Below are 10 things every Christian husband must “unlearn” that men are taught by our post-feminist culture in order to unleash and fully realize the masculine nature that God designed him with:
You must unlearn thinking that it is impossible for a man to support his family on his own.
You must unlearn thinking that is wrong for a man to exercise complete control over the finances in his home.
You must unlearn thinking that that it is wrong for you to try to control your wife.
You must unlearn thinking that that it is wrong for you to rebuke and discipline your wife.
You must unlearn thinking that you must get permission from your wife for anything.
You must unlearn thinking that is wrong for you to help your wife formulate her worldview, including her view of how the roles of husband and wife play out in marriage.
You must unlearn thinking that it is selfish to want to mold your wife to your preferences, including but not limited to – having her cook the food you like, wearing the clothes you like and keeping her hair the way you like it.
You must unlearn thinking that it is selfish to want to spend time away from your wife whether just in solitude by yourself or with other men.
You must unlearn thinking that it is selfish for you to spend time and money on hobbies you enjoy as a man.
You must unlearn thinking that it is selfish to want sex from your wife whenever and however you so desire it, even when she is not in the mood.
To learn more about how to unleash and fully realize your God given nature as a man go to my podcast site BGRLearning.com. There you can listen podcasts that will teach you straight out of the Bible what it means to be man and you can let God’s Word wash away your post-feminist cultural conditioning.
Many books and articles have been written on various Christian views about the biblically allowable reasons for divorce. But few books and articles have been written on how to navigate the divorce process once you as a man find yourself in the thick of it. And even amongst the small amount of literature written for Christians on navigating the divorce process – there are none that approach this subject from a truly biblical viewpoint. And that is the problem this guide is meant to remedy.
I went through the process of divorce as a Christian man more than a decade ago. And I received a lot of conflicting advice as well as advice that did not match up with the Bible. I wish I would have had a Biblical guide like this then.
If you as a Christian man want to navigate the process of divorce using Biblical principles then you must first be willing to throw out all your modern cultural conditioning. And when I say “modern” I don’t just mean the last few decades. I mean cultural conditioning that was set in motion in Western civilization more than five centuries ago.
In this guide I will give you a brief history lesson on societal views of divorce starting with Biblical times, then moving to the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods and finally bringing us through the 19th and 20th centuries. I will show you how the seeds for all the changes in marriage and divorce were planted more than five centuries ago. And I will demonstrate how all these changes deviated from God’s design of gender roles, marriage and even his allowance for divorce.
Rest assured though that this guide will not just supply you with knowledge of how the divorce process used to work and how wrong it is today. This guide will also help you to deal with the range of emotions you will experience as a man and how to deal with your hurt and anger in positive ways. And I will supply you with real world advice on how to navigate each step of the divorce process and all of this will be backed by Biblical principles.
Before I get into this guide, I just want to say something about divorce in general. In Malachi 2:16, the Bible says “For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away”. God hates divorce and so should we as Christians. But we must realize that the same God who said he hated divorce also prescribed a process for divorce and he himself divorced his wife (the nation of Israel).
The fact is that God shows in the Scriptures that because we live in a sin cursed world there are some sins which God says can be grounds for breaking a marriage covenant. And because a marriage covenant can be broken by certain sins, there must be a process for how divorce may occur.
The sad reality is that the vast majority of divorces that are initiated in 21st Western civilization are not initiated for Biblical reasons that God allows. Not only that, but most divorces that are filed today are filed by women (they initiate divorce 70 percent of the time). And regardless of the reasons for initiating divorce, the modern divorce process itself has become completely unbiblical.
This is what I will tackle in this guide. I will show you as a Christian man how to biblically navigate an unbiblical divorce process which has been established by our civil governments.
With all that said as an introduction I will now give a brief history of divorce from Biblical times to our present day.
The Divorce Process in Pre-modern Times
For 7000 years of human history, divorce was typically a rare thing in societies around the world. God allowed men to give their wives “a bill of divorcement” and “send her out of his house” in Deuteronomy 24:1. And there were of course small spikes in divorce amongst various cultures. The prophet Malachi addressed one of these spikes that occurred in Israel.
In Malachi 2:14-16 we see that God says that men act “treacherously” if they break their marriage covenant with their wives and divorce them for unjust reasons. Later in Matthew 19:9 Christ would clarify what God was saying about men treacherously divorcing their wives. Christ said if men divorced their wives “except it be for fornication” (sexual sin) then that they were committing adultery against their wives. The Apostle Paul would later state in 1 Corinthians 7:15 that men were “not under bondage” to wives who left them and therefore men could divorce their wives for abandonment as well.
It also important to point out that even in cases of biblically justifiable divorce, the Bible never prescribes a method for a woman to initiate divorce from her husband. Instead, the Bible uses the language of the woman being freed from her husband if he does not provide her with three things required by his marriage covenant. Exodus 21:10-11 says that if a man does not provide his wife with food, clothing and sex “then shall she go out free”.
So how would a wife be freed from her marriage even under these justifiable circumstances? The Bible is silent on this. In Mark 10:12, Christ recognized that Roman culture, which dominated the world at that time, did sometimes allow a woman to “put away her husband” but Christ made no allowance for this.
From Jewish historical accounts outside the Bible, we know that in Israel if a woman was not being provided with food, clothing or sex from her husband that she could approach a male relative (her father, grandfather, uncle, brother or cousin) and then that male relative would act on her behalf to compel her husband to give her a bill of divorce freeing her from the marriage.
But this goes to a larger issue – why does the Bible describe justifiable divorce for a woman as her being freed from her husband? The answer is that under Biblical law a man’s wife is considered his property. One of the clearest representations of this Biblical concept is found in Deuteronomy 22:22 which states the following:
“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, 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.”
The words “married” and “husband” are a translation of the Hebrew word ‘baal’ used as both an adjective (of the woman) and noun (in reference to the husband). The word ‘baal’ means master/owner and it can also mean someone who is owned by a master when used as an adjective. In Hebrew this phrase from Deuteronomy 22:22 literally means “a woman owned by a master”.
The New Testament encourages women to continue to regard their husbands as their masters in 1 Peter 3:5-6 and in Israel today traditional Jewish women still call their husbands baal.
Even before the law of Moses was penned it was commonly recognized that men owned both their wives and children throughout human history. And this is why in most cases even when divorce did occur (which was rare) it was usually initiated by the man because women had no power to do so.
And when divorce did occur, either because the man voluntarily sent away his wife or he was compelled to do so by her male relatives, she usually left with just the clothes on her back. The man typically retained control of the home and the children.
This is one of the strongest reasons that women rarely petitioned their male relatives to help them get a divorce – no matter how much they disliked their husbands. Because to do so would mean leaving their children behind with their husband and unless they had relatives willing to take them in it meant living in poverty.
Now that you have read God’s design for marriage and his allowance for divorce some of the feelings you have been having are starting to make sense. These are feelings you may not want to admit to anyone because they conflict so much with how you have been conditioned by modern western values. You may even be condemning yourself for having them. And these feelings are “She is mine, those are my children and this is my home – this is wrong. She can’t take herself and my children away and she can’t take my home!” Biblically speaking, these feelings which are common in men match exactly with God’s design for how things should be. It is our modern system that has deviated from his design.
How the Renaissance and the Enlightenment Planted Seeds for Changes in Divorce
Before the Renaissance, marriage was seen as a sacred religious and societal institution. Marriage did not come about the way it does today. It was rare for a man to romance a young woman and then have her fall in love with him followed by him asking her to marry him. Instead, parents often arranged the marriages of their children to better their social or economic standing. And if anyone was being asked about marriage – it was a man asking a woman’s father for her hand in marriage often without saying a word to the woman first. It did not matter if she was attracted to the man or not. The father would make the decision based on the character, social and economic status of the man asking for his daughter’s hand in marriage.
What this meant was – it was extremely common for couples to marry and not “be in love” – meaning they did not at first have strong affection for another. Often the man would have strong physical attraction for the woman – but typically the emotional and romantic affection for one another would come long after the wedding. And sadly, some married couples never came to have affection for one another.
But humanist thinking in the Renaissance began to question how marriage was entered into and why people stayed in marriage. The entire concept of parents arranging marriage for their children came into question. And the radical idea was born that marriage should be entered into based on a man romancing a woman first and then her choosing him based on her feelings.
Plays like Romeo and Juliet (1597) and a lot of other literature of the years to follow would firmly plant in the minds of young people the idea of marriage being based on romance instead of it being based in duty to one’s faith, their family and the good of society.
Near the birth of the Enlightenment in 1689, the humanist English philosopher John Locke would pen a work entitled “Two Treatises of Government”. Even though John Locke was not the first philosopher to write on individualism (Thomas Hobbes did that in 1651) it would be Locke’s treatises on how governments should operate that would lay the foundation for American thinking and modern democracies.
In this work, Locke would propose the radical idea that the husband has “no more power over her life [the wife] than she has over his”. He believed that once human beings reach full maturity (adulthood) that both men and women should have full autonomy. In other words, when we say today of a woman that “She is an adult, she can make her own life decisions” we owe that thinking to John Locke. The idea that women should have full autonomy and control over their lives was a foreign concept to previous generations of humanity.
And it was this thinking – that women should have full control over their lives just as men do which planted the seeds for modern feminism which would then push for changes in divorce laws.
How Early Feminists Fought for Changes in Divorce
The first woman’s rights conference occurred in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York. In their “Declaration of Sentiments”, the women of the conference stated the following:
“In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master – the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women – the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.”
The statement above was a declaration of war on patriarchy in society and the Biblical view of marriage found in 1 Peter 3:5-6:
“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.”
Most Americans at first rejected the radical proposals of the first woman’s rights conference. But over the coming years, they would wear down societal opposition to these changes. And the way they did it was in appealing to American ideals of individualism which originated in the writings of John Locke.
While the women desperately wanted suffrage (voting rights for women), they knew there was not enough national support for that yet. So, they targeted the next best thing – divorce laws. Under the guise of fairness to women and doing what was “in the best interests of the children” the “Tender years doctrine” was proposed and adopted by courts in the United States starting in the late 1800s.
The Tender Years Doctrine
The Tender years doctrine was actually an ingenious ploy to get women more power in marriage and in divorce. It played on the beliefs of patriarchal society that women are better suited than men to care for the daily needs of the children and the home.
The Tender years doctrine was accompanied by child support laws and a new expansive reading of “domestic cruelty”. Depending on the judge, all some women had to do was cry on the stand in court regarding their husband’s cruelty and they would be granted a divorce and awarded with full custody of their children, child support and alimony payments. With all these historic changes to the divorce process, a woman could now for the first time in human history be able to tell a man “If you don’t make me happy in this marriage – I will take our children and you will be paying me support for decades”.
It should come then as no surprise that divorce rates surged from 3 percent in the mid-19th century to more than 13 percent by the time of women’s suffrage in the early 20th century. Divorces again jumped as women incrementally gained more and more economic rights during World War 1 and World II and by the end of the 1970s the divorce rate had climbed to near 50 percent. It was only in the 1980s that divorce rates began to drop into the mid 40 percent range because of the rise in cohabitation and the subsequent drop in marriage rates.
There is some good news for men on the Tender years’ doctrine front. Starting back in the 1980s when divorce was at its peak, lawyers for men in divorce began to directly challenge the Tender years doctrine on the grounds that it violated the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. And the courts began to gradually accept this argument. But it would be naive for anyone to think the Tender Years doctrine has been completely eradicated from our family courts. It is still very much present even if it must be hidden by court representatives. However, at least now men have a chance of getting joint custody of their children.
Now that we have looked at the history of divorce and societal changes which changed the divorce process, we will look at how the modern divorce process violates God allowance for divorce.
The Modern Divorce Process Violates God’s Allowance for Divorce
The Scriptural truth is that God designed marriage to be a union of a man and woman together for life. But sin corrupted that design so God allowed for divorce. He did not allow for divorce for any reason like modern no-fault divorce laws allow. But even in the case of divorce for reasons God allowed, God prescribed a process for how divorce would occur.
In Deuteronomy 24:1-2 God prescribed the following process for divorce through Moses:
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.”
The process of divorce that God allowed was simple. If a man found “some uncleanness” in his wife he was to “write her a bill of divorcement”. This bill of divorcement would let the community know and other potential husbands for her know that she was no longer his wife. He no longer had the obligations of a husband toward her and she did not have any obligations to him as his wife. Her marriage to another man under these conditions would not be considered adultery – but would be approved by God.
Over time some Jewish men abused the “some uncleanness” clause and began to divorce their wives for any reason. It could be that she was a bad cook, she was argumentative or perhaps bad in bed.
In Matthew 19:3 the Bible says “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”. So, Jesus answers a very specific question and that was does God allow a man to divorce his wife for any reason? We need to be clear on the gender here as many modern Pastors and Christian teachers wrongly apply Christ’s answer to both men and women. It is specifically given to men.
Christ’s answer is found in Matthew 19:9 where he states the following:
“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery”.
So, Christ answered what God meant in Deuteronomy 24:1 by the phrase “some uncleanness”. God was saying that a man could divorce his wife for sexual immorality. He could not divorce her simply because she was a bad cook, not a great lover or even if she was contentious and unsubmissive.
But notice that nowhere in the Gospels does Christ modify God’s process for divorce – that a man must write his wife a bill of divorce. Christ only clarified when divorce was allowed, not how divorce would happen.
Previously we mentioned God’s allowance in Exodus 21:10-11 for women to be freed from their husbands if the husbands did not provide them with food, clothing and sex. But the Bible is silent on how women would be freed from husbands who violated their marriage covenants in this way.
The reason the Bible does not prescribe a way for a woman to write her husband a bill of divorce is because she is the property of her husband. So, the only Biblically allowable way for a woman to be freed from her husband (divorced from him) is for him to give her a bill of divorce freeing her from the marriage.
Men Are Always to Lead the Process of Divorce
The Bible shows that men are to lead women in all aspects of marriage. Fathers have the responsibility to give their daughters in marriage (Jeremiah 29:6) and to refuse their daughters in marriage to men they deem unworthy (Exodus 22:17). And husbands are to rule over their wives (Genesis 3:16, 1 Peter 3:5-6) and oversee all aspects of the marriage (Ephesians 5:24) and they are also called to oversee divorce if it is necessary – whether they are the ones at fault or the wife is at fault.
As I mentioned earlier, we know from Jewish history outside the Bible that if husbands were neglectful of their duty to provide for their wives that the male relatives of those women would pressure the man to divorce their female relative. And no Biblical principle would prevent male relatives of wives from forcing husbands to fulfill their Exodus 21:10-11 obligation to free their wives in the case of their neglect to provide food, clothing and sex.
The principle that men are to oversee and lead the process of divorce is clearly established in the Old Testament and remains unchanged in the New Testament. And it is the widescale abandonment of this crucial principle that has led to the explosion of divorce rates in Western society over the past two centuries. Allowing women to take charge in the divorce process has proved to be one of the worse societal decisions in the history of mankind. When men were completely in charge of whether divorce occurred or not divorce was almost non-existent.
Even in the case of a woman who was truly wronged by her husband and had allowable reasons for divorce, her male relatives (father, brother, uncle…) would have to agree to pressure her husband to give her a divorce. This process provided a failsafe against the emotional whims of women. It protected marriage as a crucial societal institution rather than just a “relationship” for the sole purpose of the mutual happiness of two people as it is seen today.
The Bible Does Not Cancel a Man’s Ownership of His Property in Divorce
In Deuteronomy 24:1-2 God prescribed the following process for divorce through Moses:
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.”
When God prescribes the process for divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-2 he says that he shall “send her out of his house”. Notice the husband does not send his wife out of “their house” but rather it is “HIS house”. The entire idea of splitting all the assets of a husband with his wife upon divorce is a completely foreign concept in the Bible.
The Bible Does Not Cancel a Man’s Ownership of His Children in Divorce
And speaking of a man’s property. Besides his wife what is a man’s most precious property? That would of course be his children. And it is in this area of child custody that our modern divorce process yet again go contrary to the principles and teachings of the Bible.
In Exodus 21:7 the Bible says “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do”. You cannot sell that which is not your property to sell. God allowed Hebrew fathers to sell their sons and daughters as indentured servants. And while our modern society may look on such a custom today with disgust – this ancient custom allowed for many families to escape poverty by selling the services of one or more of their children. The period of service could be no longer than six years and the difference was between how sons or daughters went free. Sons automatically went free but daughters had to be redeemed because women were to remain the property of men if possible. So, the daughter could be sold back to her father or bought by another man to be his wife.
The point here is that biblically speaking children are the property of their father, just as the wife is the property of her husband. And just because a woman is freed from her husband in divorce does not mean she gets to take her children with her. This is why until the invention of the modern Tender Years doctrine, men maintained full custody of their children in divorce.
But Shouldn’t the Best Interests of the Children Guide the Divorce Process?
This whole “best interests of the children” philosophy is what lead to the creation of the Tender Years doctrine as we previously mentioned. The “best interests of the children” approach to divorce is an application of the humanist doctrine of individualism.
Here is a brief reminder of what secular humanism is according to secularhumanism.org:
“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.”
The main difference between Humanism and Biblical Christianity could be summed as follows.
Biblical Christianity places God and the interests of his institutions of marriage (the family), the church and the nation above the interests of the individual. On the other hand, Humanism places the interests of the individual above the institutions of marriage, the church and the nation.
For 7000 years of human history, why did men stay with mean and cruel wives and why did wives stay with mean and cruel husbands? The answer was they put the interests of the institution of marriage and family above their own happiness as individuals. And when families sacrificed to support the pastors of their churches and missionaries what were they doing? They were putting the interests of the institution of the church above their own interests as individuals. And when men went off to war in defense of their nations, they were putting the interests of God’s institution of the nation state above their own interests as individuals.
Humanists are more than willing to see marriages and families destroyed, churches closed or even nations destroyed in their pursuit of the best interests of the individual. This is why humanists had no problem shuttering churches during Covid – because for them the supposed interests of individual health come above that of the institution of the church. And this is why humanists have no problem at all with allowing unregulated and illegal immigration because they do not care about the wellbeing of nation states. In fact, for most humanists, they would love to see all nations go away and instead go to a one world government.
The Bible shows us that God cares more about the preservation of marriages and families than he does about the interests of individuals within those families.
This is why God only allows men to divorce their wives for sexual sin or abandonment and it is why he only allows wives to divorce their husbands for failure to provide the food, clothing or sex. While husbands and wives can sin against each other in many other ways, it is clear that God considers a woman’s sexual faithfulness to her husband to be core to the institution of marriage and he considers a man’s provision for his wife to be core to the institution of marriage.
And now let’s return to the best interests of children. There is no argument that women are best equipped to care for children. God has specially equipped women to be able to nurture and care for children. The Bible says in Isaiah 49:15 “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb?”. Women are equipped by God with natural instincts for caring for children. Now does that mean there are no bad or neglectful moms? Of course not. There are some women whose natures are so corrupted by sin that they neglect and abuse their children. But the fact remains that women are usually better suited to caring for children than men are.
However, we must also consider that while women are better suited to caring for children, that children still need fathers in their lives even at young ages. And divorce will impede this involvement. What that means is that the best interests of the children doctrine in divorce is really just trying to choose the better of two bad choices when it comes to the children.
What is actually best for children is to have a loving father and mother whose marriage pictures the relationship of Christ to his church.
But we need to remember as Christians that this entire paradigm that we must do whatever we think is in the best interests of children (ask best interests of individuals) at the expense of the institution of marriage is wrong.
In Isaiah 3:12 the Bible says “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”. Does that not describe the society we find ourselves in today?
As Bible believing Christians, instead of looking out for the best interests of children and women as individuals, we should be looking out for what is best for rebuilding and preserving God’s institutions of marriage and patriarchy.
The Bible declares God’s institution of patriarchy in 1 Corinthians 11:3 when he says “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”. God has ordained male headship for all areas of society including but limited to the home and church. We need to return to this order.
How much do you think the divorce rate would drop if women knew their husbands would automatically get fully custody of the children? If we were to return to the policy of civilizations before the 19th century Tender Years doctrine, we would return the rights of men and given women a strong incentive not to seek divorce from their husbands. In other words, returning to a policy of men retaining full custody of their children in divorce would rebuild and strengthen God’s institution of patriarchy and at the same time help preserve his institution of marriage.
What About Situations Where the Man Is Physically Abusing His Family?
While the Bible does not specifically address physical abuse in the home between husbands and wives or parents and children it does supply principles about how to address physical abuse which would absolutely apply to the home as well.
In many ways Exodus chapter 21 is the basic human rights chapter of the Bible. It speaks of private property rights, including the concept of human beings as private property. It speaks of children being the sellable property of their fathers (vs 7) and wives being the property of their husbands (vs 8). And it speaks of slaves being the property of their masters (vs 21).
And yes, contrary to American values that we fought a civil war over, the Bible actually explicitly allows slavery. The Southern preachers were absolutely right on that theological point. What they were wrong on was that the Bible does not prescribe slavery based on race. It does not teach that Whites had a natural right to enslave Blacks. On that point the Southern preachers were absolutely wrong. And the South was absolutely wrong in its abhorrent treatment of its slaves.
And it is the humane treatment of slaves which provides the basis for the humane treatment of all human beings and especially those who have owners.
The concept of human property is an idea that humanists simply cannot comprehend. For them the starting basis for human rights is that all people must be completely free and have the same rights. They grant a little less rights for children based on their lack of maturity. But as for adults, in the humanist mind, they must all be social equals. For any human being to have less rights than another human being, regardless of their gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, immigration status or any other social status is blasphemous to the religion of humanism.
Secular humanism claims to be nonreligious because they don’t believe in supernatural gods (or anything supernatural for that matter). But make no mistake, they have a god and that god – the thing they center their lives on – is humanity. And they have formed doctrines, just like that of other religions, around the worship of their god.
Now we will return to the subject of the humane treatment of slaves as prescribed by the Bible. In Exodus 21: 20-21 & 26-27 the Bible states:
“20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money…26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”
Exodus 21: 20-21 & 26-27 teaches us that it is not inhumane for a person to own a slave or even to use corporal punishment on their slave. But these Scriptures also reveal that corporal punishment can be taken too far and that masters can held liable for doing so. In other words, the passage above recognizes the concept of physical abuse by masters of their human property.
And when we realize that the Bible explicitly calls the husband the master of his wife (1 Peter 3:5-6) and it implicitly makes the father the master of his children by giving him the power to sell them (Exodus 21:7) then we understand that these rules for the humane treatment of slaves also apply to a man’s wife and children. Therefore, we can rightly say that the Bible does actually condemn a husband physically abusing his wife and children.
And as side note, no a man’s wife and children are not slaves. They are owned, but have different rights and a different social status than slaves. This is another concept that utterly confuses our humanist friends. In their view, for a person to be owned is for them to be a slave. They cannot fathom how someone can be owned, yet not a slave. But I digress.
And now we must be clear on what actually constitutes physical abuse according to Bible. Physical abuse Biblically speaking is when someone causes a serious injury (such as the loss of any eye, a tooth, a broken bone, internal bleeding…ect). It is not simply causing someone a bruise. In fact, the Bible says the following about causing bruises during corporal punishment in Proverbs 20:30:
“The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly.”
So, bringing this back to our subject of divorce the Scriptural principle we can derive from Exodus 21: 20-21 & 26-27 is as follows.
If a man as the master of his wife and children physically abuses them according to Biblical standards of physical abuse, then the wife and children can and should be freed from his ownership. In other words, a man who physically abuses his wife and children forfeits his ownership rights of his wife and children. This issue of physical abuse would be a perfect example of when male relatives from either side of the family should be stepping in to protect the wife and children and force the man to give them up.
And now that we have presented God’s process for divorce and how our modern divorce process deviates from his process – we will get into how you should approach the divorce process as a Christian man.
8 Biblical Principles for Men Going Through Divorce
What follows are eight biblically based principles along with real world situations that will help Christian men to navigate the modern divorce process.
Principle #1 – Modern Divorce Is a War
Christ said in Matthew 10:36 that “a man’s foes shall be they of his own household”.
The first principle that you need to grasp is that you must regard your wife, the woman whom you once loved and perhaps still have feelings for, as your spiritual and legal foe during this divorce process.
You need to see divorce as a war in the defense of your family and that your wife is no longer a part of your family.
On one side of this war is your wife backed by state laws and a family court system that is heavily slanted toward women. And on the other side is you trying to fight both her and an unbiblical legal system which gives women rights and power that God never meant for them to have.
You might ask “What if I don’t have children? Should I fight just as hard?” And the answer is absolutely YES! The decisions you make here could financially cripple you for years to come and impact your future wife and children.
Also, because this divorce process is not just a spiritual war, but a legal war – you definitely should seek out an attorney to assist you. But as you get an attorney and listen to his advice on what to ask for remember that it is just that – advice. You get to choose whether you will listen and act on each part of their advice or if you want them to do something different. Some attorneys are great and others are lazy and will just try and get you to settle as quickly as possible. And still other attorneys will purposefully pursue actions they know you will loose simply to run up your tab. So yes, get an attorney – but also be careful with your attorney.
Thankfully I had a great Christian attorney during my divorce. And he did everything he could to keep my bill to a minimum. In fact, out of all the men in my divorce support group, I had by far the smallest bill at the end of my divorce. One of the things he had me do was to think of questions I had for him all week long and write them down on a pad of paper. So, I would only call him once a week after I had organized all my thoughts and questions. And if I remembered another question, I would just write it down for the following week’s call.
And now I have one final thing I want to say on this principle of divorce being a war and me saying your wife must be regarded as your foe.
Notice I said spiritual and legal foe. Don’t take this as an actual physical battle and go looking to get into a physical altercation with your wife. In fact, that is the very worst thing you could ever do during the divorce process and will not only land you in jail, but if you have children, it will most likely result in your wife getting full custody of them.
Principle #2 -A Christian Man Must Fight for What is His
In Nehemiah 4:14 the Bible says:
“And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.”
God calls men to fight for their children, their wives and their houses.
Fight for Your Wife
First let me address fighting for your wife. Should you as a Christian man fight to save your marriage? Absolutely!
And biblically speaking there are two ways you can fight for your marriage as a man.
If your wife is divorcing you for Biblical reasons – for things you have done which God says allows her to be freed from your marriage, then you definitely should try to fix these issues and reconcile your marriage.
And this is the first way you can fight for your marriage. If you have been a lazy husband who refused to work to provide for your family or if you were systematically sexually denying her or were physically abusing her (by the Biblical definition of physical abuse) then you should fight for her by repenting of these sinful things you have done toward her. Confess your sins to her and to God and turn from these wrong behaviors.
But what if your wife is divorcing you for reasons that the Bible does not allow? For example, what if she is divorcing you because she has “fallen out of love for you”? Or maybe she is divorcing you out of rebellion against you because you started to exercise your God given dominion over her?
Or perhaps you are the one filing for divorce against her because she committed adultery with another man or has systematically sexually denied you throughout the marriage.
Should you seek to appease her in her sinful behavior to get her to come back to you?
Some Christian preachers and teachers wrongfully teach that the answer is yes – that you should appease your wife and do whatever it takes to get her to come back to the marriage. I received this wrong counseling in the early stages of my divorce before I recognized that it was wrong.
And some will falsely point to this passage where God says the following in Hosea 2:14 to his wayward wife, the nation of Israel:
“Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her.”
But what these pastors and teachers are missing is that in the first part of the chapter before this verse God speaks of his punishment of his wife Israel. He says he divorced her for her unfaithfulness to him (vs 2) and says he will punish her more even after putting her away. That he would strip her naked and humiliate her before all and take away what food and other things she had left (vs 3-4 & 9-13). It was only after this because she would seek to return to him because of her misery (vs 7) that he would allure her and speak comfortably to her after she repented.
And this is the second way you can fight for your wife and your marriage while you are going through separation and divorce. If your wife is in sinful rebellion against you and by extension God who has placed you over her – you fight by making her life miserable just as God did with his wife Israel.
What was God doing by removing his wife’s food, clothing, silver and gold in Hosea chapter 2? He was reminding her of what he had provided her in their marriage. And this is one of the reasons she said it would be better for her to return to her husband (God) because she had all these things when she was with him.
One final note on fighting for your wife and your marriage. If your wife has committed sexual sin (either by having sex with another man and/or by systematically sexually denying you), you can choose to take her back and restore your marriage but you are not biblically obligated to do so. Yes – this is what God was offering to Israel, to take her back after her unfaithfulness. But Christ allows men to exercise their right to divorce their wives for unfaithfulness in Matthew 19:9.
Fight For Your Children
Our post-feminist society is completely stacked against men and one of the areas this is most clearly seen is in our family court systems.
I can tell you both from my firsthand experience dealing with this (I divorced my wife for adultery) and from countless men I have spoken to in person and online over the years that this is the case. The court arbiters and even sometimes a man’s own lawyer will try and get him to settle on various issues when he should not.
More often than not it comes down to the Judge overseeing the case. Many judges are heavily slanted toward women no matter what they did in the marriage. A few rare judges actually treat men fairly.
When I was getting divorced, my divorce attorney who was a Christian as well, told me to pray for a particular judge in our county to be assigned to our case. That he was not slanted toward women and fairly judged between men and women. And thanks be to God – we got the judge we were looking for assigned to our case. And he was more than fair with me.
It cannot be overstated that the fairness of the judge is crucial and very much affects custody arrangements, alimony and distribution of marital assets.
I have a friend who is currently going through divorce in the same county I got divorced – and he unfortunately ended up getting a horribly feminist judge. This judge gives women every benefit of the doubt, yet does not do the same for men. The court ordered a psych eval of both my friend and his wife and the court appointed psychologist confirmed his wife’s diagnosis of schizophrenia and her horrible paranoid delusional episodes and the fact she does not faithfully take her medicine that she had been prescribed. She had record of false police reports and a host of other bad behaviors.
Yet my friend had to fight tooth and nail just to get 50/50 custody with his mentally ill wife who says delusional things based on her paranoia to her children all the time. They were trying to give get him to agree to a 70/30 split with his wife having their children 70 percent of the time. This is how slanted the system is toward women when it comes to child custody. Now if a psychologist had confirmed that my friend (the husband) had paranoid delusional episodes and he was not faithfully taking his medicine you can rest assured that judge would have granted his wife full custody.
But throughout his divorce process I have encouraged my friend to fight for his children. I have made it clear to him that he does not have to settle just because the court arbiter or even his attorney has said he should. And on several issues after fighting his way through, even with a very slanted judge, he has won one on some issues. Other things he did not. But I told him “At least you fought and did all you could”.
In the beginning he was seeking full custody of his children because of his wife’s mental issues and her not faithfully taking her medicine. His own lawyer and the court arbiter tried to pressure him into 70/30 custody telling him it was most realistic because he was the sole provider for the family while the mother was full time at home. He sought full custody, but settled for 50/50 which was still better than the 70/30 that was originally proposed to him.
My point here men is this – do everything you can to fight for your children. Maybe your wife is not mentally ill. Ok. Then go for 50/50 custody. That is a reasonable request in most divorce situations even though the system tries to get men to accept less.
On this issue of child custody for men another issue needs to be addressed. There are times when men do not fight for 50/50 custody and they actually want 70/30 or even 80/20 arrangements where the mother will have the children the majority of the time. Why do men do this? Most of the time it is out of fear. They don’t know how they will manage so much time taking care of their children on their own, especially if they had a stay at home wife.
I was in this situation where I was in a divorce with a stay at home wife (she had been having an affair with an ex-boyfriend so I filed for divorced). But at first it was scary to me that I would have to be taking care of my kids on my own with no help from her so many days a week. But with God strengthening me I never showed that fear to either my ex-wife or my children. And I fought hard and won the custody of my children that I thought was right.
Men you can do this. Don’t give into fear about how you will manage caring for your children. You can do this. And you will come to regret it one day if you let fear win instead of fighting for as much custody of your children as you can get.
Principle #3 – A Christian Man Must Provide for His Children
Jesus said the following about fathers providing for their children in Luke 11:11-13:
“11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”
The Bible says in 1 Timothy 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel”.
One of the most important ways that a man images God in the lives of his children is in his provision for them. This crucial aspect of fatherhood cannot be interrupted during the divorce process or after the divorce is final. This is a man’s sacred duty toward his children.
Ways You Can Look to Provide for Your Children During and After Divorce
The first way is through child support (which is required). You must present earnings statements to the family court (and if your wife works, she must provide these same statements as well) after which the court then inputs your incomes with the number of overnights you will each have your children and then they have a formula which calculates who owes child support to whom and how much is owed. In most cases the man is the higher bread winner and the mother has more overnights than the father. And that is why in most cases the father will be paying child support to the mother.
The second way you provide for your children is also required. In most divorces it is the husband who is forced to get another place while the mother stays in the marital home with the children. This means you get another place, most likely an apartment, and then need to get clothing and furniture for your children.
While it is true that the wife must buy out her husband’s half of the equity, courts are very lenient with women as to the timing of when this must occur.
For instance, with one of my friends from my divorce support group, the judge allowed three years for the wife to refinance their marital home to buy out his equity share. I remained friends with him after our divorces were final and even three years later, she got additional extensions from the court and did not pay him his equity share until more than 5 years after the divorce was final. And she was not a stay-at-home mom when they divorced – they both worked and made similar incomes.
This is of one of the hardest things for men to deal with – the concept that that they must literally provide a home, food and clothing for their children in two separate homes. I and many of the men in my support group went through this mental frustration. If both the husband and wife worked before the divorce and her income was not much less than his, than the hit will be less to the husband. But in the case where the man makes substantially more than the wife and especially if the wife was a stay-at-home mom – the financial hit to the man can be devasting.
But there is also a third way that a man can provide for his children that is not required – but I fully recommend.
At that is helping them with things their mother should be paying for but is not. This happened to me and many of my friends over the years. The mom does not buy them a new coat or shoes when they need it or equipment for their sports they will play in. She will tell them she can’t afford it and send them to you – their father.
Now at this point you may be thinking “Isn’t that what I pay that massive child support check for?” and you would be right in thinking that. And besides that, the court requires that the mother also contribute to providing for the children out of her own means apart from your support check.
But it is in these times of need that you have a unique opportunity to show your children that you love them and that you are the one they can come to for provision and help in their life. I can’t tell you how many times throughout the years after my divorce that I was presented with this situation and I paid for things for my kids that their mother should have paid for. But it paid huge dividends with my children later as they got older.
Does a Man Still Have to Provide for His Wife During Divorce?
Providing for your kids is one thing. But do you still have to provide for your wife during and after divorce? Biblically speaking the answer is that there is no requirement for a man to provide for his wife whom he is divorcing. Really in the Bible divorce was very simple and happened in one day. The man gave his wife a bill of divorce and sent her out of his house. Case closed.
However, in our modern months long divorce process (takes at least six months or more in most cases) the answer to this question from a legal perspective will depend on several factors.
In previous decades when women were forced to be economically dependent on men, child support and alimony awards from family courts were far more generous and women were not forced to work as often as they are today.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics as of 2021, only 25 percent of wives are unemployed and completely financially dependent on their husbands. But with the 75 percent of wives who do work, only about 30 percent of them earn more than their husbands.
This means for women who already work and make less than their husbands, that even with your child support and alimony she is going to have to find additional sources of income.
And if you married a wife who wanted to be a stay-at-home mom but then wants to pull the divorce card you – she is in for a really rude awakening. The judge is going to force her to go out and get some skills and work. Staying home and just collecting alimony and child support payments won’t be enough in most cases.
Some family courts have adopted a policy where one party in the divorce cannot be impoverished in order to support the other. However, this policy is not consistently implemented and it very much depends on the fairness of the judge involved. The sad fact is many men still today are impoverished by court ordered support and divorce settlements that they must pay to their ex-wives.
And speaking of alimony. In the 1960s alimony was awarded in about 25 percent of divorces to women. Now courts award alimony in less than 10 percent of divorces and in many cases and they put limits on the amount of years alimony must be paid out. Also, the policy of not impoverishing one spouse to support the other comes into play here and sometimes men who are not wealthy but have good lawyers can get alimony payments significantly reduced or dismissed altogether.
So here is the bottom line when it comes to financial support to your wife during and after divorce. If you are the only breadwinner or even if she works and you make significantly more than her – expect to be ordered to support her at least through the divorce process. But definitely fight alimony. The divorce process usually takes at least six months and that is plenty of time for your soon to be ex-wife to get a job. However, when she does get a job, you may actually be ordered to help pay part of her child care expenses if she will still make significantly less than you.
Should A Man Report All His Income to the Family Court?
This has always been a topic of big importance in the men’s divorce support groups I have participated in over the years whether they were in-person groups or online groups.
Obviously if you have a normal hourly or salary job and or even a regular contracting job you will get a W2 or 1099 which clearly shows your income. We are not talking about men not disclosing these forms of income as they are easy for courts to get records of. What we are talking about is cash income or other types of income (such as bartering) where there is no paper trail of such income.
The 9th commandment in Exodus 20:16 states “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” and in Colossians 3:9 the Bible says “Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds”. And in Numbers 23:19 the Scriptures state that “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”
It is passages like the ones above and many others in the Bible about the need for Christians to be truthful in their lives that have led many Christians since the early church to believe that all forms of deception are sinful.
And it is these same passages which have led many Christian men to believe that they must disclose every form of income they have to family courts during divorce proceedings.
But Christians who believe lying and deception are always wrong for a Christian make the same mistake that those who say divorce is always wrong for a Christian.
Let me demonstrate by putting the following two passages together:
“Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds” – Colossians 3:9
“And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” – Mark 10:11-12
What do both these passages have in common? By themselves they appear to teach that it is always wrong for someone to lie and it is always wrong for someone to divorce their spouse.
But when we examine the Scriptures as a whole, we find that this is not the case for either lying or divorce.
For instance, with divorce, we see that Christ made an exception for men divorcing their wives when he said “except it be for fornication”. And we also see later in 1 Corinthians 7:15 that Paul makes an exception for divorce when he states if a Christian man or woman’s spouse abandons them, they are “not under bondage in such cases”. And there are several other exceptions for divorce given throughout the Bible. So, biblically speaking it would be correct to say that divorce is a sin in most circumstances, but in some circumstances it is not. And this is not moral relativism to say this.
It is absolutely morally wrong for someone to divorce their spouse for reasons that God does not allow. But if they divorce for reasons that God allows, then there is no sin. And in the same way, it is absolutely morally wrong for someone to lie or practice deception in a situation in which God does not allow lying. But if someone lies in a situation in which God allows deception to practiced, then there is no sin.
In other words, in most cases the actions of lying or divorce are sinful in the eyes of God, but in some cases these actions are not sinful. In fact, in the case of lying, it is sometimes holy and right to practice deception.
In Exodus 1:15-21 we see the story of the Hebrew midwives. In this story the Pharoah orders the Hebrew midwives to kill all Hebrew baby boys as soon as they are born. It says in verse 17 “But the midwives feared God” and saved the baby boys. When they were confronted by the Pharoah, they could have told him the truth that they refused to follow his order because it would have been a sin against God for them to do what he said. In fact, they could have refused at the moment he ordered them to perform this wicked act. But what did they do instead? They lied about what they did saying the Hebrew women delivered before the midwives could arrive to help.
The truth was that the Hebrew women, just like the Egyptian women, needed midwives to help them deliver and without midwives the children and the mothers faced a much greater chance of death during delivery. So, if the Hebrew midwives would not have practiced this great deception and had refused and been killed for doing so, many Hebrew women and Hebrew babies would have died during child birth without the help of the midwives.
And the Bible tells us in Exodus 1:20 that “God dealt well with the midwives” for their deception which saved many innocent Hebrew lives.
In Joshua 2:1-20 we see the story of Rahab the Harlot who lived in Jericho. Rahab not only hid the Israelite spies from being found out by her government, but she also lied about them leaving and sent them in the opposite direction. In addition to this she continued to keep the coming invasion of Israel a secret which stopped Jericho from preparing for the siege of the Israelites.
For this act of deception on her part, the Bible enshrines in her name alongside other heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11:31 and in James 2:25 the Bible says “Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”.
It is clear from the stories of both the Hebrew midwives who saved innocent children with their deception and Rahab who saved Israelite spies with her deception that God does not consider lying to be wrong in all situations.
The principle that we learn from story of Rahab and the Israelite spies is that deception in war and lying to protect your family from harm is not a sin in the Bible.
Rahab took sides with the Israelites and lied to protect both the spies and her own family from harm from the soldiers of Jericho. And you must do the same with your family. Remember that divorce is a spiritual and legal war with your wife on one side trying to form her own new family and you on the other side trying to protect your family.
I have personally seen men I knew from support groups who were forced to live in poverty for years because of property and alimony agreements they made during their divorces. Their wives were wicked and while they may have had boyfriends, they purposefully never married them so they could keep their large alimony checks.
And I have seen Christian men hampered from being able to court other women and being able to start new families because they are paralyzed by the financial devastation of their divorce arrangements.
It is for these reasons that I absolutely encourage Christian men going through divorce to practice deception when it comes to their assets and income wherever they can while they are in this spiritual and legal war otherwise known as divorce.
Practically speaking this means you need to find ways to lower your reported income in every way possible. But please don’t think you think you can quit your job as a mechanical engineer and go work at McDonalds. The family court when looking at your income will look at your education and work experience to determine what they think the range of your income should be.
So, if you are a mechanical engineer, you may want to move to another engineering company to make less money. But when you make the move – you have to show the necessity of the move. So, one of the reasons you could give for the move might be because you now have to pick up your kids from school and have to be closer to the school or work less hours. Or perhaps you could even arrange it with your current employer that you need to be laid off which forced you to get another job. And then that job “just happened to be making less money”.
And you can do the same things with collections and other assets you have besides your home. You might have tens of thousands of dollars in various collectibles. Can you sell all of them and just hide the money? No. The family court will catch that. But can you syphon off some collectables and other assets that your wife may not know about or just a small enough amount that she would not be able to verify? Yes.
So yes, as man involved in the war that is divorce you need to practice deception. But you need to do it in a wise way that cannot be easily detected by either your wife or the family court.
And one final word on this topic of men employing the art of deception during divorce. Some may say “Even if deception is Biblically allowable in some cases, God always wants us to obey our governing authorities and the family court is a governing authority”.
The Bible says in 1 Peter 2:13 to “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake”. But Jesus said in Matthew 22:21 “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”. Notice the language Christ used. He did not say render to God the things that are God’s and everything else belongs to Caesar (the government).
In Micah 2:1-2 God says this about governing authorities using their power to violate the property rights of their citizens:
“Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practise it, because it is in the power of their hand. And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage.”
The government has God given obligations to protect property rights as God has assigned them. And God never allowed the government to take away a man’s property or income to give to his wife in divorce.
What this means is as a Christian man you should fight to preserve your heritage (your income and property) as much as possible during the divorce process. Even if that means using deception to do so.
And one final thing I want to say on this subject of income for men during divorce. Seek out additional cash income sources otherwise known as “work under table”. This serves two purposes. First it will help to offset the financial devastation you will most likely experience during divorce and as long as you are careful that your wife does not find out – you won’t have to report it. But there is a second added benefit – keeping yourself busy will help to take your mind off the troubles of your divorce.
Principle #4 – A Christian Man Must Discipline His Children
Proverbs 13:24 says “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”
It is not uncommon for men to waver with disciplining their children during a divorce. Often times the fathers have the children for less time than mothers and they want to make the most of the short time they have. But children need the discipline of their fathers even in divorce situation.
Now may the discipline have to be modified? Yes. If a man has a wife that is looking for any reason to lower his custody time or if she is looking for an excuse to get full custody then he may want to alter his discipline methods. Specifically, if he was engaging in corporal chastisement as the Bible allows and recommends, he may have to switch to non-physical discipline.
The last four principles that Christian men who are going through divorce need to follow come from one of the simplest yet most powerful passages of the Bible:
In 1 Corinthians 16:13 (NASB) the Bible states:
“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”
Principle #5 – A Christian Man Must Be on Guard Against Threats to Himself or His Children
You must be on guard to threats against yourself or your children which may come from your wife. The following are some things you need to be on guard against:
Your wife may try to clean out your joint bank account and move the money to a new account she has by herself.
Your wife may bring in a boyfriend after you leave the home during the separation and divorce process – what kind of man is he and how is he with your children?
Your wife might make up abuse allegations against you to try and get full custody of the children.
In a fit of rage, she may destroy your personal belongs she knows you hold dear.
She may try to poison your children against you telling them things she made up or even if some things are true, they are inappropriate things for children to hear about their parents.
She may try to seduce you to get a better divorce settlement and then turn around and threaten to say you raped her if you don’t give her what she wants. Be very careful of this one. Even if she does not use the false accusation of rape threat, sex can be a powerful tool for a woman during the divorce process. Many men because they were desperate for physical connection during the divorce have actually signed on to horrible divorce settlements because their soon to be ex-wives kept using sex during the process to manipulate them.
And here are ways you can protect yourself during the divorce process:
Never be alone with her during the divorce process. Make sure at least the children are present and try not to go into her house where she can accuse you of doing things in her home. Have her bring the children out of the house to the car when exchanging them for parenting times. Also never let her in your apartment or home for the same reasons.
Make sure all communications are via email. Many family courts today have special communications systems for husbands and wives to discuss all issues. If you talk on the phone -she can say you said anything she wants. Reserve phone calls only for emergencies with the children and even then, ask for them to follow up the phone call with official communication via email as proof of the event for the court.
If you have a wife who will not follow the rules of communicating via email and insists on calling you or coming to your apartment or house – record the conversation. Consider investing in cameras for the outside of your home as videos of her going nuts on the porch may be golden. One word of warning on this – the majority of states allow “one party consent” recording between private persons meaning if you are taking part in the conversation, you can record it without the other person’s knowledge. But some states require the knowledge of both people to record conversations so you may actually be breaking the law by recording your wife. Check your state laws first.
Make a preemptive strike on the bank account by opening a new bank account and moving the money there along with your direct deposits from your job. Continuing paying the bills as you normally would and giving your wife money for normal things like groceries and other household needs. Make sure you have a record of the money you give her – maybe take a cell phone picture and have her sign a receipt for the money. When it comes time to come before the family court judge, he will most likely order that you place your wife on the new account. And at that point you can explain to the judge why you did this and now that your bank statements will be monitored by the court – you feel safe in adding your wife to this account.
Principle #6 – A Christian Man Must Be Strong
The strength mentioned in 1 Corinthians 16:13 is not speaking of physical strength nor is it saying that all men must be body builders. But rather it is speaking of a man’s spiritual and emotional fortitude. Even in the face of the destruction of your family in divorce, you must lean on God and other men to maintain your spiritual and emotional strength.
These are the stages of grief that most people go through when getting divorced:
Since 70 percent of divorces are filed by women it is the men who usually experience these stages the hardest. Most women have gone through at least some of these stages for many months or even years before they finally pull the trigger and file for divorce.
But for the men in most cases – divorce hits them like a freight train they never saw coming. And when you also add to this the fact that most men compartmentalize and suppress their emotions – it makes it that much harder on them. This is why suicide rates during divorce or just after divorce are much higher for men than for women.
So, what do we mean when we say men must remain strong? Do we mean that a man cannot express any emotion during divorce? No. In fact, it is good and healthy for men to express their emotions – but this needs to be done in the right place and setting.
The men in my divorce support group were an invaluable resource to me during my divorce. I highly recommend to any man that is going through divorce that he finds some kind of church sponsored men’s group. You might have to find one at a different church or even a different Christian denomination than the one you attend and that is ok as well.
But it is here in these men’s groups that you can and should pour your heart out as a man. Some weeks you might just want to listen to other men and hearing their struggles helps to validate yours. Then other weeks it will be you that needs to speak and you talking will help other men as well. Sometimes you just need to vent. And this is a great place to do that. These groups will help you as a man get through the stages of grief much faster than you would have without being in them.
Being strong sometimes means being strong enough to face your emotions and to express them in the proper setting (like a men’s group). But at other times, being strong means being in control of your emotions and not expressing them.
For instance, while it is perfectly good and healthy for you as a man to express your emotions in private settings with other men whether it be one on one or in a group – it is not good for you do this in other settings. It is not appropriate for you to be breaking down crying or going into a fit of rage in front of your wife, your children or especially in arbiter meetings or court hearings. This is where strength means controlling and holding in your emotions.
Your children need to see strength from you. They look to their father for safety and security and you breaking down crying all the time in front of them or going into fits of rage in front of them will not make them feel safe or secure.
And the reason you don’t do these things in front of your soon to be ex is a little different. You don’t break down in front of your wife because you don’t want to let her see you sweat. A man losing control of his emotions in front a woman demonstrates weakness to her – whether she realizes it consciously or not. And throughout the divorce process you to project nothing but strength with her.
One final note on remaining strong. You will have failures in this regard. Very few men go through divorce without their children ever catching them crying. It’s going to happen. And very few men go through divorce without overhearing their father losing about the divorce – either with a friend on the phone or talking to their mother.
But just realize it when you do this and determine to do better next time. Act like a man and be strong.
Principle #7 – Flee Sexual Temptation
In 1 Corinthians 6:18 the Bible states:
“Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
And in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 the Bible says:
“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”
You may have remained sexually pure before you married your wife and you may have never been with another woman while being married to your wife. But when you are going through the emotional roller coaster of divorce you will be sexually tempted. And you need to be on guard against this.
The obvious sexual temptation spots for Christian men to steer clear from would be strip clubs, massage parlors, bars and night clubs. But there are other areas of sexual temptation as well during divorce. You need to be very careful of pouring your heart out to single women you know, whether they are at your job or at your church as you may easily fall into sexual immorality in these situations as well.
Also even if you are taking steps not to be alone with a woman, you need to avoid getting into any relationships with women during the divorce process. Biblically it is not sin to do so as men are allowed by God to practice polygamy. But it is not wise to do so. While it may bring a lot of emotional comfort during the divorce progress it could also bring problems. You may not think as clearly as you would otherwise and simply give your wife whatever she wants be it money or child custody because you want to move on to your new life with a new woman. Leave this for after the divorce.
Principle #8 – A Christian Man Must Be Firm in His Faith
1 Corinthians 16:13 tells that a man must “stand fast in the faith”. To “stand fast” means to plant one’s feet and not be moved. It is means to hold the line.
As you are going through this divorce there is no more important principle to remember that to stand firm in your faith and to be unwavering no matter what comes your way during the process. It is your firm faith which will help you to fight for what is yours, to continue disciplining your children, to keep your guard up and to be strong.
You need to be in the Scriptures daily – especially the Psalms to look for daily encouragement. Remember that God is sovereign and he knows the end from the beginning. And know that he can bring you through this trial and make you stronger on the other of it – if you will only let him.
And please do not forget to pray daily. Pour your heart out to God often during this process.
Modern divorce is part of a larger war on Biblical patriarchy. The modern divorce process utterly denies men the rights which God has bestowed upon them. On one side of this war is your wife who is backed by the state which has bestowed power and rights upon her not given to her by God. And on the other side is you who stand alone against the state and your wife (ok not completely alone if you have a lawyer – which you absolutely should!).
This war will have many battles. Some you will win; others you may lose.
Someday, long after the divorce is final, you and your wife may be able to be cordial and you may even be somewhat on friendly terms. And if you can get to this point it will be helpful with parenting your children.
But the divorce process is not the time for civility. You must accept that during the divorce process that you and your wife are in a spiritual and legal battle against one another. You are no longer team mates. You are opponents.
You need to realize that God does not just expect you to roll over and give your wife whatever she wants in the divorce. God says a man is one who fights for what is his and he is one who is strong and stands firm in his faith. A godly man must always be on guard against physical, spiritual and legal threats against himself. And very importantly a man must realize that during the divorce process his wife is his spiritual and legal foe. He must protect himself from possible threats from her at all times.
During your divorce you will face battles on many fronts. You will face many battles in your own mind. You may face dark thoughts of suicide or sometimes even dark thoughts of hurting your wife. You may feel depressed and feel that you will never marry again. And this is why it is good for you to seek out a men’s support group to work out these feelings. We men can often be loners. But divorce is no time for a man to be alone. We need the brotherhood of good Christian men around us to lift us up during this difficult time.
And while it is not wise to engage in any new relationships with women during your divorce process – there is nothing wrong with holding on to the hope that you will have another wife in the future after the divorce is over. Just make sure you don’t rush into a marriage to another woman without fully vetting her.
Click below to listen to the 5 part companion podcast series to this article (a subscription is required).
“It seems to me that people who believe in Biblical Patriarchy as you do think that women are incapable of making any decisions. Why would God give women the human ability to reason as men do if he never intended them to make any decisions for themselves?” This was a question I recently received from one of my readers.
Obviously, the person who wrote me these questions does not believe in Biblical Patriarchy and like many people they have a negative view of it. So, what does the Bible say about women making decisions? Does it allow women to make decisions?
The Husband is the Head of the Home but the Wife is the Manager of it
The Bible says the following about a husband’s headship over his wife:
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”
Ephesians 5:23-24 (KJV)
God has established three spheres of human authority and they are the family, the church and civil government. And while no human authority sphere is unlimited its power, the husband’s authority over his wife is the most powerful of all human authorities because his authority over his wife extends into the most personal areas of another person’s life.
But the husband’s very personal authority over his wife’s life does not mean she cannot make any decisions for herself. In fact, a good wife makes many decisions on a daily basis.
The Bible admonishes women to regard their husbands as their earthly lords in 1 Peter 3:6. But one of the primary ways a wife serves her husband, her master, is by managing the affairs of his home.
The Bible speaks to the woman’s duty to manage the affairs of the home in the following passage:
“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”
I Timothy 5:14 (KJV)
The phrase “guide the house” is an English translation of the Greek word “Oikodespoteo”, which comes from two Greek words “oikos” (house) and “despoteo” (to rule). This literally means to occupy one’s self in the management of a household. A manager is one who must make decisions. Therefore, we can rightly say that God does in fact want women to make decisions on a daily basis as they manage the affairs of the home.
In the passage below from the book of Proverbs, the Bible gives us an entire list of examples of decisions that good wives could make on a daily basis:
“10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. 11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. 12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. 13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
14 She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. 15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. 16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. 18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. 19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. 22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. 25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. 27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. 30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. 31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
Proverbs 31:10-31 (KJV)
So, as we can see from the above passage from Proverbs, women can make many kinds of decisions. They can decide what dinners to make and what kinds of clothes they would like to make or buy for their family on a daily basis. They could decide to sell at a market, fair or online – things they make in their home. They could decide to use their wisdom and years of experience to teach other women how to be godly wives and mothers by teaching a woman’s Sunday school class at church or writing a woman’s blog. They could choose to make food or clothing to help the poor and needy around them. They could organize meals with other women to assist people in their church that are sick or otherwise in need of help.
They could decide to ravish their husband sexually as Proverbs 5:19 exhorts them to do and invite their husband to feast on their bodies as the wife does in Song of Solomon 4:16.
There are so many good decisions that women can and should make on a daily basis.
Man Can Override the Decisions of Woman
The Bible actually dedicates an entire chapter to the subject of women making personal decisions. It is found in the book of Numbers.
“1 And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded.
2 If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
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. 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.
9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.
10 And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; 11 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the Lord shall forgive her.
13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.
14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.
15 But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.
16 These are the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father’s house.”
And now we come to the truth of the matter. Egalitarians and even many complementarians who hate the doctrines of Patriarchy found in the Bible know that God does in fact allow women to make decisions. But what they don’t like is that women can and should be held accountable for their decisions by their male heads, whether they be their fathers or their husbands. They hate that God gives fathers the authority to overrule any decisions their daughters make and especially hate that God gives husbands the authority to overrule or literally void any decisions their wives make.
While wives can make decisions, they should only make decisions which they do not believe will conflict with their husband’s will in any given matter.
And really, this is a question we should all ask ourselves about each decision we make on a daily basis. In the book of James, we read the following principle about making decisions:
“13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: 14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.”
James 4:13-15 (KJV)
All of us are accountable to the Lord for every decision we make. As men we can also be held accountable for some decisions by our civil authorities and for other decisions by our church authorities. But in some decisions a man makes, he is accountable only to God. It is not the same for women. A woman can held accountable for every decision she makes by her father or her husband. And this is what opponents of the doctrines of Biblical patriarchy hate as it conflicts their humanist ideals of individuality and equality.
The Bible however stands in full opposition to the humanist ideals of individuality and social equality and that is why humanists want to rid it from all areas of our society.
Thankfully though, we have this promise regarding the Word of God:
“For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”
In this second article in our series on domestic discipline, we will be looking at the 19th century suffragette (feminist) view of domestic discipline. To do this we will look at two primary sources. The first is the Declaration of Sentiments which was issued from the first woman’s rights conference in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York.
The second source we will be looking at is a book entitled “History of Woman Suffrage: 1848-1861”, written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan Brownell Anthony and Matilda Joslyn Gage in 1881. This book is also a valuable resource in understanding the historical view of domestic discipline. Less than 20 years before this book was published, state courts in America were still upholding a man’s right to use corporal punishment with his wife. It was only in the 1870s that courts began striking down this common law right and later states would begin enacting laws against it.
The Declaration of Sentiments
The Declaration of Independence was America declaring its independence from England and the Declaration of Sentiments was women declaring their independence from men. Below is a portion of the Declaration of Sentiments issued from the first woman’s rights conference in 1848:
“The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes, with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master – the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.”
As Bible believing Christians, we can and should recognize the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments for what it was and still is today. A declaration of war on God’s institution of patriarchy. And the sad truth is, that more than 170 years later that war has been mostly won by feminists. Those who still hold to God’s design of patriarchy have been forced into hiding, with their only option to fight a spiritual guerrilla warfare against those who seek to eradicate the last pockets of resistance to the reigning humanist regimes.
“In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband”
The common laws of the land in this case were strongly aligned with the Word of God as seen in Titus 2:4-5:
“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, OBEDIENT to their own HUSBANDS, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
In fact, we can rightly say that the Declaration of Sentiments complaint against women being compelled by common law to be obedient to their husbands was blasphemy against the Word of God.
The Husband is “to all intents and purposes, her master”
Again, the Scriptures are crystal clear on this point calling women to regard their husband’s as their earthly lords (their masters) in 1 Peter 3:5-6:
“For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”
The Greek word used in 1 Peter 3:6 is “kurios” which means master. It is used in reference to kings, governors, slave masters, husbands and to God himself in the Bible. All of these masters were authorities instituted by God over different spheres, but God is the LORD and master of all. The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek kurios is “baal” which means “owner, lord, master”.
In Deuteronomy 22:22 we see the following example showing the husband’s ownership over his wife:
“If a man be found lying with a woman married [‘baal’ used as verb] to an husband [‘baal’ used as noun] , 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.”
The passage above demonstrates that under God’s law a married woman is an owned woman, and her owner is her husband.
The Husbands power “to administer chastisement”
The power to chastise is a critical element of authority. If a person can tell others what to do, but they have no means of enforcing what they have commanded then they really are not an authority. And this is why the early woman’s rights movement targeted the common law recognition of the husband’s right to chastise his wife. If they could remove his power to chastise her, they knew they were effectively removing his authority over her.
History of Woman Suffrage: 1848-1861
The women who wrote “History of Woman Suffrage: 1848-1861” lived in the era when wife spanking was still widely practiced and culturally accepted so their perspective is valuable in the historical sense, even with their moral position on the rights of women and husbands chastising their wives being completely unbiblical and wrong.
In pages 88-89 the History of Woman Suffrage: 1848-1861 states:
“In those early days a husband’s supremacy was often enforced in the rural districts by corporeal chastisement, and it was considered by most people as quite right and proper – as much so as the correction of refractory children in like manner…The laws made it his privilege – and the Bible, as interpreted, made it is his duty.”
If you go to the average Christian today in the average Christian church, even most conservative evangelical churches, and you started talking about domestic discipline they would have no clue what you are talking about. I know if you would have mentioned it to me 7 or 8 years ago, I would have been one of those people with a blank look. And if you mentioned “wife spanking” they would look at you like you are crazy. I know I would have.
But I am happy to have been challenged on this subject. Because it caused me to really have to research this out. I already showed in my first article in this series on domestic discipline, “The Biblical Case for Domestic Discipline”, that the Bible fully supports two important concepts.
First it supports the concept of corporal punishment for both children and adults. Secondly, it supports husband’s chastening their wives as we see God chastening his wife Israel in the Old Testament and Christ chastening his wife, the church, in the New Testament.
But then we come to the historical side of this. Before the 20th century, most Christians believed according the Bible that husbands had a right and duty to chasten their wives using corporal punishment. The common laws of the land supported this right. And except for the left-wing feminists of the 19th century, Christian women fully accepted this too.
Chastisement Was Seen as Good for A Wife’s Moral Development
On page 599 the History of Woman Suffrage: 1848-1861 states:
“By the common law of England, the spirit of which has been but too faithfully incorporated into our statute law, a husband has a right to whip his wife with a rod not larger than his thumb, to shut her up in a room, and administer whatever moderate chastisement he may deem necessary to insure obedience to his wishes, and for her healthful moral development! He can forbid all persons harboring or trusting her on his account. He can deprive her of all social intercourse with her nearest and dearest friends. If by great economy she accumulates a small sum, which for future need she deposit, little by little, in a savings bank, the husband has a right to draw it out, at his option, to use it as he may see fit.”
A husband chastising his wife was seen as a healthy and moral thing for a marriage. But his powers of chastisement were not limited just to corporal punishment. But he could also literally ground his wife as a parent grounds their child and send her to her room. This was the normal accepted practice under common law.
Domestic Discipline Outlawed in the Late 19th Century
On page 792 the History of Woman Suffrage: 1848-1861 states:
“Wife-beating is still so common, even in America, that a number of States have of late introduced bills especially directed to the punishment of the wife-beater. Great surprise is frequently shown by these men when arrested. “Is she not my wife” is cried in tones proving the brutal husband had been trained to consider this relationship a sufficient justification for any abuse.”
“Chastisement” did not have enough sting to it. In fact, even in the late 19th century, the word “chastisement” in America was seen as a positive word. So then feminists went from speaking about husbands chastising their wives to calling men “wife-beaters”. That had a much better ring to it. And they declared that a husband chastising his wife in any form was “abuse”.
Now to be sure, there were some men who took their right to chastise their wives too far causing serious or permanent injuries to their wives. And this of course was the case throughout the history of mankind and was by no means unique to America. But the exact same thing could also be said for parents, whether they were fathers or mothers who chastised their children, that some abused their God given authority to administer corporal chastisement.
But that fact that some husbands abused their power to exercise corporal chastisement did not give civil governments the right to remove this God given power from husbands. What they should have done was deal with those extreme cases on a case by case basis.
In this second article we have shown that the early feminists declared war on Biblical patriarchy from the very beginning of their movement in 1848. They utterly rejected God’s design of male headship over women.
These early feminists or “suffragettes”, knew they had to play on the emotions of the American people to win their cause. And they did exactly that. They found the most extreme and outlandish cases of abuse they could find to bring before courts and state legislators to prove that all men were potential abusers or “wife-beaters” and the only way to protect women from the abuses of men was to completely strip men of their power of corporal chastisement over their wives.
But we also learned something else in this article. Something that husbands and wives of today needed to see. This idea of a husband using corporal punishment to chastise his wife is not some recently invented behavior by some far-right Christians. It is not just some kinky BDSM thing. But rather, before the late 19th century it was the protected law of the land and Christians believed husbands had a Biblical right and duty to exercise corporal chastisement on their wives for the good of their wife’s moral development and the health of their marriages.
When I make the bold claim, which I will support with the Bible, that career women are a failures in the sight of God I am not talking about women who are forced to work to feed their families. I am not talking about the women who tried for years without success to find a husband and simply needed to support themselves. I am not talking about women whose husband’s became disabled, died or abandoned them. In other words, I am not talking about women who did not choose to have to have a career outside the home.
I am talking about women who planned on it from the time they were teenagers.
For these women their dream was their career. And they may or may not have wanted a husband and some kids to go on the side with that career. These are the women that are utter and colossal failures in the sight of their creator whether they realize it now or not. And one day they will stand before God ashamed of the fact that they did not fulfill the purpose for which he created them.
In Galatians 1:10 the Bible says “For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ”. This Biblical principle should be at the forefront of our minds as Christians each and every day in the decisions we make.
Recently a young woman calling herself Shary wrote me about her concerns about being seen as a failure in the eyes of her family:
“Can’t God use certain women through their careers for His will. For example I’m going to be a freshman college student starting this fall (with the intention of becoming a doctor) after taking a gap year to work. I feel conflicted because over the past several months I have been reading your blog and you write a lot that women should strive to be keepers at home. I would like to get married and have children, but at the same time I feel like I need to go to school or else I’ll just be a huge disappointment to my family. I don’t know if this is because I’ve been conditioned to think this way all my life or for some other reason, I just feel that if I don’t go to school and become a doctor I’d be a failure.”
My Response to Shary And Other Women Facing this Conflict
Shary, you asked if God can use women through their careers for “his will”? The last part of that question is the key to finding the answer to your question. So how do we know God’s will for women? For that we need to look to the Bible.
The Bible tells us for what purpose he created women in Genesis 2:18 when it states “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him”. So, we learn from Genesis 2 that God created woman as companion and helper suitable for man. The only way she could be suitable to be man’s life companion and helper was for her to have a human nature as he had. That is why God took the woman from the man.
But what kind of companion and helper did God intend for woman to be for man? Was she intended to be his equal partner and for both of them to do the same things and go and pursue their own missions?
The answer is found in Titus 2:4-5 where the Bible states “That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed”.
God created woman not as an equal partner with man to have equal rights and to pursue a career outside the home as he does. But rather, the Scriptures are explicit on this that God intended for a woman’s life focus to be on serving the needs of her husband, her children and her home.
What About the Proverbs 31 Wife?
Some Christians who want to try and get around God’s explicit command for women to be keepers at home will attempt to skirt it by pointing to passages like Proverbs 31:16 which states “She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard”. They say “See – there is a career woman in the Bible! She is a land developer”.
As Bible believing Christians, we know that the Scriptures never contradict. So, we know that there is no conflict between the Bible saying in Titus 2:5 that women are to be keepers at home and Proverbs 31:16 showing a woman buying a piece of land and farming it for food. Those who say Proverbs 31 shows a career woman are reading something into the text that is not there and also ignoring the overall theme in the passage that the focus of her life is serving her husband and his home. Does it say she spends 50 or 60 hours a week buying and farming fields? No, it does not. It says she buys “a field”. Does it say she does not bring her children to help farm the field with her? No, it does not. Does it say she leaves her children with her maidens to watch them while she pursues her career in farming? Again, no it does not.
Those who read a career woman into Proverbs 31, a woman who spends upwards of 50 hours a week pouring her energy into things outside her home, are in error. They are ignoring not only the clear command of Titus 2:5 for women to be keepers at home, but also other parts of the same passage in Proverbs 31, like verse 27 which states “She looketh well to the ways of her household…”.
It is Impossible to be a Keeper at Home and a Keeper at a Career
It is impossible, utterly impossible, for a woman to be a keeper at home and at the same time spend 50 hours a week or more giving her energy to things outside her home.
Feminism sells women this lie. And sadly, even most of our modern churches today have bought this lie. They tell women they can spend 50 hours a week outside their home “following their dreams” while having a husband and kids on the side at home. What they don’t tell them is what really happens.
They don’t tell them about the anguish many of these women feel when they have to leave their young infants with others when they know an infant needs its mother. They don’t tell them about the anguish they will feel when their home is in utter disarray because they have such little energy to keep up with it. They don’t tell them about the fights they will have with their husband over who does what. They don’t tell them about when her career moves conflict with his career. And then after handling the job, the house and the kids many career women have little energy left for their husbands. And then marriages die.
Of course, there are the women who are “without natural affection” as 2 Timothy 3:3 alludes to. These women actually care more about themselves than their children or husbands. These are the women that murder their children by aborting them for the sake of their career ambitions. If these women do have children, they have absolutely no problem dropping off their crying infants with others to pursue their selfish ambitions. They have no problem donating the vast majority of their waking hours to endeavors outside their home and giving only the scraps left of their time to their children and their husbands.
And these women are a “success” in the view of our modern humanist and feminist culture.
So, we just described two types of women. The first group are women who after believing the lies of feminism later come to feel remorse for the decisions that they made. But now they are trapped because they have made their economic situation dependent on their income. Then we have the second group of more sinister women who lack natural affection and have absolutely no remorse for the impact that there career takes on their husbands, their children or their homes.
Are you one of these women that lacks natural affection? Could you drop your two-month-old infant off without it bothering you a bit? Could you see the stress your career places on your home, your children and your husband and be happy with giving them only the scraps left of your time and energy each day?
But there is something even more important to consider than just the impacts of a career on your future husband, children and home.
The Scriptures tell us in 1 Corinthians 11:9 “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.
The following statement I make to women who are not keepers at home by their own choice and design, and not because of circumstances outside of their control.
If you as a woman are not a keeper at home (and you have no desire to be so), if the majority of your time and energy are not spent supporting your husband in his career, meeting his needs sexual and otherwise, bearing his children, caring for his children and caring for the needs of his home then your life will be a failure in the sight of the one who created you.
So, are you as a woman more concerned with being seen as a failure in the eyes of our humanist culture, your parents and friends or are you more concerned with being a failure in the eyes of God?
The last subject I want to briefly touch on is celibacy.
God’s rule for men and women is marriage and having children. His exception his celibacy. And God only calls us to celibacy “that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction” (I Corinthians 7:35). Celibacy is to be used for service to the kingdom of God, not for selfish ambitions or to avoid the risks or responsibilities of marriage and having children.
So, could a woman decide to dedicate her life to God by helping on mission fields or by being a doctor, a nurse, a school teacher or other such profession? Yes. But she needs to make sure that she is doing this for the right reasons.
See these two articles I previously wrote for more these subjects:
I can tell you almost first hand that the Corona virus is real. My son works in a major Detroit Hospital and he has seen the body bags being loaded into cooling trucks. Yes, the Corona virus is killing people. In one of the highest death toll days the Corona virus killed over 2000 people in the United States. But what we have lost as Western civilization is far greater than the lives lost in this current Corona virus crisis. What we have lost as Western Civilization is something we began losing long before the emergence of COVID-19. We have lost perspective. And as a result of losing perspective we have lost many God given freedoms in the process.
As I just said, on one of our worst days in the United States we lost over 2000 people to the Corona virus. But are most Americans aware that around 8000 people died every day in the United States from all kinds of causes before the Corona virus? And they continued dying from these other causes during this Corona virus crisis?
Worldwide, each year, over 2 million people die from work related accidents. Roughly 1 million people die in car accidents. Around 500,000 are murdered. Between 300,000 to 600,000 people die each year from flu related symptoms. And to date, about 228,000 people worldwide have died from symptoms brought on by the Corona virus.
Each day when we go to our jobs, we risk being killed in a car accident or even being killed on the job. Whenever we go out shopping or about our daily routine we risk being murdered. When we get our lunch or dinner at a restaurant, we risk dying from food poisoning.
And yes it is the job of civil government to try and reduce or mitigate the loss of the lives of its citizens from things like car accidents, murder, work place accidents and viruses. That is why we have stop lights, speed limits, local police forces, safety inspectors and federal agencies like the National Health Institute and Centers for Disease Control.
But here is the truth of the matter. It is the job of civil government to look at things logically and rationally. Not emotionally. And throughout the Western world our governments have failed us in this regard. They told us they were handling the Corona virus from a logical, scientific and “numbers driven” perspective. But this was all a cover for how they were really handling this crisis. They were looking at this from an emotional perspective and a political perspective rather than a rational and logical perspective.
The response to the coronavirus is hyped. And in time, this hype will be revealed as politically hoaxed.
In fact, COVID-19 will go down as one of the political world’s biggest, most shamefully overblown, overhyped, overly and irrationally inflated and outright deceptively flawed responses to a health matter in American history, one that was carried largely on the lips of medical professionals who have no business running a national economy or government.”
The Emotional Perspective Is the Feminine Perspective
The Bible says in Isaiah 3:12 “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”. When I said earlier that many world governments have reacted to the Corona Virus from an emotional perspective what I was really talking about is the feminine perspective.
From the beginning of the outbreak of this virus, even the worst models showed this virus would not be one that would wipe out 50 percent of the world. It would not even wipe out 20 percent. If the projections were that high shutting down the world economy to try and mitigate the deaths would have been justified. But the absolute worst-case estimates were around 3 percent.
The logical and rational response would be for governments to warn higher risk populations to self-isolate and then prepare the people for a temporary spike in deaths from the new virus. Instead our governments reacted emotionally and in a feminine manner and shut down our economies, forcing low risk people (then vast majority) to stay in their homes to try and further mitigate this otherwise normal loss of life. And yes, deaths from COVID 19 this year will turn out to be normal or even below normal in the grand perspective of human history when compared to many other viruses that mankind has had to contend with.
“When the postmortem is done on the media’s coverage of COVID-19 (and it will be), it will be clear that the virus was no Black Plague — it’s not even the flu on a bad year.
SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has killed 56,749 Americans as of Tuesday.
That’s not good. But it’s not as bad as the 2017-2018 flu season, when 80,000 -plus perished. And it’s a long cry from what all the experts were warning about just a few weeks ago: First, they predicted 1.7 million Americans dead; then they redid the models (this time apparently entering a few more “facts”) and said 100,000-240,000 dead…
And for that we shut down the U.S. economy?!”
I can’t tell you how many leftists and humanists I saw on Facebook and on the news saying “The economy is not more important than human lives”. But these same leftists have no problem with 56 million human lives worldwide being sacrificed each year for the “economic empowerment of women” when women have abortions. Do you get the irony in that?
I have seen some leftists and feminists attack pro-life conservatives saying “Look at these conservative pro-lifers willing to sacrifice human lives for the economy. I guess they are not so pro-life after all.” But this is a horribly faulty comparison. Comparing COVID 19 deaths to deaths caused by abortion is like comparing normal flu deaths each year to those caused by murder. And that is exactly what abortion is – it is murder. If you die from getting a virus that is a natural cause of death. If you die from a doctor tearing you apart with medical instruments that is not a natural cause of death. That is murder.
Foolish humanists have said to those protesting the loss of their freedoms in the COVID 19 hype that they are fighting for “the freedom to give and receive the Corona virus”. So could we as conservative Christians say humanists are fighting for “the freedom to give and receive STDs which can be fatal” when they fight for the freedom of people to engage in casual sex outside of marriage?
The leftists and humanists want us to wear masks and practice social distancing to go buy milk. But in the coming months they will continue to fight for the right of two strangers to meet at a bar (with masks on of course) and then go home, take off their masks, get naked and engage in casual sex. The irony and foolishness of their positions are completely lost on them.
Another utterly foolish thing lefttists and Christian humanists fail to realize is that economic collapses can kill people just as much as viruses can. Think of all the people who did not get routine or elective scans and procedures done during this time that might have found cancers or potential cardiac issues? I am sure in the next year we will find out that us being so focused only on COVID 19 actually allowed many people to die from all kinds of other medical conditions that might have been caught if the health care system was not on lockdown.
And when lock downs like this occur for too long a period in some nations the economic collapse can lead to a societal collapse where many people die from looting and other problems. So yes, economic collapses can kill people just as much or even more so than viruses can.
And that is why Government officials cannot just listen to one side of the equation. They cannot just let Doctors who are solely focused on mitigating and reducing deaths from COVID 19 call all the shots. They have to take advice from economists and other experts. And they need to have people from all sides of the debate helping to make informed, logical and rational decisions.
Will it be someone risky to just let the public of all these locked down nations out to go about their normal lives? Yes. Will there possibly be some more spikes in deaths as a result? Yes. But risk is necessary for success. Many great men have risked their lives and fortunes to build businesses and make scientific breakthroughs. Our founding fathers risked their lives and fortunes to build this country.
But the feminine perspective is not only emotional, it is risk averse. That is why we now have warning labels on everything. That is why it is so hard to get new medications out. And it is this feminine perspective that has come to dominate our culture over the past half century.
Leftists and humanists don’t want to have a real debate about the Corona Virus any more than they want to have a debate about climate change. YouTube and Facebook are censoring Doctors right now who disagree with the lockdown and believe we have to let people out to build the herd immunity and get this over with. One example of this censorship is the case of Dr. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. They posted a video last week on you tube that went viral explaining why the lockdown is bad and we need to let people out and build up the herd immunity. If you go to that link here you will find YouTube marked it as “violating community standards”. This was simply two doctors giving their own medical opinions on how to handle the COVID 19 virus. You can find some of their comments in this local new article.
And yes, more lives will be lost in the process, but this is the natural way that human civilization has always dealt with diseases and viruses.
As I said at the beginning of this article, we have as Western civilization lost something must greater than human lives from natural causes like COVID 19. We have lost perspective. We have lost perspective of history. We have lost the masculine perspective and given dominance to the feminine perspective. And most importantly we have lost an eternal perspective.
Every person must come to this realization at some point in their life. Death is a part of life. In Hebrews 9:27 the Bible says “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”.
And this judgement is described in great detail in Revelation 20:11-15:
“And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
The humanist clings to their life in the here and now because they believe this is all there is. But as Christians we know that this life is only the beginning our eternal life. And it is the decisions we make in this life that determine how we will live for the rest of eternity. The ever so slight possibility of dying from COVID 19, another flu bug, a car accident or an accident at work is nothing compared to the absolute certainty that we will be tormented for eternity in the lake of fire if we have not placed our faith and trust in Christ as our Lord and Savior.
“So the Bible is a sexist book, and that fact alone should make Christians want to acknowledge that sexism has to be a virtue. And because the Bible has been assiduously ignored when it comes to these matters for lo, these many years, this should make us realize that it is also a lost virtue. Therefore it must be renewed, or restored, or recovered, or perhaps even reupholstered. But how?”
That is a bold assertion to state that “the Bible is a sexist book”. So it is in fact true that the Bible is a sexist book?
Well first we need to define what sexism is. According to Webster’s Online dictionary the definition of sexism is as follows:
“1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex”
So, the questions are does the Bible treat people different based on their sex and does it foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex?
The answer is a resounding YES.
In Ephesians 5:24 the Bible states “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” and in Titus 2:5 the Bible commands women to be “keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands”. It also states that women are not “…to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” in 1 Timothy 2:12 and in 1 Corinthians 14:35 it states “And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home…” .
If those are not sexist statements right of out of the Bible, I don’t know what is. But we as Christians need to stop allowing humanists to frighten us into hiding with their labels.
And this is where Doug Wilson is taking a stand and I agree with him on this. I have previously written an article on this same subject about two years ago entitled “Why Christians Should Be Proud Sexists”. Some of my readers took offense at my attempt to redeem the term “sexist” as a badge of honor rather than a term of derision. Others took offense at my use of the word “proud” quoting passages like James 4:6 where the Bible states “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble”.
I explained however, that my statement about us as Christians being proud was not a pride in ourselves, but rather a pride in God and in his Word. It is pride that means to be “unashamed” as the Apostle Peter stated “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf”.
So, should we as Christians be ashamed of the fact that our Bible and our God who gave us our Bible treats people differently based on sex and fosters “stereotypes of social roles based on sex”? The answer for any Bible believing Christian should be “No I am not ashamed of God or his Word or his design of men and women”.
Let me give some other great statements by Doug Wilson in this article on this subject of sexism:
“Sexism is certainly a sin against the gods of egalitarianism, but those gods are not gods at all.They are rather little wisps of aspirational fog floating off the sewage lagoon of late-stage secularism, and so we have no reason to feel bad about committing any such “sins.” If they are not gods at all, then sins against their commandments are not sins at all.
The living God has given us His Word, and nowhere in that Word does it say that sexism is a sin against Him. That means it is not a sin at all. In fact, various things that our culture defines as sexist are enshrined as virtues in Scripture, and this means that Christians should stop their furtive glancing from side to side, and simply acknowledge that it is high time for us to recover the lost virtue of sexism.
But what would such a recovery look like? How might we recover our sexist heritage? How shall we know when we have recovered it? The heart and soul of a restored sexism is to recognize that God created men and women with different natures, and has commanded us to recognize those natures as different, and to treat men and women differently simply because they are men and women respectively.”
Amen and Amen Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson is absolutely right that “Sexism is certainly a sin against the gods of egalitarianism, but those gods are not gods at all“. And we as Christian need to stop reverencing these false gods that our culture worships. I have said many times that Western Civilization does indeed have a religion and that religion is Humanism. And Humanism like some pagan religions of old is polytheistic in that it has many gods. Some of those false gods are equality, education and the environment. If you are not willing to bow down to these gods, and if you speak anything against egalitarianism, higher education or environmentalism you are speaking blasphemy in many parts of the Western world today.
The sad part is that many Christians today believe they can worship the false gods of equality, education and environment and place their faith in humanity while at the same time claiming they worship and place their faith in the God of the Bible.
But our God is a jealous God and he will not tolerate the worship of other gods. In Exodus 34: 14 God says “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”.
In the end we all have a choice. It is the choice that Joshua gave to Israel and it is the same choice we must give to America and the Western world today.
“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
“As birthrates fall, countries will be forced to adapt or fall behind. At least two children per woman—that’s what’s needed to ensure a stable population from generation to generation. In the 1960s, the fertility rate was five live births per woman. By 2017 it had fallen to 2.43, close to that critical threshold.
Population growth is vital for the world economy. It means more workers to build homes and produce goods, more consumers to buy things and spark innovation, and more citizens to pay taxes and attract trade. While the world is expected to add more than 3 billion people by 2100, according to the United Nations, that’ll likely be the high point. Falling fertility rates and aging populations will mean serious challenges that will be felt more acutely in some places than others…
Ultimately, no country will be left untouched by demographic decline. Governments will have to think creatively about ways to manage population, whether through state-sponsored benefits or family-planning edicts or discrimination protections, or else find their own path to sustainable economic growth with ever fewer native-born workers, consumers, and entrepreneurs.”
The statements above are not from some Christian blog like this one that advocates for women marrying younger and having more children. Instead, they actually come from a recently published article entitled “The Global Fertility Crash“, written by Andre Tartar, Hannah Recht, and Yue Qiu for Bloomberg Business Week.
The estimates always differ between various government sources around the world in certain details. They may disagree as to how much world population growth we will see in the next century. Some sources show we may only grow by 1 billion people or less in the next century before the world population begins to decline. Others show the world population may peak as early as 50 years from now.
But what all the studies agree upon is this. In countries where women get college educations and careers fertility rates plummet. In every single one of them. Is is a very simple equation that no one can deny.
Women + Higher Education + Career = Falling Fertility Rates
Some might say “that’s fine, the world population is too high and needs to lower”. That actually is not true, but let’s just go with that false premise. When the world population shrinks from 8 or 10 billion to 2 billion over the next few centuries is that OK? What about when it drops to 1 million? What about when it drops to 100,000?
And this ignores a fact that this Bloomberg Business Week article states that “Population growth is vital for the world economy“. This is just basic economics folks. Population decline leads to economic decline which then eventually leads to the fall of governments and civilizations if that decline continues.
You see when you have a problem that is causing the decline of your people at a certain point you must address that problem. And it will be addressed one way or the other.
It is an undeniable and indisputable fact that the fertility declines we see in Westernized nations are the direct result of women living their lives for higher education and careers instead of women living for the purpose for which God created them.
God did not say he made women to pursue education and careers and whatever made them happy. But rather the Bible tells us in the passage below what God created women for and also men:
“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.”
1 Corinthians 11:7-9 (KJV)
God created man to image him, to live out his attributes, and thereby bring him glory. And he created woman for man to bring man glory in her service and submission to him as man brings God glory in his service and submission to God.
It really is that simple folks.
We have lost our way as an American and Western civilization.
The Bible is crystal clear that women are called, not to higher education and careers, but rather to “marry, bear children, guide the house” (1 Timothy 5:14) and to be “keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands” (Titus 2:5).
The West Needs to Turn from Love of Self and Pleasure to Love of God
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God“
2 Timothy 3:1-4(KJV)
This passage above from 2 Timothy is a perfect description of modern Western Civilization. Our Western cultures encourage self love and rampant individualism instead of encouraging behavior that is for the best of one’s family and one’s country. Blasphemy and children being disobedient to parents is common place. We have unthankful and envious societies. Mothers are without natural affection for their own unborn children and contract with doctors to murder their unborn children. Westerners are lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.
Unless we turn from our rampant individualism and humanism and return to serving God and serving others instead of living only for ourselves our Western nations will fall.
The world has no answer to this problem of women having less children but the Bible does. Restore women to their place in the home and restore God’s design of patriarchy which served human civilization for 6000 years before the rise of Feminism in the mid-19th century.
Today in his address to the U.N. General Assembly, President Trump used a very interesting word in his speech regarding globalism. And that word was “religious”. He stated that “Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders causing them to ignore their own nationalist interests. But as far as America is concerned those days are over”.
President Trump probably does not understand where that “religious pull” from Globalism originates from. But as Christians we must under that the “religious pull” of globalism is a pull toward humanism, and specifically secular humanism.
Secular Humanism – the Religion that Claims Not to be a Religion
Secular humanists deny that Humanism is a religion, yet Humanism has all the core tenants of a religion. It worships something and it has a system of values just like a religion does.
Humanists claim that because they do not worship a deity or believe in the supernatural, that humanism it is not a religion. But you can worship something that is not supernatural or a deity. And that is exactly what Humanism does.
The Bible speaks of Humanism in Romans 1:18-27 (KJV):
“18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
Does this not describe what we are seeing today in our world?
We need to recognize that atheism, environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism are all “denominations” of the same evil religion of humanism. They all have the same end goals even though they may slightly disagree among themselves as to how to get to those goals.
Humanism is a religion that denies the existence of God, even though God’s existence is plainly seen in nature. It is a religion that worships education making people think they are wise when they truly are fools. It is a religion that glorifies nature rather than glorifying God. It worships “created things rather than the Creator”. And it leads to rampant sexual immorality including homosexuality and transgenderism.
Some Christians have tried to claim that they are “Christian Humanists”. The unfortunate reality is that while a humanist a few centuries ago simply meant someone who believed in “free inquiry” the secular humanists morphed this into something much broader while making atheism its foundation from which all humanist values flow.
Paul Kurtz , the Council for Secular Humanism founder, wrote the following in “The Humanist Alternative” (pg 82):
“Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe. Christian Humanism would be possible only for those who are willing to admit that they are atheistic Humanists. It surely does not apply to God-intoxicated believers.”
Professing Christians must come to the realization that the tenants of humanism along with the tenants of its evil spawns like environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism do not mesh with a Biblical worldview. They are completely contradictory.
President Trump – God’s Imperfect Instrument Against Humanism
President Trump is not a perfect man. He claims to have faith in Christ but he certainly is not a perfect Christian in either his understanding of the Bible or of the Christian faith. And sadly, President Trump, like many professing Christians and churches today, is not completely unstained by the evil influences of humanism. He has shown support for some feminist tenants as well as support for the LGBTQ community.
However, God has used him to be great defender of Israel as well as the rights and freedoms of Bible believing Christians here in the United States. God took a man who was previously pro-abortion and turned him into the greatest defender of unborn human life this nation has seen since the Roe v Wade decision was handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973.
Speaking on the topic of innocent unborn human life President Trump made the following statement today at the U.N. General Assembly:
“Americans will also never tire in defending innocent life. We are aware the many United Nations projects have attempted to assert a global right through tax payer funded abortion on demand right up until the moment of delivery. Global bureaucrats have absolutely no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life.Like many nations here today, we in America believe that every child born and unborn is a sacred gift from God.”
There is absolutely no denying that God has chosen President Trump at this point in history as his imperfect instrument. Yair Netanyahu, the son of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the Jewish people look at President Trump as they did King Cyrus who helped them rebuild Jerusalem. Listen to what the God said about King Cyrus:
“I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.”
Isaiah 45:13 (KJV)
And Cyrus was not a perfect man by any stretch of the imagination and he was not even a Jew. But God used Cyrus as instrument of his will and that is exactly what he is doing in raising a warrior in the form of President Trump to take on globalism and environmentalism which are major pillars of humanism.
President Trump’s Stand Against Globalism
President Trump made the following declaration regarding globalism and the threat it poses to freedom:
“The free world must embrace its national foundations. It must not attempt to erase them or replace them. Looking around, and all over this large magnificent plant, the truth is plain to see. If you want freedom take pride in your country. If you want democracy hold on to your sovereignty. And if you want peace love your nation. Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first.
The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.
Today, I have a message for those open border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice: Your policies are not just, your policies are cruel and evil.You are empowering criminal organizations that prey on innocent men, women and children. You put your own false sense of virtue before the lives and well-being of countless innocent people. When you undermine border security, you are undermining human rights and human dignity.
Many of the countries here today are coping with the challenges of uncontrolled migration. Each you has the absolute right to protect your borders. And so of course does our country.”
Again, this is one of those areas where President Trump may not even realize the full extent as to why globalism is bad.
Yes, globalism threatens freedom because whenever you consolidate power, freedom is lost. This is why America’s founders believed in limited government and breaking up powers between the federal, state and local governments. And even when the power was divided between these three levels, they believed that the ultimate power rested in the people.
But there is more to why globalism is bad then just it threatening freedom. It also threatens God’s institution of nations which was one of three of the institutions he created. In the following three Scripture passages we see that is was God who divided mankind into nations giving them each a different language and sending them across the face of the earth:
“Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Genesis 11:9 (KJV)
“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 32:8 (KJV)
“And hath made of one blood all nations 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 17:26 (KJV)
Humanism Aims to Destroy the Three Institutions God Created
As we have just shown from the Bible, the concept of a nation state, which President Trump so strongly believes in, is one of three institutions which God created. And those three institutions are the family, the churchand the nation. He created each of these institutions for different purposes and divided powers and responsibilities between these three institutions of society.
“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.”
As we can see from the statement above, Humanism seeks the destruction of the traditional controls of the patriarchal family, the local church and the concept of nation states. Their goal is to replace these traditional God given institutions with an atheistic, individualist and globalist society.
Humanism’s War on The Church
For over 150 years, humanists have been successfully waging a war on local churches both from without and within. In the late 19th century humanists infiltrated the churches from within causing them to doubt the Bible which lead to the great modernist controversies and the rise of Christian fundamentalism to fight it. In the 20th century they began attacking churches and Christianity in schools using the courts. They were successful in having prayer and the Bible banned from schools and threatened churches with losing their tax-exempt status if they spoke out on political issues or if they publicly supported politicians who supported their values.
Humanism’s War on Biblical Gender Roles
During the same period humanists were attacking the churches, they also began attacking traditional and Biblical gender roles as God designed them with the rise feminist groups in the mid-19th century. The roles of women in marriage and society began to be challenged and God’s order of male leadership in society, the church and home was undermined. This of course led to a weakening of marriage, the family unit and sexual morality.
In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act to stand against the rising tide of gay marriage advocates. While this reflected the will of the American people at the time, it outraged the left and especially those in Hollywood. Hollywood elites looked to a new plan to gain public support for gay marriage. They started incorporating more gay characters into TV shows and movies and documentaries as much as they could to desensitize the American public to the gay lifestyle. After almost 20 years of Hollywood doing this, national polls showed that public sentiment regarding gay marriage had changed and gay rights advocates took their case to the Supreme Court.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage thus legalizing it in all fifty states. Chief Justice Roberts in his decent on the courts gay marriage decision knew exactly what would happen because of the decision when he wrote:
“Today’s decision,for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.”
In essence the court set the stage for many future court battles between the First Amendment which guarantees free speech and the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs against against the 14th amendment which guarantees due process and equal protection(this is what all discrimination laws and cases are based on). In other words the battle is between freedom of speech and religion verses discrimination.
Humanists believe that the First Amendment and its guarantee of the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs takes a back seat to discrimination concerns. Those on the right whether they be libertarians or evangelical Christians believe that the exercise of one’s free speech rights and religious beliefs trumps discrimination concerns.
And these are the battles that we are seeing raging in our courts over the past 4 years. Our side has had some victories and the Humanists have had their victories.
Humanism’s War on the Concept of Nation States
One of the first law’s that America passed was the 1790 Naturalization Act which stated that only “free white person[s] … of good character” could become citizens of the United States. While these laws would today be considered “racist” they were in fact in keeping with the tradition of nations throughout history that protected their dominant ethnic groups as a unifying factor of a nation.
After the Civil War, Socialist Humanists began the new narrative that America was a “nation of immigrants”. This is when “the melting pot” ideology began to spread. America’s motto of “E pluribus unum” which is found on our nation’s currency originally referred to the 13 colonies becoming one nation. But the 19th century socialist humanists reinterpreted this famous American phrase for their own multicultural and globalist goals. They changed the mean of “E pluribus unum” from a reference to the 13 colonies becoming one to “Out of many nations one nation”. The idea was to water down America’s White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture with many other religions and cultures to break down the unity of the American nation.
Humanists won a major victory with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While there were certainly issues with Jim Crow laws that needed to be addressed the law undermined private property rights and the freedom of association. It also laid the foundation for gay rights and now transgenders are trying to use it to shove their wicked ways in the faces of Christian business owners. Humanists won another major victory with the 1965 Immigration Act which abolished racial quotas which favored immigrants from northern European nations.
In the 20th Century, American Humanists began using the courts to push their humanist agenda on the nation. If they could not pass a law to get what they wanted, they would simply go to a court and find judges who would agree with them. American humanist judges used the philosophy of “if the words of the Constitution don’t say something, just reinterpret the words to make them say what you want”.
But in more recent years Humanists have taken off all pretenses and they are calling for the outright abolishment of national borders in their quest for globalism and a one world government. In 2015, a year before President Trump was elected to office, the Atlantic ran an article entitled “The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely” with the sub heading being “No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights than people born in the right place at the right time”. Trump ran on exactly the opposite premise and won the 2016 election in large part because it.
We Must Recognize this is Both a Spiritual and Political Battle
We as Bible believing Christians must take a stand. We must get out and vote. We must use all the legal means at our disposal to fight back against the humanist assaults on our God given liberties. That means Christians need to engage in law suits using the first Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and religion to protect themselves and their businesses from Humanist lawsuits. We need to use the very legal weapons that Humanists use against us against them.
We must defend and uphold God’s three institutions of the family, the church and the nation state.
Some on both the right and left have called this a “cold civil war” while others have called it “the Second American Civil War”. And I agree with them in those descriptions. That is exactly what is happening in our nation and we must face this reality.
We must stop allowing leftists to paint us into a corner and shame us for believing such “radical” concepts like the one Mark 10:6 states that “God made them male and female”. God did not make people transgender; the corruption of the sin nature makes people transgender.
We must stop allowing leftists to redefine what love is by saying that that two men or two women can love each other in the special way that God only meant for men and women to do in marriage. We must acknowledge that there are some kinds of love and some kinds of desire that are indeed “vile affections” according to God’s Word in Romans 1:26.
We must stop allowing leftists to tell us that we are acting “inhumanely” for believing a nation should have borders that are enforced.
President Trump today also raised another God given right that we should not be afraid to defend:
“The United States will uphold the right to keep and bear arms. We will uphold our Second Amendment.”
And just as God used a non-Jewish person in the form of King Cyrus to accomplish his will, so too we as Christians must be willing to form political coalitions with those who hold to and believe in liberty and freedom as we do. We must be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who defend basic American values like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms. We should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who still believe in the concept of a nation state and national borders. And we certainly should be able to stand with anyone who stands for the life of the unborn.
Jesus Christ said in Luke 6:31 “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise”. This statement is often referred to as the “Golden Rule”. The most common interpretation of this passage that is taught today is “Treat others as you would want to be treated if you were in their situation”. And that is actually a pretty accurate interpretation of what Christ was saying.
Over two and a half centuries since it’s founding, many Americans have used the “Golden Rule” to push their culture and government for new social acceptances and legal protections regarding marriage, gender roles and sexual behavior in America. Below is a list of some these major changes.
20 Ways America Has Applied the “Golden Rule” to Gender Roles and Sex Over Two Centuries
As men, we should want women to have the right to own property, because if we were in their shoes that is what we would want.
As men, we should want women to be able to divorce their husbands in the same way and for the same reasons that men divorce their wives because if we were in their shoes that is what we would want.
As men, we should want women to have the same custody rights to their children in divorce as men do, because if we were in their shoes that is what we would want.
As men, we should want women to have the right to alimony and child support as they divorce their husbands, because if we were in their shoes that is what we would want.
As fathers, we should never try to control or pressure our daughters in regard to their love lives, what men they see or what men they seek to marry because if we were in their shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
As men, we should want women to vote, because if we were in their shoes that is what we would want.
As men, we should not want women excluded from any careers, because if we were in their shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
As Christian men, we should want Christian women to be able to hold any position in the church that a man can hold including that of being a Pastor, because if we were in their shoes this is what we would want.
As men, we should not want women forbidden from having abortions, because if we were in their shoes, we would want the right to have an abortion.
As husbands, we should not try to control our wife’s behavior by telling her whether she can work outside the home or not because if we were in her shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
As husbands, we should not try to control what friends our wife has or talks to because if we were in her shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
As husbands we should not try to control our wife’s behavior by telling her how much money she can spend on various items because if we were in her shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
As husbands, we should not try to control what church our wife attends because if we were in her shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
As husbands, we should not try to pressure our wife in any way to have sex if she is not in the mood or she tells us “no” because if we were in her shoes this is not how we would want to be treated.
As men, we should not look at women as objects of potential visual and physical sexual pleasure because if we were women we would not want to be looked at in this way.
As men, we should not seek out women as wives so we can take sexual pleasure in their bodies, so they can bear our children, care for our children and keep our homes while we go and make our mark on the world in our careers. Because after all, if we were women we would not want to be pursued by men for these reasons. But rather as men, we should want women to have the same career opportunities we do and we should want wives strictly for human companionship and as equal partners that we can share our lives with and not as “sex objects”, “breeding machines”, “nannies”, “cooks” and “maids”.
As husbands, we should not enjoy the sight of or think of any other woman other than our wives in a sexual manner because if we were women, we would not want our husbands enjoying the sight or thought of any other woman but us.
As heterosexual people, we should want homosexual people to be made to feel comfortable actively their lives as homosexuals and we should want them to have the right to marry just as we heterosexuals do. Because after all, if we were homosexuals that is how we would want to be treated.
As cisgender people, we should want transgender people to be made to feel comfortable being transgender and not as if they have a mental disorder. Because after all, if we were transgender, that is how we would want to be treated.
As cisgender heterosexual Christians, we would should want homosexual and transgender persons to be able to join our churches as members and even lead our congregations as clergy.
I have made an effort in the list above to try and put the changes in chronological order. In the beginning of the list you will note women’s rights changes in regard to property and divorce rights which occurred from the mid-19th century up to the beginning of the 20th century. These rights were fought for by women and granted to them before their crowning achievement of Woman’s Suffrage in 1920. Also note that just before talking about women voting I talk about women not wanting to be under their father’s authority for marriage. This started in the late 19th century with the advent of the new practice of “dating” which encouraged women to reject their father’s authority over them in seeking a husband.
Then of course as the list progresses, we see the new changes that Second Wave Feminism brought us in regard to telling men what they should want women and marriage for. And finally, we see the changes that have occurred over the last decade regarding the treatment of LGBTQ persons.
As we look at the list above there is a key word, we must take notice of. And that key word is “want”.
Anyone seeking to apply Christ’s statement in Luke 6:31, otherwise known as the “Golden Rule”, must take into account what God says we should want. Failure to do this will cause the gross misapplication we have seen of the “Golden Rule” in America over the past two centuries.
In the Gospel of Matthew we read an extended version of the “Golden Rule”:
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
Matthew 7:12 (KJV)
What was Christ saying here? He was saying that the entire foundation of the “Golden Rule” is the Word of God, the Bible. And what is the foundation of all moral truth in the Bible? The answer is given to us by Christ later in the Gospel of Matthew:
“36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
Matthew 22:36-40 (KJV)
So, the greatest command is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, our soul and our mind. And the second one, to love our neighbor as our self, is built upon the first. Christ was quoting two commands from the Law of Moses.
The first is found in the book of Deuteronomy:
“And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”
Deuteronomy 6:5 (KJV)
The second is found in the book of Leviticus:
“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.”
Leviticus 19:18 (KJV)
Now here comes the million-dollar question. How do we as Bible believing Christians know if we are loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves by God’s definition? The answer is given to us near the end of the New Testament in the following Scripture passage:
“2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:2 (KJV)
The definition of loving God, loving our neighbors and following Christ’s “Golden Rule” is all premised upon one simple truth.
That we are keeping God’s commands in all we do. That we love what he loves. That we hate what he hates. That we want for ourselves what he wants for us.
This Scriptural truth I have just mentioned runs directly contrary to the vast majority of American teaching both outside and sadly even inside most Christian churches today. We no longer want to adjust our wants and desires to what God wants us to want. But instead we are trying to transpose on to God our wants and desires. Today we actually have churches teaching that God is a feminist and that he is pro-LGBTQ.
The Scriptures actually warn of this time coming and at the same time they command for those of us who are faithful to God’s Word to call out this wickedness:
“2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.”
2 Timothy 4:2-5 (KJV)
We Must Change Our Wants to What God Wants for Us
David wrote by the inspiration of God what should be the desire of every man and woman who seeks to please God with their lives and show their love for him:
“Teach me thy way, O Lord; I will walk in thy truth: unite my heart to fear thy name.”
Psalm 86:11 (KJV)
“With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.”
Psalm 119:10 (KJV)
So now we must tackle the question of what God wants for men and women which should determine what men and women want for themselves.
Should Women Want Equal Rights with Men?
While Genesis 9:6 tells us that men and women are both made in the image of God, we find in 1 Corinthians 11:7 that only man “is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”. And later in that same passage in I Corinthians 11:9 we read “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.
In the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians he gives us God purpose and design in marriage:
“23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”
Ephesians 5:23-29 (KJV)
In 1 Corinthians 14:35 the Apostle Paul further elaborated on the husband’s duty to be his wife’s spiritual authority and teacher:
“And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
1 Corinthians 14:35 (KJV)
And the Apostle Peter gave the following exhortation to women:
“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)
God created marriage as picture of the relationship between himself and his people. God is pictured as husband to Israel in the Old Testament and Christ is pictured as a husband to his Church in the New Testament. Men as husbands picture God in leading, teaching, correcting, rebuking, providing for and protecting their wives as Christ does his church. Women as wives picture the people of God in their submission to, service to and dependence upon their husbands for their spiritual leading and teaching as well as their physical provision and protection.
Based upon the clear teachings of the Scriptures shown above we can see that women should have no want or desire for equality with men and that they instead should want to be under the authority of men in all areas of their lives whether it is civil government, the church or in their marriage.
Should Daughters Want to Be Free of Their Father’s Authority Before They Are Married?
The Scriptures give us the following commands regarding a father’s authority over his daughter:
“2 If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
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 30:2-5 (KJV)
“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)
“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)
There is a reason that we have fathers walk their daughters down the aisle and then we have the traditional statement at weddings “who gives this woman to be wed” and before modern times it was not “her mother and I” but rather it was her father alone saying “I do”.
This tradition is actually firmly rooted in the Word of God as is shown in the passages above. In God’s design fathers give or refuse their daughters for marriage and men take women in marriage with the permission of the woman’s father.
Now there are of course exceptions to this rule when women are widows like in the story of Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 3:8-9). Also, the Bible makes an exception for this rule of having the father’s permission when men take wives as the spoils of war as seen in Deuteronomy 21:11-14.
Based upon the clear teachings of the Scriptures shown above we can see that a daughter should want to be under her father’s authority before marriage and she should want his direction and blessing for marriage.
Should people want to be LGBTQ or live the LGBTQ lifestyle?
The Scriptures have the following things to say in regard to LGBTQ persons:
“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)
“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)
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)
“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)
Based upon the clear teachings of the Scriptures shown above we can see that no person should want to be made comfortable being any part of LGBTQ. But rather such persons should be ashamed of such desires.
Should Men Want Women for Sex, Having Children and Caring for their Homes?
The Scriptures give the following exhortations to young women:
“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”
1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV)
“4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
Titus 2:4-5 (KJV)
And the Scriptures gives the following exhortation to men:
“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)
Based upon the clear teachings of the Scriptures shown above we can see that men should indeed desire to marry young women for sexual pleasure, for them to bear children and for them to guide and keep their homes.
I have shown here conclusive proof from the Bible that in order to properly apply the “Golden Rule” Christ gave that we must take into account what God wants us to want and what he wants others to want.
For instance, often times as parents we will find that our children do not want to do the things they should want to do. They should want to do their homework and get good grades. But sometimes they simply do not want to do their homework.
Now if we were to put ourselves in their shoes at their age, we may have felt the same way. But does that mean we should let them not do their homework? Of course not. Their want is WRONG. It is not what God wants them to want.
In the same way men are not breaking Christ’s “Golden Rule” by wanting women as wives for sexual pleasure, for them to bear children and for them to guide and keep their homes. And men are not wrong for wanting to lead, teach and mold their wives as they see fit according to the Word of God.
A man is no more wrong for wanting to control and guide his wife’s actions than a parent is for wanting to control and guide their child’s actions.
Some may say “but women are not children” and that is a very true and Biblical statement. But it is equally true and Biblical to state that women are not men either. In other words, children are not equal with women, but also women are not equal with men.
It is modern society that has invented two new social classes, Adults and Minors. But God’s design has three social classes, Men, Women and Children.
And finally, on the topic of LGBTQ persons and how the “Golden Rule” applies to them. Clearly no LGBTQ person should be “proud” of their sinful desires, but rather they should be ashamed of them and seek help to overcome such wicked desires.
Christians are not breaking Christ’s “Golden Rule” in refusing to make LGBTQ persons comfortable in their wicked desires nor in refusing to allow them to become members of or clergy in churches.
Secular Liberals are absolutely right about one thing that many Christians refuse to accept. There is absolutely an “intersectionality” between women’s rights and LGBTQ rights. LGBTQ rights are a direct result of the Women’s Right’s Movements of the mid 19th Century. This is a reality that Bible believing Christians must face and address in their churches.
So what is the “Golden Rule” when understood in the entire context of the Bible?
We should do unto others as God would desire us to want done to ourselves if we were in their position.