the limits of Biblical law upon which the government’s constitution would be based.

Totalitarian forms of civil government, even Christian forms of totalitarian civil government, violate the purposes for which God designed civil government.  Much like we in America currently have three separate but equal branches of government with different rights and powers so too God set up three separate spheres of government with those being the family, the church and the state.

And if you examine the Scriptures closely you will see that the most powerful human authorities God established are those of the father and husband with the husband being most powerful of all.  The “power” I speak of with husbands and fathers is that they have power and control over the personal decisions of their wives and children.   The government does not have this type of power and neither do church authorities.

But none of these three spheres of authority may usurp power over the others. Each must respect the limits and powers of the other.

One of the most important parts of these new Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics would be safe guards placed in their new Biblically based constitutions.

These constitutions would guard against the rise of secular humanism or feminism ever being able to rise to power again in these nations.  To do this, there would be a certain list of interpretations and applications of the Bible which no law and no amendment to this constitution could ever change.

Some example laws for Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics

Below are some example laws I could think of just off the top of my head.  I am sure there could be many more. But the most important parts of these laws would be to protect the institution of marriage and by extension the family unit which forms the building blocks for any nation.

  1. The rights of men to exercise their Christian faith and worship the God of the Bible according to their own consciences shall not be infringed upon by any government entity. The freedom to interpret and apply the Bible and principles and doctrines of the Christian faith are between a man and God. However, in order to guard against certain heresies that would undermine marriage and the family a limited number of interpretations and applications of the Scriptures must be adhered to by all who live within the boundaries of this nation.  Those interpretations and applications are spelled out in the points that follow.
  2. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church and the wife is to submit to her husband in everything except if he commands her to break God’s moral law or the laws of this nation that do not usurp the authority of the husband and father over his family.
  3. Children are to obey their parents as long as their parents do not command them to break God’s moral law or the laws of this nation that do not usurp the authority of the husband and father over his family.
  4. Women are the property of men. This means husbands exercise full ownership over their wives, and fathers exercise full ownership of their daughters and sons. Their ownership over their sons would terminate upon the son reaching the age of manhood.
  5. A man may not marry a woman without her father’s permission. If her father is dead or the woman is a widow or divorced he should seek out another male relative of the woman under whose authority she has placed herself. Only in rare cases where a woman presents proof to a fellow kinsman defender that her father is unlawfully holding her back from all marriage may a judge decide to forfeit the rights of the father over his daughter.
  6. If a father or mother are found guilty of engaging in incestuous relations with any of their children they shall be banned from seeing their children again as well as punished in other ways as the judges see fit. If the guilty party is the father, then the judge shall grant temporary ownership of the children to the mother until she can find a new husband.
  7. A woman may not hold any position which gives her authority over men whether it be public office, in the work place, the church or any other place in society.
  8. Only adult men who are professing Christians may vote in elections. A woman, whether she is a professing Christian or not, may not vote in any election whether it be local, state or national elections or anything to do with church decision making.
  9. While all married women are under the authority of their husbands, previously married women whether they be widows or divorced should immediately place themselves back under the authority of their father or if he is dead they should find the closest adult male relative under whose authority they may find protection and guidance.
  10. Women may not own property and if a woman comes into an inheritance this inheritance comes under the ownership of her husband. If she is without a husband, then this inheritance would remain in a trust until she is wed to a husband to whom she may give herself and her inheritance.
  11. Only women who make vows of celibacy in service to God may enter higher education. Even then their higher education will be restricted to fields which involve caring for the sick like nursing, nurses aids, medical assistants or the care and education of children such as elementary school teachers.
  12. If a man willfully and in full neglect of his duties fails to provide his wife with food, clothing and shelter or denies his wife her conjugal rights in marriage she will seek out a kinsman defender to represent her cause to the judges. If the judges agree that willful and intentional neglect in any of these areas has been committed by the husband the judges shall declare the husband’s ownership over his wife to be forfeited and she is free to ask for a divorce.  If the neglect extended to the children as well the wife may request that the husband’s ownership of his children be transferred to her until she can find a new husband.
  13. If a man abuses his wife or children by causing serious bodily injury or life threatening injuries to them or if he willfully places his family in life threatening positions in neglect of his duty to protect them the wife may seek out a kinsman defender to represent her cause to the judges. If the judges agree that the husband rather than protecting his family from harm, has actually placed them in harm by his actions the judges shall declare the husband’s ownership over his wife to be forfeited and she is free to ask for a divorce.  If the abuse extended to the children as well the wife may request that the husband’s ownership of his children be transferred to her until she can find a new husband.
  14. A man may only divorce his wife for adultery or his wife’s denial of his conjugal rights. In either of these cases the woman is sent away without anything but the clothing on her back and she retains no rights to her children as her husband maintains full ownership of them.  If adultery is the cause of the divorce, the husband may ask a judge to impose a prison sentence as the judge sees it upon his wife.
  15. The right of men to keep and bear arms to secure their persons, their wives, their children, their homes and their other possessions may not be infringed upon by any government entity.
  16. The right of men to pursue through work or ingenuity their own private property including but not limited to lands and women shall not be infringed by any government entity.
  17. The government shall encourage the formation of private charities for various types of assistance (food, medical care and housing) to the poor. All government approved charities will be required to prove that at least 90 percent of all the funds they take in go directly helping the poor and no more than 10 percent goes to their overhead. Churches will be highly encouraged to participate as private charities. Still penalties and criminal prosecution may be pursued against groups that act as charities but keep a large part of the proceeds for themselves.
  18. Each man must present proof when he pays his taxes each year that he has donated at least 3.5 percent of his gross income to charitable causes whether it be a local church, a local soup kitchen, homeless shelters or some other cause which helps the poor. If the money was donated to his church, he must prove that the money went to help the poor. Charitable giving to support the operations of the church and its ministries to the poor must be separated.   Failure to donate at least 3.5 percent of one’s income to the poor through various approved charities will result in a 10 percent tax penalty collected by the government. These tax penalties for failure to give to the poor will be redistributed to approved charitable organizations.
  19. The government may only tax for the purposes of providing for law enforcement, public education, public infrastructure, and national defense. The only exception to this rule is the tax penalty allowed for failure to give to charitable organizations that help the poor. Other than this the government is restricted from taxing for the purposes of redistribution of wealth between various income groups.
  20. All public education is to be conducted in support of Biblical teachings. Only professing Christians may teach religion, philosophy or history programs. If a non-Christian teaches another type of course such as business, science or engineering they may not teaching opinions or philosophies which contradict the Christian faith.
  21. While no one may be forced to become a Christian or to attend a Christian church, all citizens of the nation must follow the moral laws of the Bible and also the laws of this nation which find their basis and authority in the Bible.
  22. Non-Christians including those who adhere to other faiths or those who adhere to no faith at all will be tolerated in small numbers provide they do not present a threat to the unity of the Christian faith of the nation. If the number of non-Christians rises to levels which the government deems too high or any one group of non-Christians disturbs the peace and unity in a local area, state or throughout the nation government authorities shall have power to remedy this situation through imprisonment or deportation to a non-Christian nation.

A Word to Non-Christians Reading This

If you are a Muslim reading this then what I have wrote here will make a lot of sense since the vast majority of Muslims do not believe in freedom of religion in a nation as most Americans believe in. But to secular humanists reading this the questions they will ask are “what if you took these same rules and applied them to Muslim nation, Hindu nation or some other non-Christian nation? Does the ideology that a nation is built around common religion, common ethnicity and common language still apply to them?

Before I give the answer to your question I want to share with you a statement from the Apostle Paul that is found in his first letter to the Corinthians:

“20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.”

I Corinthians 9:20-21 (KJV)

So in the words of the Apostle Paul – I am going to answer your questions on your level as a secular humanist (one who is does not believe in the law of God).

The answer to your questions is YES.  The same formula of common religion, common ethnicity and common language applies to all nations whether the majority of its citizens are Christian or not.  If the common religion, common ethnicity and common language of a nation is not protected by its government that nation will eventually fall.  All three are necessary for the survival, stability and security of any nation.

I have worked alongside many Muslims and Hindus over the years as a software developer.  While I consider their faiths to be false because I consider the Bible’s description of the character of God and the Christian faith to be far superior to those faiths, I will admit in the vast majority of cases they have strong marriages and a strong family ethic.  If a religion, even a false religion, promotes the sanctity marriage and family and a nation protects that religion as the common religion of the people it will in most cases lead to a more stable and secure nation.

Secular humanism, which in my opinion is actually a religion of sorts with the natural world and humanity as its god, does not pass this test.  Secular humanism leads to the weakening of marriages and the family unit.  Therefore even if a nation decided that it would be a secular humanist nation and it outlawed all religion (as many communist countries did) trying to unite the people around the common philosophy of secular humanism it would eventually fail.  The reason is that secular humanism by overemphasizing individualism and trying to take off the controls of the family actually weakens marriage and the family and in doing so it undermines its own society.

Conclusion

We can look back to the history of nations and see that nations that are not united around common religion, common ethnicity and common language ultimately fail.  Not only must nations share and protect these things but they must also promote the sanctify of marriage and the family as the building blocks of society, otherwise they too will perish.

The Christian faith and the Christian Bible are vastly superior to all other religions and ideologies in giving us a blue print for the sustainability of marriage and the family and thus the sustainability of nations.

The Bible tells us in Psalm 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord… but it also tells us in the book of Acts 5:29 that We ought to obey God rather than men. Only a Democratic Christian Theonomic Republic whose Constitution and laws are founded in the Bible and which protects the Christian faith from non-Christian interference can allow Christians to live in a culture where they never have to practice Acts 5:29.

America will not be an exception to history’s rule and neither will the rest of the Western world.  We as Christians must prepare our children who can then prepare our grandchildren for the future that is coming unless God directly intervenes in this world before that time.

UPDATE 4/18/2017

I have added some additional quotes(with references below) to statements from John Leland who was a highly influential Baptist preacher. He sought religious liberty and protections after Baptists in the colonies had been so badly treated by the state Anglican and Congregational churches.  He was one of the greatest influences on  Madison and the other founders in creating the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

References

[1] V. Davis, “America: History’s Exception”, National Review, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436347/america-melting-pot-immigrant-culture-made-country-great.

[2] John Leland, arranged by L.F. Greene, “The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland: Including Some Events in His Life”, G.W. Wood, 1845  [Available as Free Ebook Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?id=bMAiAAAAMAAJ&#v=onepage&q&f=false. Pg. 118

[3] Ibid, Pg. 184

[4] Ibid, Pg. 278

[5] Dwayne Hastings, “Religious freedom champion John Leland also active in public policy, Land says”, Baptist Press, 2000. [Online]. Available: http://www.bpnews.net/5785/religious-freedom-champion-john-leland-also-active-in-public-policy-land-says.

[6] John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles Little and James Brown, 1841), Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.
[7] Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), Vol. II, pp. 323-324.
[8] John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756.

[9] Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

[10] “What Is Secular Humanism?” SecularHumanism.org. [Online]. Available: https://secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260

[11] “Fertility rate, total (births per woman)” Data.Worldbank.Org, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

[12] N. Smith, “The Population Bomb Has Been Defused”, Bloomberg.com, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-16/decline-in-world-fertility-rates-lowers-risks-of-mass-starvation

[13] “Episode 5: 7 Billion People: Will Everyone Please Relax?” OverPopulationIsAMyth.com [Online]. Available: https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax/

It is Not a Woman’s Consent That Matters, It is God’s

The Bible’s teachings on when sexual relations may occur between a man and a woman are in direct conflict with the American Sexual Consent ideology that sadly even many Christians believe in. Some Christians are simply ignorant about what the Bible says regarding when sexual relations may occur.  Other Christians actually know what the Bible says about when sexual relations may occur and they choose to ignore such passages or explain them away as being irrelevant for our society.

If you are a Christian who knows what the Bible says about when sexual relations may occur between a man and woman and choose to ignore it or explain it away this article may do little to change your mind.  I pray that you will repent – but it is in God’s hands and not mine.

But my primary focus in this article is to talk to Christians, especially young Christians, who have grown up in Churches that have abandoned the teachings of the Bible.  I hope that when you are exposed to the teachings of God’s Word regarding sexual relations between a man and a woman you will open your heart and mind to what God has to say and let it change your life.

It is interesting to watch the civil war in feminism caused by the MeToo movement play itself out in feminist circles. On one side we have feminists like Christina Cauterucci at Slate.com arguing that MeToo has made “little progress” since its inception and much more needs to be done.  But on the other side we have feminist writers like Daphne Merkin at the New York Times that admit to having “misgivings” about the MeToo movement and its impact on male female relationships and especially on things like flirting and how men and women enter into sexual relationships with one another.

Daphne Merkin makes the following statement in her article entitled “Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings.”:

“What happened to women’s agency? That’s what I find myself wondering as I hear story after story of adult women who helplessly acquiesce to sexual demands. I find it especially curious given that a majority of women I know have been in situations in which men have come on to them — at work or otherwise. They have routinely said, “I’m not interested” or “Get your hands off me right now.” And they’ve taken the risk that comes with it.

The fact that such unwelcome advances persist, and often in the office, is, yes, evidence of sexism and the abusive power of the patriarchy. But I don’t believe that scattershot, life-destroying denunciations are the way to upend it. In our current climate, to be accused is to be convicted. Due process is nowhere to be found.

And what exactly are men being accused of? What is the difference between harassment and assault and “inappropriate conduct”? There is a disturbing lack of clarity about the terms being thrown around and a lack of distinction regarding what the spectrum of objectionable behavior really is. Shouldn’t sexual harassment, for instance, imply a degree of hostility? Is kissing someone in affection, however inappropriately, or showing someone a photo of a nude male torso necessarily predatory behavior?

I think this confusion reflects a deeper ambivalence about how we want and expect people to behave. Expressing sexual interest is inherently messy and, frankly, nonconsensual — one person, typically the man, bites the bullet by expressing interest in the other, typically the woman — whether it happens at work or at a bar. Some are now suggesting that come-ons need to be constricted to a repressive degree. Asking for oral consent before proceeding with a sexual advance seems both innately clumsy and retrograde, like going back to the childhood game of “Mother, May I?” We are witnessing the re-moralization of sex, not via the Judeo-Christian ethos but via a legalistic, corporate consensus.”

While Daphne Merkin raises many good points in the above article the point I wanted to zoom in on is her statement that Expressing sexual interest is inherently messy….

And why is expressing sexual interest a “messy” endeavor today? I submit to you the reason for the messiness of expressing sexual interest lies squarely at the feet of the Free Love movement in America that begin in the mid-19th century as a theory that eventually became an American cultural reality in the 1960s’.

The majority of this article will be spent showing how the whole “sexual consent” philosophy in America finds its roots in rebellion against God.  I will also show how it directly conflicts with the Biblical view of how men and women are to enter into sexual relations with one another.  At the end of this article I will show why God’s appointed way for men and women to express sexual interest in one another is not “messy” like methods of showing sexual interest are today. In fact God’s way in this regard is far less complicated.

The Roots of “Sexual Consent” ideology and the Free Love Movement in America

One of the founding fathers of Feminism as well as the Sexual Consent and Free Love ideologies in America was a man named Moses Harman (1830-1910).

William Lemore West penned an article entitled “The Moses Harman Story” for the Kansas Historical Society on Mr. Harman’s life and his accomplishments.

In that article he states of Moses Harman that he “not only denounced all forms of government and religion, but added a new dimension in reform by advocating that women be freed from sexual slavery by abolishing the institution of marriage. Harman did not develop these views until comparatively late in his life.”

West also alludes to Harman’s name change on the publication he would later gain fame for:

“The publication changed title again in 1883. Harman maintained that subscribers objected to the term “Kansas” in the paper’s title because the name was local in character. His subscribers also opposed the term “liberal” since so many newspapers and journals used the term in their titles. For these reasons he changed the publication’s title to Lucifer the Light Bearer (hereafter called Lucifer). The title was selected, stated Harman, because it expressed the paper’s mission. Lucifer, the name given the morning star by the people of the ancient world, served as the symbol of the publication and represented the ushering in of a new day. He declared that freethinkers had sought to redeem and glorify the name Lucifer while theologians cursed him as the prince of the fallen angels. Harman suggested that Lucifer would take on the role of an educator. “The god of the Bible doomed mankind to perpetual ignorance,” wrote Harman, “and [people] would never have known Good from Evil if Lucifer had not told them how to become as wise as the gods themselves.”

West shows us Harman’s defining belief in “equal freedom”:

“”Yes, I believe in Freedom — equal freedom. I want no freedom for myself that all others may not equally enjoy. Freedom that is not equal is not freedom. It is, or may easily become, invasion, and invasion is the denial or the death of freedom. The Spencerian formula — ‘Each has the right to do as he pleases so long as he does not invade the equal right of others,’ tells what freedom means. It is equivalent to saying that liberty, wedded to responsibility for one’s acts, is the true and only basis of good conduct, or of morality.” — From a “Free Man’s Creed,” by Moses Harman. The picture and quotation were copied from the Memorial of Moses Harman.”

West shows Harman’s animosity toward religion and “particularly Christianity”:

“Religion, particularly Christianity, came under heavy verbal attack by Harman. He contended that religion was based on ignorance of nature’s methods and fear of the unseen powers that were supposedly warring over human destiny. Religion was dangerous, declared Harman, because “fear begets hate, and hate results in oppression, war, and bloodshed.” [55] Later he suggested:

Cling not to the cross of a dead god for help in time of trouble, but stand erect like a man and resolutely meet the consequences of your acts, whatever they may be. . . . Every man [and woman] must be his own physician, his own priest, his own god and savior, if he is ever healed, purified, and saved. [56]”

West speaks to Harman’s hatred of the institution of marriage below:

“Harman opposed the institution of marriage because he considered it an unequal yoke. [65] He maintained that marital rights were limited to the rights of the husband, with the wife being but a slave to her master husband. [66] The promises of marriage to “love, obey, and honor,” said Harman, were immoral because there was no reasonable assurance that the two persons would be able to carry out the promises. [67] Love and freedom were supposedly destroyed by marriage. “If love survives marriage,” alleged Harman, “it is not because of it but in spite of it.” [68]”

West presents Harman’s vision of a “rational” family:

“He believed that the abolition of marriage would result in the birth of fewer children since children would be welcomed and cared for by mutual affection. He looked forward to the emergence of a new “rational” family where each member would “drop to his place like stones in an arch when artificial props are removed.” [72] This new family would be under the domination of the mother. [73]”

West shows Harman’s view that women needed financial independence from men:

“On another occasion he stressed that women would never have political independence until they earned enough money to command respect. This was not possible, said Harman, because women spend most of their good years bearing and rearing children. [75]”

David S. D’Amato in his article “Free Love: Moses Harman” for Libertarianism.org writes that Harman’s views formed the basis of a “lexicon” for the values that Americans now hold today:

“Moses Harman was a dauntless and pioneering early voice for feminism, sexual and reproductive freedoms, and free expression. His periodical Lucifer was arguably the most important publication of the free love movement, so important a part of latter nineteenth century American radicalism. Harman’s work anticipates much of a lexicon we now take for granted in the public conversation on women’s rights and family planning.

Fighting censorship and the oppression of women, Harman finds victory today through the strength of his ideas and their legacy, even if he often lost to the forces of reaction and authority in his own time. Harman thus offers a glimmer of hope to libertarians, to a group that looks forward to a freer and more tolerant society, yet realizes that it likely waits far off, beyond the horizon. For while Harman was widely considered an insane old crank in his lifetime, he is vindicated in the present.

 

Moses Harman And the Invention of Marital Rape

Wendy McElroy wrote an article for Foxnews.com entitled “Spousal Rape Case Sparks Old Debate” arguing against the historical marital rape exception that has existed in Western law until recent decades. In this article she alludes to who was responsible for first nationwide discussion of the possibility of marital rape:

“Western jurisprudence has a long tradition of absolving husbands from the possibility of rape. The first significant discussion in America of forced sex within marriage being categorized as rape, and of the need for a legal remedy, may well have been “The Markland Letter,” which was published in 1887 in a Kansas newspaper.

The letter read, “About a year ago F——— gave birth to a baby, and was severely torn by the instruments in incompetent hands. She has gone through three operations and all failed…last night when her husband came down, forced himself into her bed, and the stitches were torn from her healing flesh, leaving her in worse condition than ever...

The Markland letter became nationally notorious largely because its graphic description of violence left little doubt that the husband was a rapist despite the law.”

 

The “Kansas newspaper” she alludes to was Moses Harman’s “Lucifer the Light Bearer”.

Merril D. Smith in her book “Sex Without Consent: Rape and Sexual Coercion in America” gives us some more detail on the Markland letter:

“A good example is provided by Dr. W.G. Markland who sent Moses Harman, the editor of Lucifer, Light Bearer a letter from a close female friend which described the experiences of a woman who had recently given birth. Because of the incompetence of her attending physicians she suffered lacerations and subsequently endured several painful operations to correct her condition. While she was recuperating from her latest experience under the surgeon’s knife, Markland reported, her husband “forced himself into her bed and the stitches were torn from her healing flesh, leaving her in a worse condition than ever.” Incensed by this behavior, Markland was even more irate that the wife had no legal recourse to punish her attacker. “Will you point to a law that will punish this brute?” he rhetorically asked is reader. “If a man stabs his wife to death with a knife,” he continued, “does not the law hold him for murder?” But if he “murders her with his penis, what does the law do?”” – page 214

And from this letter from Dr. Markland published in Harman’s Lucifer the Light Bearer publication a national debate was started about the possibility of marital rape. Harman would quickly receive many letters from others that would claim there was an epidemic of women across America dying as a result for forced sex from their husbands.  Merril D. Smith concedes that there were many who doubted the accounts and many who believed the Free Lovers contention that “thousands” of these events were happening across the nation were exaggerations:

“Throughout the nineteenth century critics of the Free Lovers were quick to deny their claims of the prevalence of marital sexual abuse in the Victorian bedroom. In 1854, for example, Adin Ballou Argued that these sexual radicals “are prone to exaggerate the evils of dual marriage. They seem to think the best half of their battle is won, if they can only make these evils appear sufficiently dreadful. Accordingly, they harp incessantly on this string.” As part of their project to eliminate marriage, the Free Lovers clearly had a stake in publicizing these incidents of abuse.  They did not, however, make them up.” – page 218

The problem with the Markland Letter case was not with its condemnation of the husband’s behavior. I think the vast majority of Christians would agree both then and now that what he did to his wife was wrong.

As a Bible believing Christian and a firm believer in God’s institution of marriage and a husband’ sexual rights to his wife’s body I can easily show that God condemned the behavior of the husband in the Markland Letter based on the Biblical principle that husbands are to care for the needs of their wife’s bodies as they do their own.

“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)

Would the advocates of the false proposition of marital rape agree with us as Bible believing Christians that what the husband in the Markland Letter did was physical abuse even to the point of possibly endangering his wife’s life? Of course, they would.

But from a Biblical perspective it is absolutely impossible for a man to rape his wife because a man can only rape a woman he is not married to.  

In other words, from a Biblical perspective forced sex within the confines of marriage is not and cannot ever be classified as rape, but only forced sex outside of the confines of marriage can rightly be considered rape.

Also I need to point out something very important for Christians to understand about rape.  The world says rape is immoral because it violates a woman’s consent to sexual relations but the Bible shows us rape is wrong because it violates God’s consent for a man to have sexual relations with a woman.  God only consents to a man having sexual relations with a woman if he has entered into a covenant of marriage with her and then he may have sex with her “at all times” as Proverbs 5:19 commands.

However, Ephesians 5:28-29’s command for men to care for the needs of their wife’s body is a Biblical caveat to Proverbs 5:19’s exhortation for men to sexually satisfy themselves with their wife’s body at all times.   

While we as Christians should reject the false construct of marital rape we should certainly recognize the possibility of a husband physically abusing his wife and this Markland Letter case shows the husband did just that.  A woman’s genitals need time to heal after giving birth.  Even if the surgery was for something different than complications after child birth – if a husband forces himself on his wife with complete disregard for the damage it may cause her after surgery this is a clear violation of the Ephesians 5:28-29 principle that he is to care for the welfare of his wife’s body.

The truth is that free love advocates and feminists had (and still have today) a more insidious agenda.  They did not want to simply condemn physical abuses which occurred in this marriage situation or others.  They wanted to condemn the entire concept of Christian marriage itself with the husband as the head of the wife as an abusive relational construct and they wanted to eliminate traditional marriage from American society.

Now that we have shown the evil roots and true agenda of the Free Love and Sexual Consent ideologies we will now look at the fruit of these wicked movements in the form of modern “Sexual Consent” teachings.

The Biblical View of Sex Vs the Sexual Consent Ideology

Planned Parenthood has an article on their website entitled “Sexual Consent” which I think is a good representation of the tenets of modern Sexual Consent Ideology.  Below I will take several of those tenets they list and compare these tenets to what the Bible says about sexual relations between men and women.

Marriage is in Agreement to Sexual Activity

Sexual Consent Ideology says “Sexual consent is an agreement to participate in a sexual activity” but the Bible says Marriage IS an agreement to participate in a sexual activity:

“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.”

I Corinthians 7:3 (KJV)

“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.”

Exodus 21:10 (KJV)

Before You Can Be Sexual With Someone You Must Marry Them

Sexual Consent Ideology says “Before being sexual with someone, you need to know if they want to be sexual with you too” but the Bible says before being sexual with someone you need to be married to them first:

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

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

The Only Sexual Consent Required in Marriage is Consent to NOT have Sex

Sexual Consent Ideology says “Both people must agree to sex — every single time — for it to be consensual.” But the Bible says both people within a covenant of marriage must agree to NOT have sex.  Yes, sir and Yes mam you read that right.  The only mutual agreement regarding sex the Bible speaks to is the cessation of sex for short periods of mutually agreed time and then the couple is admonished to come back together in sexual union again:

“Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

I Corinthians 7:5 (KJV)

A Man Has God’s Consent to Have Sex with His Wife at All Times

Sexual Consent Ideology says “Without consent, sexual activity (including oral sex, genital touching, and vaginal or anal penetration) is sexual assault or rape” but the Bible says God has given a man his consent to have sex with his wife “at all times” regardless of her consent:

“18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:18-19 (KJV)

Sex in Marriage is a Duty, NOT a Choice

Sexual Consent Ideology says “Consenting is a choice you make without pressure, manipulation, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol” but the Bible says sexual relations within marriage are a duty that the spouses have towards each other, not a choice (Exodus 21:10, I Corinthians 7:3).

Wives are to Sexually Submit to Their Husbands in Everything

Sexual Consent Ideology says “When it comes to sex, you should only do stuff you WANT to do, not things that you feel you’re expected to do” but the Bible commands wives to be in subjection to their husbands in everything:

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

Ephesians 5:24 (KJV)

The only exception to “every thing” is Acts 5:24’s exception that “We ought to obey God rather than man”.  That means if a woman’s husband asks her to participate in a threesome with another man she can rightly refuse his request because that would be a sin against God.  If, however he as her husband asks her to manually stimulate him, perform oral sex on him or have intercourse or other types of sexual activity with him this would fall under Ephesians 5:24’s “every thing” clause.

The Implicit Sexual Consent of the Marriage Covenant is Non-reversible

Sexual Consent Ideology says “Anyone can change their mind about what they feel like doing, anytime. Even if you’ve done it before, and even if you’re both naked in bed” but God says sexual consent which is given in the marriage covenant is NOT reversible but rather is a lifelong commitment:

“For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.”

Romans 7:2 (KJV)

You Don’t Get the Final Say Over Your Body, God Does

Sexual Consent Ideology says “You get the final say over what happens with your body” but God says your body belongs to him and in marriage he has given your body to your spouse for their sexual use:

The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Psalm 24:1 (KJV)

“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”

1 Corinthians 6:19 (KJV)

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

I Corinthians 7:4 (KJV)

The entire American concept of “It’s my body I can do what I want with it” flies directly in the face of a central tenet of Biblical Christianity that the world and all of us who live in it or have ever lived belong to God.  This false philosophy of bodily autonomy was a foundational building block of the Sexual Revolution and also formed the basis of heinous so called “abortion rights”.

I am fine with God having authority over my life and body, but no man is going to tell me what to do!

Many Christian women have this attitude toward male headship in marriage and they refuse to see the utter contradiction such an attitude is with the clear teachings of the Scriptures.

It is absolutely true that the Bible says “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (II Corinthians 3:17) and there is no doubt in my mind that the spirit of the Lord was present at the founding of the United States of America.

On June 28, 1813 America’s second president John Adams wrote these words in a letter to America’s third president Thomas Jefferson:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294.

As we previously pointed out, one of the general principles of Christianity is that we are not our own and that God has authority over our person and our bodies (Psalm 24:1, 1 Corinthians 6:19).   But many Christians reject the fact that God as our owner can and does delegate authority over us to other human beings.

Yes – God has made us free, both men and women, but we are warned not to use our freedom to serve our own selfish and sinful desires:

“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”

Galatians 5:13 (KJV)

God has not freed us so that we can serve our own selfish desires, but he has freed us to serve him. King David spoke of the relationship between the freedom God wants his people to have and the service to his law:

“And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.

Psalm 119:45 (KJV)

What this means is – we are free to serve God and live our lives within the bounds of his law. Moses Harman’s ideology that “Freedom that is not equal is not freedom” does not match up with the Biblical teaching of what freedom actually is.  Sadly a lot of American Christians over the last century or so have bought into Harman’s false philosophy that everyone must have equal rights or they are being treated as less than human or in an unjust manner.

The Bible actually teaches that there are several classes of people to whom God gives different rights.  The slave class was the lowest social class and contrary to assertions otherwise God did give slaves rights(Exodus 20:10, Exodus 21:26-28, Job 31:13-15 & Colossians 4:1) .

The Bible teaches that slaves were to be taken care of and treated justly and fairly by their masters.  It tells masters that just as they came from their mother’s womb, so too did their slaves reminding them to treat them as fellow human beings. The Bible condemned masters who killed their slaves and if they seriously injured their slaves they were required by God to grant freedom to those slaves.

So in this way the slave class of the Bible actually formulates basic human rights under God’s law.  Every social class above the slave class has these same rights and then more rights. Other Biblical social classes include indentured male and female servants, children, slave wives(concubines), free wives and finally free men.  Free men had the most rights of any social class under God’s order.

Even in the New Testament slaves are still commanded to obey their masters and the Apostle Paul even returned a runaway slave(Philemon 1:10-18). Wives are still commanded to submit to their husbands(Ephesians 5:22-24) and children are still commanded to obey their parents(Ephesians 6:1-3) clearly proving that these social classes remain as part of God’s order.

The point is that the Bible in direct contradiction to Moses Harman and the modern American philosophy that “Freedom that is not equal is not freedom” shows us that freedom is not in fact based in equality.

God calls slaves “freedmen” in the sense that they were spiritually free but yet he told them to accept their earthly position as slaves while if they could be free to take that opportunity.

“20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.”

I Corinthians 7:20-24 (NASB)

For more on what the Bible actually says about slavery see my article “Why Christians should not be ashamed of slavery in the Bible“.

But in the context of the discussion of this article – men and women do not have the same rights and freedoms under God’s law yet they are both considered to be free.  God does not base our human value on our equal rights and freedoms with one another – but instead he bases it on the fact that we were created for his honor and glory and our value comes from fulfilling the role he has given us to play.

Isn’t it Selfish For a Man to Have Sex With His Wife When She is Not in The Mood?

Now some Christians at this point may be asking “Even though men and women have different rights under God’s law, isn’t it a selfish desire for a man to want sex with his wife when she tells him she is not in the mood?”  One of the most popular articles I ever wrote on the blog addresses that topic and it is entitled “Is a husband selfish for having sex with his wife when she is not the mood?” I hope you will take the time to read it with an open heart and an open mind. The answer I show from the Scriptures in that article is NO it is not selfish for a man to desire sex with his wife when she is not in the mood.

The Giving and Taking of Women in Marriage

Now I will demonstrate from the Scriptures that God’s law regarding a woman’s consent to sexual activity does not resolve around her choice, but rather it is based in God’s consent and the consent of the men whom he has placed in authority over women.

We start with the fact that God has granted ownership to a father over his daughter. Under God’s law, a father could sell his daughter as an indentured servant (Exodus 21:7-11) with the possibility that his daughter could become a wife to the man or a son of the man she was sold to.

In fact, in the Scriptures there is a consistent teaching that women are GIVEN in marriage (mostly by their fathers) and TAKEN in marriage by their husbands.

God commanded men to take wives for themselves and to give their daughters in marriage and take wives for their sons as well:

Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.”

Jeremiah 29:6 (KJV)

Jesus recognizing this principle of men taking women in marriage and women being given in marriage stated:

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

Matthew 22:30 (KJV)

So yes ladies – that cute tradition of a father walking his daughter down the isle and giving his daughter away in marriage is not just tradition – it is by the command of God and has been practiced in one form or another since the beginning of creation.

Now that we have shown the ownership of the father over his daughter we will now discuss the ownership of a husband over his wife.

The sad fact is many Christians in American society refuse to accept that the Bible is crystal clear in its language that marriage is in fact a transfer of ownership of a daughter from her father to her husband.

The Hebrew Word ‘baal’ meaning “owner/master” in noun form or “to be owned” in verb form is often used when referring to a woman’s husband and it is always used when speaking of marriage occurring between a man and woman. While there are many Old Testament examples that prove this the follow passage from the book of Deuteronomy demonstrates the noun and verb uses of ‘baal’ and the ownership of a husband over his wife:

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

Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)

Ephesians 5:22-31 clearly states that God created marriage to be a model of the relationship of God to his people with man representing God and woman representing the people of God. In the Old Testament this was pictured in God’s marriage to Israel and in the New Testament this is pictured in Christ’s relationship to his Church.

The fact is that even in Christ’s relationship to his Church it is clear that he “purchased” his bride (Acts 20:28) as all other husbands had since the beginning of creation.

Many Christian feminists while proudly claiming that men should follow Ephesians 5:25’s admonition for husbands to love their wives AS Christ loved the Church then in the same breath deny what the verses in front of it just said that the husband is the head of the wife AS Christ is the head of the Church and that wives are to submit to their husbands AS the Church submits to Christ.   Ladies – you can’t have your cake and eat it too.  You can’t take one part of what God says about his design for marriage in Ephesians chapter 5 while rejecting the other parts of it.  You take it all or you reject it all.

A Biblical Case Study in Sexual Consent

In the book of Exodus, we find a very interesting case study into the mind of God regarding the issue of sexual consent.

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

Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)

In verse 16 we are told that if a man entices a virgin (literally he seduces her) into having sexual relations with him we are told he has an obligation to make her his wife which would require him to enter into a covenant of marriage with her.  But then in verse 17 we read that God allows the father to “utterly refuse to give her unto him”.

When you look closely these two verses handle two different situations.  The first verse covers “Casanovas” or what we today would call “players”.  The second verse covers the “forbidden love” scenario.

God Condemns the Scheming Ways of Casanovas and Players

When the Bible commanded that the man must make the woman he enticed into extramarital relations his wife this was civil punishment and restitution that had to be made for his breaking of God’s moral law. This covers the Casanova who tries to have that “one-night stand” with a woman.  This covers the playboy who thinks he can seduce women into having sex with him outside of a covenant of marriage.

So, in this first scenario the man had no intention of marrying the woman – he just wanted to get some and he may have used all kinds of emotional trickery on the woman to convince her into having sex with him.  He may even have told her he loved her and wanted to ask her father’s hand in marriage.  He just wants a “taste” of the goods and then he will ask her father – or so he told her.

The next day after she naively gives herself to him he acts as if it never happened leaving her with the loss of her virginity and ruining her for other men.   This is the situation God was meaning to address by forcing the man to marry the woman he had just enticed.

Most men and women would call this first man I have just described a pig.  We would all be equally disgusted by his deceitful actions toward these young virgins while at the same time we must recognize these women also sinned by allowing him to entice them into sexual relations outside of a marriage covenant.

God Also Condemns Forbidden Love

But in verse 17 we see another scenario God is addressing.   This is a scenario that has played out in many “romance” stories over the years. Perhaps a daughter comes to her father and tells him of a cute young man that she wishes for him to arrange marriage for her to.  Her father refuses.  His reason might be character issues with the man or it might simply be economic issues.   The father may have told his daughter that he had a few other men in mind that were wealthier and could care for her better than this man she is attracted to.  Perhaps her marriage to one of these other men will provide a political or business alliance that will benefit her father. She tells her father “but I am not attracted to any of those men and I love this other man”.

Her father puts his foot down and tells his daughter “Enough! You are not marrying that man and I will hear no more of it.  I will let you know which of these other men I have chosen for you shortly.”  So, the daughter decides to take things into her own hands.  She decides she will go and have sex with the man she loves (lusts after) believing her father will be forced to give her to him in marriage.  Perhaps this man who also wants her for his wife has planted the idea in her head that her father will give her to him rather than refuse and risk her never marrying.

So, she comes to the man whom her father has refused and gives herself to the man who has so desperately wanted her.  At this point in the story most women and even a lot of men – Christian men and women would be rooting for the poor girl as she should have been able to chose the man she wanted right? WRONG.  The young virgin woman had absolutely NO right under God’s law to consent to sexual relations with that man. This entire scheme would be wicked before God.

This is why God grants father’s the right of refusal even if a man entices their daughter into sexual relations which means she has freely given herself to him (she was not forced).  This part of God’s law would work as deterrent to women who thought they could control their own sexuality or control what man they would marry.

This law taught women “If you give yourself to a man outside of lawfully approved marriage by your father – you might end up an old maid that never marries”.  So, a woman would be faced with this scenario – “Do I want to risk my father saying no because I sinned against him and God and risk being single the rest of my life or will I simply follow my father’s wishes and marry a man I am not attracted to but at least I will not be alone and I will have a husband and children?”

Men Can Make Women’s Virginity Precious Again

The sad commentary on our time is that a woman’s virginity is no longer the precious commodity to our culture that God declared it to be in the Scriptures.  Women have no fear that losing their virginity could relegate them to a lonely life with no marriage and no children as the women in the Bible feared.

We as Christians and especially young men and have allowed this to occur.  In the same way we men allowed feminism to rise we gave up the preciousness of a woman’s virginity by dating women who are not virgins.  Imagine if every Christian man made a commitment that he would never date or marry a woman who was not virgin unless her virginity was lost under these conditions:

  1. It was lost to her husband who died.
  2. It was lost to her husband from whom she was divorced (and she was the innocent party).
  3. It was lost because she was raped.

Would this not motivate young women to greatly guard their sexual purity? And yes, I know what all the egalitarians are saying – “what about the men?” Could these same rules be applied to men in order to promote sexual purity among young men as well? I think the answer is yes with the caveat that under Biblical law men may not be virgins when they marry a woman because they can have more than one wife.  But that is part of a larger discussion on polygamy which I have had elsewhere.  Another caveat in applying this to men is that as we have discussed in regard to young virgins living in their father’s home it is not the daughter that sets criteria for potential spouses but the father.

And just to be clear on this passage from Exodus – the man being forced to marry the woman he enticed to have sex with him and also the payment of the bride price even if the father refused were part of the civil laws of Israel.  These were restitutions that had to be made for breaking God’s moral law in either of the two scenarios we just described.

That’s just the Old Testament!

There are many Christians right now that have completely tuned out everything I have just written with the following thought in their head:

“Well that is just Old Testament and we as Christians are no longer under the Old Testament so Christian fathers have no right over their daughters sexual or marriage choices! Do you still stone people for adultery and do you still eat pork? If you don’t do these things then don’t talk to me about fathers control over their daughter’s decisions with their own bodies and their own lives. These decisions are between women and God.”

If you actually want to understand how the Bible works and the difference between the moral, ceremonial and civil laws of Israel and the fact that the Jesus Christ himself asserted the moral laws of the Old Testament I encourage you to read these articles I have written on the subject.

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

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

Conclusion

The sad commentary on our time is that David S. D’Amato is absolutely right that our society has almost completely embraced the ideologies of Moses Harman with the big exception of his anarchist views. Feminists and Free Lovers actually went the opposite way on government and used the power of government to impose their views on American society.

Harman’s views of Christianity, men and women, gender roles and marriage which were considered “insane” a little more than a century ago are now “taken for granted” as truths that may no longer be questioned.

In the beginning of this article I alluded to Daphne Merkin’s statement in her New York Times article that “Expressing sexual interest is inherently messy…” in our modern American culture and I said I would explain at the end of this article why God’s appointed method of men and women expressing sexual interest is not messy at all but actually it is very easy when we do things his way.

Previously I alluded to several important passages of the Scriptures that directly speak to sex in marriage and they are Exodus 21:10, Proverbs 5:18-19, I Corinthians 7:2-5 and Ephesians 5:22-24.

Proverbs 5:18-19 teaches that a husband is commanded by God to sexually satisfy himself with his wife’s body at all times. Exodus 21:10 teaches that a husband has an obligation to provide his wife sexual access to his body.  I Corinthians 7:2-5 teaches that in marriage sex is both a right and responsibility for both the husband and the wife. Ephesians 5:22-24 teaches that wives are to submit to their husbands in everything and that includes their husband’s sexual preferences as long as he does not ask them to engage in sinful sexual acts (I gave the example a husband asking his wife to have sex with another man as an example of a sinful sexual request).

I also talked about God’s process for how men and women are to enter into sexual relations.  I showed how God only consents to a man and woman having sexual relations in the covenant of marriage.  I also showed God’s process for men and women entering into marriage after which they are allowed and are in fact commanded to have sexual relations with one another.

In modern America men have to flirt with women, flatter women or otherwise try and romance them to even have a chance of having having sex with them.  It is actually a very risky proposition for men and in the advent of the MeToo era it is even riskier as it might cost you your job. It truly is a “messy” process as Daphne Merkin calls it.

But in God’s design men did not have to flirt with women, flatter women or romance them to get them to have sex with them but rather they purchased the women they desired as Christ purchased his Church in Acts 20:28.

This was the process under normal conditions.  A man went to the woman’s father and expressed his interest in his daughter.  If he agreed to give his daughter to the man the man would return and present the bride price at which time the father would give his daughter to the man and he would then consummate the marriage by taking her sexually as his wife. From that point on he would take his wife sexually anytime he pleased and the wife would also have sexual access to his body as well.

A little note on the bride price.  While a man did not literally have to die to purchase his wife as Christ did to acquire his Church many men often had to save a half a years wages to purchase a wife.  That could take them several years to save. The Bible tells us of Jacob that he purchased Rachel by giving sevens years of labor to her father:

And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.”

Genesis 29:20 (KJV)

The Bible tells us that Rachel was a beautiful woman and her sister was something other than “beautiful and well favoured”.

Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.

Genesis 29:17 (KJV)

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

So apparently Rachel was so hot that Jacob served not one year or two years but seven years to purchase her as his wife!

But as we can see with God’s method of men and women entering into sexual relations with one another there is no mess, no fuss and no games. Some might argue that there was in fact a game that was played by Laban when he tricked Jacob into taking Leah as his wife first.  But that was a false contract and was sin before God. Regardless though Jacob being a noble man still kept Leah as his wife.

The point is it is a lot less complicated than what Daphne Merkin described as the MeToo movement’s goal of sex as “the childhood game of “Mother, May I?”.

What that means in practical terms is since I married my wife I can come touch her sexually any time I want.  If I want to come up behind her in the kitchen and cup her breasts in my hands as she washes the dishes I can do that.  I don’t have to ask her permission to do so.  If I want to slide my hands down her thighs and touch her groin area I don’t have to ask her permission to do so. If I want to slap her on the rear end as I walk by her, again I don’t have to ask her permission to do so. And finally, if I want to initiate sexual relations with her I don’t have to ask her permission before doing so.

In the same way if my wife wants to come by and grab my groin she has every right to do so as my wife.  If she wants to come by and slap me on the rear end she has every right to do so.   If while I am sleeping in the morning my wife decides to get on top of me and start having sex with me she has every right to do so as God has given her sexual access to my body.

Now we also understand that there is a Biblical caveat to our sexual access to our spouse’s body in that we are to care for the wellbeing of our spouse (Ephesians 5:28-29).  That means as Christians we can rightly condemn the actions of the husband who forces himself on his wife after surgery or child birth and thus endangers her by do so but at the same time we can uphold a husband’s right to have sex with his wife even if she may simply not be in the mood.

My point is if we enter into sexual relations following God’s design there is absolutely no chance of sexual harassment ever happening.  It is impossible for me to grope my wife (because she belongs to me) or for her to grope me (because God has given her sexual access to my body).  There is no messiness to sex in marriage when we remove the world’s evil ideas about sexual consent.

It is only when we bring the tenets of sexual consent ideology into sexual relations in marriage that sexual initiation then becomes “messy”.  If a husband has his hand slapped away by his wife she is sinfully making sexual initiation “messy” for her husband and sadly many women do that today.  If a husband would rather look at porn and masturbate than have sex when his wife reaches for him that makes sexual initiation “messy” for his wife.

And finally, on this topic of sexual consent – I have demonstrated here with conclusive proof that both in their origins and their agendas that the Sexual Consent and Free Love movements were founded in evil philosophies that were directly opposed to the God of the Bible and God’s institution of marriage.

God does not consent to two men or two women having sexual relations with one another even if they have given their “free” and “enthusiastic” consent to one another.

God does not give his consent to a man and woman having sexual relations with one another because they have both freely and enthusiastically given consent to one another.

God ONLY gives his consent to a man and woman having sexual relations when they have lawfully entered into a marriage covenant according the Scriptures.  Once a man and woman have entered into the covenant of marriage, not only does God consent to them having sexual relations but he commands it.

As Christians we would agree with the MeToo movement that men should not be making unwanted sexual advances in the work place or implying that their female coworkers or subordinates need to perform sexual acts to get promotions or keep their jobs.

But while we agree with MeToo that these actions by men are wrong – we very much disagree as to WHY these actions are wrong.  MeToo following the false Sexual Consent ideology says these unwanted sexual advances are wrong because they violate a woman’s consent.  For MeToo – if the woman expressed clear consent to having sexual relations with a coworker or even her boss then there is no wrong committed by the man in responding to her.

However, for us as Bible believing Christians a man making unwanted sexual advances toward a woman he is not married to whether in the workplace or elsewhere is wrong not because it violates the woman’s consent, but because it violates God’s consent to him having sexual relations with that woman.

We can all agree that physical abuse does occur in some marriages even if we might debate what actually constitutes physical abuse. Also as Christians we can agree that Ephesians 5:28-29 condemns husbands physically abusing their wives.  But as Christians we may never classify any physical abuse in marriage as rape because the false construct of marital rape implies that a wife may reject her husband’s sexual advances.

The Scriptures show that a woman may only resist a man’s sexual advances if she is not married to him and in the case of the man not being married to her she is required to resist his advances. That is why from a Biblical perspective a woman’s consent to sexual relations is really an oxymoron. Before marriage she has no choice but to say NO and after marriage she has no choice but to say YES.

It is not the woman’s consent that matters, it is Gods.