Why Christian Women Should Wear Head Coverings

The photo above features a veil like the one that I bought for my daughter a while back from the site VeilsByLily.com. So the question is why did I purchase this veil for my daughter? Was it simply a fashion accessory? Or something more?

For all of Christian history up until the 1960s with the advent of second wave feminism women wore some type of head covering whenever they went to church for worship. The practice of women wearing head coverings is not simply a Christian tradition, but it is actually commanded in the Bible in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5(KJV):
“4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”

Many Christians today argue that Christian women do not have to wear head coverings any more. And believe it or not, there were Christians even back during the Apostle’s time that were arguing against the requirement of women wearing head coverings as is seen in I Corinthians 11:16 (KJV):
“But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”

And the great irony is that many Christians today have taken Paul’s rebuke of those who were arguing against women being required to wear head coverings and they attempt to use his rebuke to say women don’t have to wear head coverings! It really is enough to make your head explode if you let it.

In I Corinthians 11:2-16 Paul answers three very important questions about head coverings for women. He answers WHY women must wear head coverings, WHAT head coverings are, and WHEN head coverings should be worn.

Click here to listen to my 3 part podcast series “Why Women Should Wear Head Coverings”

WHY God Wants Women to Wear Head Coverings

Paul gives the reason why woman must wear head coverings as an introduction to the conversation on head coverings in I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV):
“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.”

So, the reason women must wear head coverings is because “the head of the woman is the man”. Head here refers to man’s authority over woman.

Egalitarian Christians claim that “head” in verse 3 refers to man as the “source” of woman. The problem with that interpretation is it would then make God the father the source of Christ and that is heresy according to John 1:1-3 (KJV) which tells us the following:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

The context of I Corinthians 11:3 is not the source of man or woman, but rather the authority structure God has created.

But after showing the Egalitarian argument to be faulty, we must now address the Complementarian argument. Complementarians believe in male headship but they limit it to the home and the church. They do not believe male headship over women extends to all areas of society.

The problem for Complementarians is that nothing in the language of verse 3, or the entire discussion of male headship in I Corinthians limits the man’s headship to just the home and the church. It is a broad and sweeping statement of man’s headship over woman.

Is God the Father the head of Christ in all things? Is Christ the head of man in all things? How then can Complementarians claim that men are only the head of women in the home and in the church but not outside those two areas?

And then we must consider the practical implications of the Complementarian attempt to limit man’s headship over woman to just the home and the church. The Bible tells us in Ephesians 5:24 (KJV) “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. So, this presents a problem for Complementarians who believe women may take authority over men as long as it outside the home or church.

Let’s take a man and his wife. His wife runs for mayor of their town and she wins. So that means if he were to go to a town hall meeting where his wife is presiding, she now becomes his authority in that sphere. But yet God calls her to submit to her husband in everything. That means in every part of her life. The only exception to her submission to him is the rule the Apostle Peter gave us in Acts 5:29 (KJV) that “We ought to obey God rather than men” if our earthly authority is violating God’s law in what they are asking us to do. The same would go for if his wife was his boss at work.

This is the conundrum the Complementarians run into when they attempt to limit the headship of man over woman to just the home and the church.

For a larger discussion of why women should not be in politics see my article “Does the Bible allow for a woman to be President of the United States?

But I Corinthians 11:3 is only one part of the Apostle Paul’s answer as to why women should wear head coverings. Later in this passage Paul actually dives into a deeper “WHY” question.

WHY is Man the Head of Woman

God does not always tell us why everything is the way it is. But sometimes he does tell us why some things are the way they are. And in this case of head coverings God caused Paul to fully explain why man is the head of woman in all areas of this life.

Paul writes the following statements just a few verses down in I Corinthians 11:7-10 (KJV) after telling us man is the head of woman and he now explains why man is the head of woman:
“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. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

I can’t tell you how many times I have been in Complementarian churches’ where they basically take the attitude of “Well God had to put someone in charge, so he picked the man and we just have to accept that”. God did not flip a cosmic coin to decide if man was the head of woman or woman was the head of man. Man being the head of woman was God’s design before he ever created man or woman!

This passage I have just shown from I Corinthians 11:7-10 tells us why man is the head of woman.
Man is the head of woman because man is “the image and glory of God” and “neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”. This is a simple and yet profound truth that will change the direction of every man and woman that reads it if they will only accept it and apply it to their lives.

Man was created to image God by living out his attributes and thereby bring him glory. Woman was created by God for man to serve man and bring man glory and in doing so she serves God and brings him glory as well.

And it is “For this cause”, because man is God’s image and glory and because of that woman’s head, that woman ought “to have power on her head because of the angels”. The “power on her head” is the head covering Paul is talking about in this entire first half of I Corinthians 11.
When a woman wears a head covering, she is proclaiming to the world that she fully accepts God’s authority over her life and the fact that God has placed her under man’s headship in all areas of life whether that be in the home, the church or elsewhere. Such a woman who fully accepts what her head covering means would never seek to be in any position that would place in her in authority over a man.

Now that we have fully covered the Apostle Paul’s explanation of why women should wear head coverings, we will now dive into what the head covering is that he is referring to.

WHAT is the Head Covering for Women?

Paul gives his answer to what the head covering is in I Corinthians 11:5-6 (KJV)
“5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”

The English word “uncovered” in verse 5 and the phrase “not covered” find their root in the negative form of the Greek word “Kalupto” which means “to hide or to veil”. So, Paul is saying when woman does not veil her head, she dishonors her head.

Paul goes on to use a cultural norm that the Corinthians would understand. For a woman to have her hair cut short (shorn) or have her head shaved would be for her to dishonor herself. Paul then goes on to explain where this cultural norm originated in I Corinthians 11:13-15 (KJV):
“13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”

Man did not invent this cultural norm, but rather it came from the human nature God designed in man and woman. God put this knowledge into our original nature as human beings to know that long hair on a man is a disgrace, but long hair on a woman is her glory.

Paul talks about this original human nature, our original programming, which tells us right from wrong in Romans 2:14 (KJV):
“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves”

In the garden of Eden God created Adam with a perfect male human nature and he created Eve with a perfect female human nature. These nature’s had God’s law directly written into them. Their original human natures told them things like assault, murder and theft were wrong. Adam’s original masculine human nature instinctually told him he needed to lead, protect and provide for his wife. Eve’s original feminine human nature told her she needed to submit to and serve Adam as his subordinate helper.

But both Adam and Eve did not listen to the perfect natures God gave them which told them what to do – instead they went against the perfect human natures they were given and they sinned against God.

From that point forward both human natures, the masculine and feminine, became corrupted by sin. Yet even in its corruption, our human nature can still tell us when something is right or wrong according to God’s law.
Now before anyone misunderstands me – I am NOT saying our human natures (either masculine or feminine) are always right and that we can always trust them.

To know where our natures are right and where they are corrupt, we must look to our owner’s manual which is the Word of God. It tells us where our nature is wrong and has been corrupted by sin and where our nature is functioning as God designed it to.

The same thing goes for our culture. If what our culture condemns matches up with what God condemns and if what our culture promotes matches up with what God promotes then we can follow those things in our culture. But if what our culture condemns God approves and what our culture approves God condemns then we must disregard what our culture teaches in that area.

A Woman’s Long Hair is NOT the Covering

The woman’s long hair is “a covering” but it is not THE covering God requires when women pray or prophesy. Let’s apply the “long hair” argument to the passage we have already looked at below:
“5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth without long hair dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman has not long hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have long hair.”

Now let’s apply some basic logic.

A woman without long hair = a woman shorn (with short hair) or a woman with a shaved head.

Now let’s apply this to the passage again:
“5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head shaven dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be shorn, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have long hair.”

You can’t make a comparison by comparing something to itself. It is like saying “Eating ghost peppers is like eating ghost peppers”. But rather if you wanted to tell someone what eating ghost peppers is like, you might say “Eating ghost peppers is like putting gasoline in your mouth and lighting it on fire”. The comparison of lighting gasoline in your mouth might be a little exaggerated – but it communicates the point of what it is like when you eat ghost peppers.
This is why we can confidently conclude that the veil that Paul exhorts women to wear while praying and prophesying is NOT a woman’s long hair. Paul is speaking of two coverings. One is the natural covering (veil) God wants women to wear which is their long hair and the second is the additional physical covering (veil) God wants women to wear over their natural covering when they are praying or prophesying.

Now that we have discussed why God wants women to wear a head covering and we have shown it to be a separate veil in additional to their natural veil we will now show according the Bible when women are to wear this second veil as a spiritual symbol.

WHEN Does God Want Women to Wear a Head Covering?

Before we give the answer as to when women should wear head coverings we need to have a discussion about prophesy since this along with prayer is a central theme of this passage on head coverings.

The English word prophesieth is a translation of the Greek word “Propheteuo”.

Propheteuo is one of those words that you really have to pay attention to the context it is used in. In certain contexts, it refers to someone supernaturally foretelling the future like Christ did in the Gospels or the Apostle John did in the book of Revelation and like the Apostle John these prophets were also ordained by God to speak and write his Word.
But in other contexts, propheteuo simply refers to someone teaching, reproving or admonishing others based on the truths of God’s Word.

The Apostle Peter spoke of the prophecy of Joel being fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was first poured out on Christians in Acts 1:16-18 (KJV):
“16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy”

Peter is addressing both types of prophesy in this one statement. He talks about the young men seeing visions and old men dreaming dreams. That is exactly what happened to the Apostles and they wrote about the visions they had in the New Testament. But he also talks about “daughters” and “handmaidens” prophesying. So, what does he mean by this?

In I Corinthians 14:3 (KJV) we read the following statement about prophesy:
“But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.”

Before I explain this passage, I want to make two points. The first thing I want to say is that I love the KJV because even though it has a very old form of English, it is often the most literal rendering of the original text. But like any other translation of the original texts, it sometimes is either confusing because of the old English or it is not as precise as it should be. The second thing I want to say is that I can’t stand all these gender-neutral translations of the Bible. The fact is that the Bible is written in a very masculine tone because God’s nature is represented by the masculine human nature and translations should be faithful to that tone.

But sometimes in the Bible the language used is gender neutral and I Corinthians 14:3 is actually one those passages.

First, where the King James version says “he” as in “he that prophesieth” the Greek Word which is “ho” is actually gender neutral and it would be more accurately translated as “the one”.

Secondly when the KJV refers to hearers of the prophesy it calls them “men” but that is not as precise as it should be when used together with the gender neutral “ho”. The Greek word that is translated as “men” is “Anthropos”. This word can be translated as “man”, “men”, “mankind” or as “people” or a “person” depending on the context it is used in. It is a less precise word than the Greek word “Aner” which is specifically used to refer to male human beings in the Bible or to “gune” which specifically refers to female human beings in the Bible.

With all that being said I believe in this rare case the NIV actually is actually closest to the original meaning with one minor correction:
“But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort.”

Where I think the NIV is wrong is in their use of the word “strengthening” where the KJV and other translations like the NASB translate the word as “edification” which is a better translation of the Greek word “Oikodome”. Even Thayer’s Bible dictionary states that Oikodome which literally means “the act of building up” also is used metaphorically to mean edifying or edification. The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of edify means to “to instruct and improve especially in moral and religious knowledge”.

So, what is I Corinthians 14:3 saying? It is saying that “the one” (man or woman) that prophesies speaks to people (men or women) using the Word of God to instruct them, exhort them and comfort them.

The next verse, I Corinthians 14:4 (KJV) actually mentions the church:
“He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.”

Again we have the gender neutral “Ho” for which is translated as “He” and the gender neutral “Heautou” which can be translated as “himself, herself, itself or themselves” depending on the context it is used. And since it is used with the gender neutral “Ho” once again the NIV is the most accurate translation of this verse where it says:
Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church.”

And on this subject of prophecy I want to mention one more verse which is found in Acts 21:8-9 (KJV):
“8 And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. 9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.”

So here is the point I have been building to with all these passages on prophesy. We who believe in the doctrines of Biblical gender roles cannot deny that God gifts some women with the gift of prophecy. And I do not mean the “foretelling of the future and writing God’s Word” kind of prophecy. I mean the kind of prophecy that edifies, exhorts and comforts people and edifies the church as the Scriptures say.

Acts 21:8-9 shows this to be true and the central passage we are talking about here – I Corinthians 11:5 which exhorts women when they prophesy to wear a head covering proves this to be true.
I know that many Christian wives have been led astray by false female prophets of God only to see their marriages destroyed. I have had many men write me emails testifying to this fact. Far too many. And it would be easy to say women can never prophesy in any form or venue because we are afraid of false teachings. But gentlemen let me remind you all that women don’t have a monopoly on being false prophets. There are many male false prophets out there today as there have always been.

The Scriptures tell us that God gifts some women with the gift of prophecy so the question then becomes where can they use this gift to edify, exhort and comfort?

Some would wrongly say because I Corinthians 14:4 (NIV) says “the one who prophesies edifies the church” that women can instruct and exhort men in the Church. But such an interpretation ignores clear prohibitions against women teaching men in the Church such this one found in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (KJV):
“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

And in the same chapter of I Corinthians that we have just mentioned with gender neutral language about people prophesying to the church we find this restriction on women once again in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV):
“34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

So how do we explain this? We are told in the Scriptures that prophesy edifies, exhorts and comforts all people and it also edifies the church and we are told that God gives this gift to both men and women. He even tells women when the prophesy to wear a head covering. Yet he tells women to remain silent in the church and learn from their husbands at home.

The answer my friends is found in Titus 2:3-5 (KJV):
“3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

When we combine the fact that Bible says some women have the gift of prophecy which includes edification, exhortation and comfort along with this passage we have a clear picture of God’s vision for women.
God gifts some women with the ability to be able to edify and exhort other 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” and to comfort them when they are in difficult situations.

Before I show you the final answer as to when a woman must wear a head covering according to the Scriptures, we need to understand one more point. When the Scriptures say “the one who prophesies edifies the church” this is not limited to a local church assembly of men and women together in a worship service.

The church, the body of Christ, is both universal and local. When you go down the street and see a physical church building and see Christians meeting there on Sunday mornings for worship that is a local manifestation of the body of Christ coming together for worship and instruction in the Word.

But then we have the universal body of Christ which includes all saints. There are many ministries which minister to the church on a universal level. A Christian radio show is an example of a ministry which ministers to the universal church. This blog ministry, BiblicalGenderRoles.com, is another example of a ministry which ministers to the universal church. And in this same way Christian women can have blogs which minister to the universal church and are specifically tailored toward women. Even on a local church level woman can have ladies Bible studies or ladies Sunday school classes where women with the gift of prophecy can exercise their gift within the bounds of God’s law.

But as I have said before on this blog – all ministries which are conducted by women, even by those women who have the gift of prophesy, must be done under the headship of man. If it is a single woman with no family that might mean she operates under the authority of the Pastor of her local church. If it is a woman with a Christian father and no husband then she operates under the spiritual authority of her father. And certainly, if a woman has a Christian husband then she operates her ministry to women under the spiritual authority of her husband.

And now we can finally answer the question of WHEN women are scripturally required to wear head coverings.

A woman should wear a head covering, a veil of some sort, during worship services because she certainly should be silently praying together with her local church during worship. Secondly, if a woman is prophesy to other women such as through a podcast or in person in a Sunday school class or a ladies Bible study, she also should wear a head covering.

Now prayer unlike prophesy, can occur within or totally outside any type of church ministry setting. But because the commands for women to wear head coverings for prayer are not qualified by a statement saying something like “in the church” or “the house of God” then it must therefore be treated as an absolute command for all occasions. See my note at the end of this article explaining my change or “sharpening” on this position about head coverings for prayer.

The “All Times” Argument

Before I conclude I wanted to address the “All Times” argument as to when Christian women should wear head coverings. There are some Christians like the Amish, Mennonites and Anabaptists and others outside those denominations that believe women are to wear head coverings at all times.

There argument is that the prayer Paul is referring to is not limited to that which occurs in the context of church ministries like worship services or other women’s ministries outside the worship service setting. And they point to 1 Thessalonians 5:17 (KJV) which exhorts all Christians to “Pray without ceasing” to say that since Christian women should be in a constant state of pray that they should always have their head coverings.

The Biblical command to “Pray without ceasing” is like the Biblical command for us as Christians to be “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” in Hebrews 10:25 (KJV). In the same way the call to not forsake assembling within our local church bodies does not mean we must be at church 24 hours a day, 7 days a week so too the call to pray without ceasing does not mean we must pray 24 hours a day 7 days a week at all minutes of the day.

Taken together these commands are telling us not give on the regular practice of meeting together in our local churches or of praying. We as Christians should have regular habits of praying and going to church. This the command of the Scriptures.

Otherwise if we took “pray without ceasing” the way some of these groups have tried to portray it – we could never talk to anyone else because we would be constantly talking to God and if we applied that to forsaking not the assembling of ourselves in the church we would never leave the church building or stop praying. That is not God’s will for our Christian lives. God simply wants prayer and church attendance to be a regular habit for all Christians.

Conclusion

I hope this study has been a blessing to you, I know it was for me as I studied this out again. I have believed in women wearing head coverings within the context of church ministry for many years but God really fined tuned this for me as I studied his Word on this subject once again.

So, we answered here from the Scriptures the three important questions when it comes to Christian women wearing head coverings. We answered the why, the what and the when.

The reason why God wants a woman to wear a head covering is because it is a public acknowledgement by that woman that man is the image bearer of God and man has been designated by God as the head of woman in all areas of this life. It is a testimony to all the people who see her as well as the angels who are watching that she acknowledges the male headship that God has placed her under and she would never seek to take authority over a man.

What is the head covering which God requires when women pray or prophesy? It is the second veil which God requires women to cover their heads with when praying or prophesying. The first veil God requires women to have is the one he naturally gives them the ability to have – and that is their long hair.

When should women wear their head covering or a second veil? Any time a woman prays or prophesies including if she prophesies outside a local church setting like with a podcast or having a ladies Bible study group at home. And she should wear a head covering any time she prays even outside a ministry setting.

As I conclude I just want to give one more “why” answer.

Why did the church abandon the teaching that women should wear head coverings? Why have so many pastors and other Christian teachers and writers gone to great lengths to say it was a “temporary cultural requirement” Even if they agree it is still required, they make the argument I have shown to be logically false that the woman’s long hair is the only covering Paul was talking about.

The answer is that Christian men over the last century or so gradually abandoned their God given headship over the women in their lives. And this leadership vacuum allowed for a poisonous ideology called Feminism to form. And Feminism since its inception has decimated God’s institution of gender roles and marriage and it brought the divorce rate from 3 percent to 45 percent causing more than 60 million divorces. Feminist ideology has also led to the deaths of over 60 million babies in abortion.

Whether it is their wives, their daughters or the women under their ministries in their churches most Christian men have neglected their duty in this regard. They now seek to appease women in their churches or marriages. They are more concerned with making the women in their lives happy than pleasing God.

If you are a God fearing, Bible believing Christian man or woman I ask you to pray for the men around you that God will give them the strength and courage to lead the women in their lives even it that may cause some momentary or even long-term unhappiness for them. I also ask you to pray for the women in your lives that they will have the courage to take a stand and if they do not have the two head coverings God requires for women (long hair and a veil for church ministry) that they will make this right before God and start doing what is right.

Update 5/5/2018 – My Change or “Sharpening” On When Women Should Wear Head Coverings For Prayer

Since originally publishing this article the Lord has led me to make a change on my position on head coverings. And “change” might not be the right word, as that might imply to some a 180 degree turn, which is not the kind of change I am referring to. I think a better word might be “sharpen” as in God has led me to “sharpen” my position on women wearing head coverings.

Let me just say before I introduce this change that no Christian should ever think they have arrived and perfectly interpret or apply the Scriptures. The Scriptures tell us as much in the following passage:
“11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ”
Ephesians 4:11-13 (KJV)

We will never be perfect in this life in how we live or in our interpretations or understanding of the Word of God. But Christ gives us the Holy Spirit of God and also brothers and sisters in Christ to help us along the way. While we may never be perfect, or even perfectly unified as believers in our understanding of the Scriptures – we are to progressively strive for that each day of our lives.

This means we should always be willing to entertain the possibility that we can be wrong in either our interpretation or our application of the Scriptures. Sometimes the Holy Spirit can show us something all on our own but other times the Holy Spirit may use other Christians to show us his truths. It might be something our Pastor says in a sermon on Sunday. It might a something we hear from a preacher on a radio. It might be something we read from a Christian writer in a book or blog. And sometimes it might be from a comment that someone places on your blog.

The Scriptures tell us in Proverbs 27:17 that Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend” and that is what Tyler Bryant has done for me on this subject of women wearing head coverings.

For all of my adult life I have believed in women wearing head coverings for worship since I attended a Plymouth Brethren church with my parents when I was a teenager for about a year before we returned to a Baptist church. My mother for a time started wearing a head covering while we attend that church and my father showed me from I Corinthians 11 why the church believed women should wear head coverings.

I have since that time held the position that since prophesy can only be exercised in a church ministry setting (either within the local church or in some parachurch or universal church capacity) that the absoluteness of the statement was applying only to prophesy and the prayer portion was pertaining to that which was done with prophecy which is done in church ministry.

Tyler is 100 percent sure that the prayer mentioned is NOT limited to that which is done within the context of church ministry (either in the local church or outside as a universal church ministry).

The struggle I have had since Tyler’s comments is that I am not 100 percent sure that the prayer mentioned IS limited to just that which is done in the context of church ministry (like alongside of prophesy). But before I give my change or “sharpening” on this subject of women wearing head coverings for prayer I want to give a little background on qualifications about things done “in the church” which Tyler alluded to in his comments.

There are some passages like I Corinthians 14:34-35’s admonition for women to be silent that specifically qualify the statement with “in the church” so I can 100 percent say this is not applying to outside of church ministries. And then I further 100 percent know it is talking about mixed gender settings because women are exhorted to teach other women and we are told women can prophesy to other women (Acts 2:17 ,1 Corinthians 14:3-4 & Titus 2:3-5).

There are other statements like this one from 1 Timothy 3:15 which qualify all of chapter three that came before it as well as half of chapter 2:
“14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

In this passage above Paul is end capping his discussion on general behavior rules within the assembled church as well as the qualifications for church officers – he started this discussion in the previous chapter in I Timothy 2:7 where restates his authority as an Apostle of Christ and then he starts telling men and women how to conduct themselves within the assembled church. He mentions a very similar statement about women being silent in verses 11-12 and this is qualified later by his statement that this is “how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God”.

My point I am trying to make is that sometimes the qualification does not occur right alongside the command but it occurs later in the discussion as an end cap to many commands. But with this case of women wearing head coverings while praying – there is no qualifying endcap anywhere related to the discussion of head coverings.

I Corinthians 11 is an interesting chapter because Paul begins with speaking about prophecy which is a church ministry, but it is one that can be exercised toward the church either on a local church level or universal church level and then he switches gears and begins speaking of a church ministry, that of communion, which can ONLY occur within the local church with them all coming together in I Corinthians 11:17-18 (KJV):
“17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.”

So here is my change or “sharpening”

Since the discussion of head coverings for prayer is not qualified with the command itself like I Corinthians 14:34-35 and it also does not qualify the command about head coverings for prayer as part of a list of many commands like 1 Timothy 3:15 then we cannot know with a 100 percent degree of confidence that it is only speaking of prayers done in the context of church ministry. Therefore, I believe in the absence of either of these types of qualifications we must regard the command for women to wear head coverings for prayer as absolute. This means women should wear head coverings for prayer whether it is during a a church ministry or even in a private setting outside of church ministries.

Why Husbands Are NOT Accountable to Their Wives

Many Christian teachers teach that husbands and wives should be equally accountable to one another. We are told that neither the husband nor the wife should keep any information back from one another and that this complete transparency is the foundation for a healthy Christian marriage.

Before we get into the Scriptural arguments that proponents of this teaching make, we need to define what it means to be accountable.

Merriam-Webster.com defines “accountable” as “required to explain actions or decisions to someone”.

Dictionary.com defines “accountable” as “subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable”.

Now that we understand what accountable means we can discuss whether the doctrine of equal accountability between husbands and wives is founded in the teaching of the Bible or just the teachings of our culture.

The Husband and Wife are One Flesh

Christian teachers who teach equal accountability between a husband and wife base their doctrine on the following principle that God says a husband and wife are one flesh in marriage:

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” – Mark 10:7-8

So, the argument basically goes like this.  If a husband and wife are no longer two, but one, then there should be nothing that one knows that the other does not.

The problem with this interpretation of the “one flesh” principle is that the oneness between a husband and wife is not a oneness of equals.

The Scriptures tell us that marriage is a picture of the relationship between Christ and Church:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  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 5:22-24

Are Christ and his Church equals? Absolutely not.  One leads and one follows.

Is Christ accountable to his Church? Is Christ required to explain his actions or decisions to his Church?  Absolutely not.  Does he sometimes explain his actions? Yes, but he is not required to do so.

Is Christ answerable to his Church? Must he justify whatever he does to his Church? The answer again is absolutely not.

The language of Ephesians chapter five on the position of the husband to the wife is crystal clear.  There is no gray area here.  The husband is the head of the wife “AS” Christ is the head of the Church. Therefore, the husband is not in any way accountable to his wife even though he and his wife are one as the Church is one with Christ.

Does Responsibility Always Equal Accountability?

Does this mean a husband does not have any responsibilities toward his wife? Of course, he does!

After God addresses the duty of the wife to submit to her husband in everything, he addresses the responsibilities of the husband toward his wife:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 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. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church” – Ephesians 5:25-29

There are several kinds of love in the Bible.  There is an affectionate kind of love that is usually conditionally based upon what a person does for another.  There is a family type of love that is instinctual which describes the love of a parent for a child or a child for a parent.  There is a type of love that is sexually based.  And then there is an unconditional love, which is a love based in a choice and not feelings.  This last kind of love is the one that is the strongest type of love and it is most often associated with God and his actions toward us.  This is the kind of love God commands husbands to have toward their wives in Ephesians chapter 5.

Husbands are called by God to unconditionally choose to love their wives by washing their wife’s spiritual spots and wrinkles with the Word of God (teaching, correcting and rebuking them as necessary), they are to provide for their wife’s physical needs, protect their wife’s body as if it were their own and give their lives to save their wife’s life as Christ did for his Church.

But just because we have responsibilities toward someone does not always mean we are accountable to that person for how we fulfill those responsibilities.

For instance, a teacher is responsible to their students for teaching them the right materials they need to learn.  But they are not accountable to their students for fulfilling those responsibilities, but rather their school leadership.

Another example would be parents.  Parents have many responsibilities toward their children, yet they are not accountable to their children for how they fulfill those responsibilities.

But sometimes we are accountable to the person that we have responsibilities toward.   We as both men and women have many responsibilities toward God and we are also accountable to him for how we fulfill those responsibilities.   But women are also accountable to their husbands for how they fulfill their responsibilities to them as wives and mothers to their children.

Men and Women Were Created Unequal for a Specific Purpose

If a husband and wife were equal partners in marriage, like two equal partners in a business together then yes, they would be required to be completely transparent and there could be no secrets.  All decisions would need to be made jointly and agreed upon together.

That is what the world, and sadly many Christian churches and teachers teach today – that marriage is an equal partnership between a man and a woman.

But the Scriptures are clear in multiple passages throughout the Old and New Testaments that marriage is not a partnership of equals, but rather it is a patriarchy or male lead relationship.  And God did not just flip a coin as some people think “because someone had to be in charge”.

The Scriptures show us that marriage was purposefully designed the way it was as part of God’s larger plan shown in I Corinthians 11:

“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.  For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.  Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” – I Corinthians 11:7-9

The passage above from I Corinthians that I have just shown you is one that you will not hear in most Churches today.   Instead you will hear all the time how God made man and woman equally in his image.

Most Christian teachers today appeal to the Genesis account to teach that God made man and woman equally in his image:

“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

They teach “See it says male and female created he them.  That means God created both man and woman equally in his image”.  But is that really what that passage teaches? Does it say God created male and female in his image or does it just say that God created male and female? Read the passage again.

And while the Hebrew word for man (“adam”) can be mean mankind there are two reasons that we know it refers specifically to male human beings and not all mankind (men and women). The first reason is the key phrase “created he him” and this refers particularly to Adam, the man, the male.  Therefore, we know that when it says he created man in his image, it is referring specifically to male human beings, not female human beings.   The second reason we know he was not referring to creating both men and women equally in his image is because of Paul’s divine commentary from I Corinthians 11 that we have just mentioned. It clearly states that man is “the image and glory of God” and then uses “but” indicating that woman is NOT the image and glory of God.  Woman is “the glory of man”.

So, it is NOT Scripturally accurate to say that men and women are equally created in God’s image or that God split his image between men and women.

And there is a reason man is created in God’s image and woman is not. Man was created by God to image him, or live out his attributes, and thereby bring him glory.  Woman was created by God for man to help man in is primary mission to image God.  It is not woman’s mission to image God, but rather it is her mission to help man in his mission to image God.

Man could not fully image God without being a husband and father.  Therefore, God had to make woman to be his wife and the mother of his children.  It really is that simple.  A woman who fights to be equal with a man or one who is offended because she is not equal to a man is a woman who has a problem with God’s plan for her life.

The American Egalitarian Lie

I realize what I have just said here is extremely offensive to our culture’s modern egalitarian views.  We are taught in America that everyone is equal and that men and women should have equal rights. And by extension we are taught that marriage is a partnership of equals where all actions and decisions must be discussed and agreed upon because men and women are equal.

The vast majority of Churches and Christian teachers have bowed to our egalitarian culture and in the process many Christian books and articles have been published over the last half century trying to make the Bible fit an egalitarian worldview.  The primary passage that Christian egalitarians use to teach this view is found in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28

Christian egalitarians use Galatians 3:28 to cancel out the rest of the Bible in regard to gender roles.  It really is a very faulty interpretation of the Bible.  Christian Egalitarians ask us to believe the ridiculous notion that somehow Paul changed his mind about what he wrote in Ephesians 5:22-31 and he just canceled it all out with Galatians 3:28.

And we are also supposed to believe that the Apostle Peter did not get the memo from Paul because he wrote in I Peter 3:1-6 that women were to be in subjection to their husbands and show respectful fear to their husbands and follow Sarah’s example who obeyed her husband and called him lord.

This is why I have maintained for years that you have throw the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy out the door to be a Christian Egalitarian.  There are not mistakes and no contradictions in the Bible. And the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures.

That is why as Bible believing Christians, we know there absolutely no conflict or contradiction between I Corinthians 11:1-16, Ephesians 5:22-31, I Peter 3:1-7 and Galatians 3:28.

I Corinthians 11:1-6 is speaking about the purposes for which God created man and woman and man’s primary mission to image God.  That is why men are not to wear a head covering for worship and prayer and women are.  That is also why God is always referred to in the Bible in the masculine sense as husband, father and son.  It is why Christ had 12 male Apostles. It is why the priests in Israel had to be male.

Ephesians 5:22-31 and I Peter 3:1-7 are speaking to gender roles in marriage as part of God’s larger plan for man to image God and woman to picture the people of God in her submission and service to her husband.

And finally, Galatians 3:28 has absolutely nothing to do with gender roles in this world or marriage.  It is speaking to the subject of salvation! The Apostle Paul was saying men and women, Jews and Greeks, slaves and freemen could all be saved and be a part of the body of Christ.

But Accountability Keeps Us Out of Sin!

Some would argue that even though the husband does not have to be accountable to his wife, because he is her head as Christ is the head of the Church, that he still should be accountable to her to keep from sinning.

I think accountability partners are a great thing to have in our spiritual life.  I have several of them where we confess to one another when we fail and try to encourage one another in in our walk with God.

The Scriptures give us the following admonitions that I believe support the concept of having accountability partners.

Accountability Partners Sharpen Our Character and Make us Better Christians

“Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” – Proverbs 27:17

Accountability Partners Give Us Someone to Confess Our Fault To

“Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” – James 5:16

Accountability Partners Keep Our Secrets

“A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter.” – Proverbs 11:13

Accountability Partners Tell Us When We Are Wrong

“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” – Proverbs 27:6

Accountability Partners Encourage Us to Keep Doing What is Right

“Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.” – 1 Thessalonians 5:11

So, yes accountability partners are a great thing for us all to have as Christians.   But that then leads us to our next point.

Why A Husband Should NOT Make His Wife His Accountability Partner

So, after reading all of the previous passages you might be asking “Why should a man’s wife not be one of his accountability partners?”

There really are two reasons.

The first reason is that it undermines his authority by making him spiritually accountable to his subordinate.  The reason a husband should not have his wife as an accountability partner is same reason a Pastor should not have one his members be his accountability partner.  Accountability partners should ALWAYS be equals, and never subordinates.

The second reason a husband should not have his wife as an accountability partner is because of the simple fact that she is a woman.  Men and women are different.  We have very different spiritual struggles and very different natures.  A man cannot fully comprehend or understand the spiritual struggles of a woman nor can a woman fully comprehend the spiritual struggles of a man.

That is why the Scriptures even encourage gender segregated spiritual mentoring:

“But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;  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.

Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.” – Titus 2:1-6

So, again Accountability partners are great.  But wives should not be accountability partners for their husbands because they are their husband’s subordinate and because they are women and cannot fully relate to the spiritual struggles of a man.

Why Women Want to Know Everything About Their Husbands

The Bible talks about women wanting to know everything about the people around them (which would include their husbands) and how they can get into trouble with this part of their nature:

“And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” – 1 Timothy 5:13-14

And just as marriage helps to keep couples from fornication (I Corinthians 7:2-5) so too we are told that marriage is the answer to keeping women from being tattlers, busy bodies and speaking things they ought not to.

Women need men to keep them in line. 

To say such a thing today would be called “sexist”.  But this is what God’s Word says.  It almost makes you think that maybe, just maybe our post feminist world has it all wrong and the old “sexist” world while not being perfect was far more closely aligned to God’s Word than ours is today.

In fact, the very first sin woman committed had to do with her seeking out knowledge that was forbidden to her (Genesis 3:6). But it is not just a woman’s lust for knowledge, but also her lust for power that drives her to make her husband accountable to her.

In the Genesis account we read the following:

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” – Genesis 3:16

And God’s statement to Eve mirrors what he said to Cain:

“If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” – Genesis 4:7

So, as we can see, in the same way that Cain’s sin nature desired to control him, but he had to rule over it, so too a woman’s sinful nature causes her to try to control her husband, but he must rule over her.

Wives, It is Not for You to Know

How many TV shows have you seen where a woman breaks up with a man for keeping something a secret? And I don’t mean him cheating with another woman.  I mean any secret.  Women in our post-feminist culture have been taught that they can expect their men to tell them everything.  Anything held back by the man from the woman is considered a breach of trust and could possibly end the relationship.

For Christian wives reading this – what would your reaction be if you asked your husband to read his email and he said “it is not for you to know”.  What if you asked him for his password for his phone or social media accounts and he said “it is not for you to know”.  If you are like most American women you would be infuriated.  Because you have been brought up in a culture that teaches you that you are an equal partner with your husband in your marriage and you entitled to know everything he knows and everything about him.

What if your husband decided to lock you out of the bank and manage the finances completely on his own? Most American women would completely rebel.  But do you know who says to his wife “it is not for you to know”?

“And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” – Acts 1:7

That’s right. It was Jesus Christ himself.

Conclusion

It is utterly amazing to me how many modern Christian teachers grab Ephesians 5:25’s statement “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” and then the just fill in whatever they think what that love means.

Modern Christian teachers teach that Jesus was a husband that lived to make his wife happy. But the Bible teaches that Jesus was a husband that lived to make his wife holy (Ephesians 5:26-27).

Modern Christian teachers teach that Jesus was a husband who never corrected his wife or tried to change her. But the Bible teaches us that Christ washes his wife’s spiritual spots and wrinkles with the Word of God to make her the wife he wants her to be (Ephesians 5:26-27).  It also teaches us that he rebukes and chastens his wife out love for her (Revelation 3:19).

Modern Christian teachers teach Jesus was a husband who was completely transparent with his wife and held nothing back from her. But the Bible teaches us that Christ does indeed hold things back from his wife and tells her there are things that are not for her to know (Acts 1:7).

Christian wives – I know a lot of the Scriptures and information I have given you here might be new to you.  It might even be offensive to you.  But it is what the Word of God teaches.

You will find absolutely no Scriptural support for a lot of what you hear and read today in Christian circles that basically teaches partnership marriage.  Sadly, some Christian groups pretend that they teach male headship only to gut it making the man nothing more than a figure head leader.

This is not about a power trip.  This is not about men hating on you as a woman or trying to make your life miserable. It is about God’s design.

So, what you need to do is follow the admonition of the Apostle Paul when he wrote:

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” – Romans 12:2

You need to renew your mind.  You need to unlearn the feminist and egalitarian teachings you grew up with in school and church and maybe even in your own family.  That is tough process. It won’t be easy and it will take time.  But if you yield to the Holy Spirit you can do it with his help.

Also, before I conclude with the men, I want to clarify something for you ladies on the subject of accountability partners.  While I think it is great and valuable for women to mentor and be accountability partners with other women it needs to be the right kind of women.  It needs to be a spiritual woman who will not contradict your husband’s spiritual leadership.  In addition, you are still accountable to your husband as well because he is your spiritual head.

In practical terms, that means if your husband wants to know your passwords for your phone, email and social media accounts you must give it to him but he does not and I would argue should not give this same information to you.  Why? Because as I said before he is your authority and you are his subordinate.  He is responsible for monitoring and if necessary, correcting your behavior, but you do not have that same right and responsibility toward him.

Also, if you want to find out what it really means to be one flesh with your husband and how to have unity in your marriage see my article “Why unity in marriage has more to do with the wife than the husband”.

Now to Christian men.

I advise you to follow Paul’s admonition below:

“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.” – 1 Corinthians 16:13 (NASB)

The Bible does not just call you to be a figure head leader as some churches teach today, but it tells you that you are to be “One that ruleth well his own house” (I Timothy 3:4).  You are to be a ruler, not just a leader.

Do not undermine your spiritual authority by making yourself accountable to your wife. Make yourself accountable to other good Christian men, but not your wife.  But realize at the end of the day the one you are truly accountable to is Christ who is your head (I Corinthians 11:3).

You are the head of your wife as Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23).  Your wife is not spiritually accountable for you to God, but rather you are spiritually accountable for her to God.  You are tasked with teaching her (1 Corinthians 14:35) and washing her spiritual spots and blemishes with the Word of God (Ephesians 5:25-27).

And I encourage you to read Romans 12:2 as well and seek the renewal of your mind through the help of the Holy Spirit.  You must unlearn what our American culture has raised you with and replace that with the truth of God’s Word.  This is the only way you can truly fulfill your mission as a man to image God with your life and thereby bring him glory.

Why MGTOW is an Unbiblical Philosophy

MGTOW is just one of many men’s rights groups comprising what is known as the Manosphere. MGTOW stands for “Men Going Their Own Way”. The Manosphere is comprised of several groups that share one thing in common. They all believe the rights of men in America and other western countries have been infringed upon for at least several decades and others for more than a century. Also, the vast majority of Manosphere groups believe that feminism is a problematic ideology that is eating away at the core of society and destroying Western civilization.

Where these groups begin to separate from one another is on two main issues.

The first issue which separates manosphere groups is how far back was feminism wrong? Was it from its very origins in the mid-19th century when women’s groups fought for more rights for in divorce and property rights for women? Was it when women were granted the right to vote in 1920? Or was it just from the advent of second wave feminism in the 1960s where feminism dropped the equivalent of a societal nuclear bomb on traditional gender roles and sexual morality and it became a misandrist movement that openly declared war on men?

The second issue which separates manosphere groups is how men should react to the damage feminism has caused to men’s rights, sexual norms, traditional gender roles, marriage and the family. And opinions on what the solutions should be are very much impacted by the group’s view on the origins of the problem.

For instance, if a group does not view equal rights for women, including the ability of women to vote and to be economically independent of men as a foundational part of the problem they will have very different solutions to the assault on men’s rights than other groups. Another way of putting this is that some manosphere groups are only fighting for equal rights for men with women, not less rights for women.

MRAs – Men’s Rights Activists

Many MRA groups in the manosphere believe they just need to just get the societal pendulum to the center. These groups are actually big supporters of first and even second wave feminism and all the new rights these movements granted women. They believe society was unjustly biased to support male privilege and patriarchy over women before feminism came along to correct this injustice. In their view, feminism just went too far and they want to re-balance the rights between men and women and have the courts deal equally with both men and women.

Jesse Powell’s Secular Patriarchy or Traditional Family Activism

Other manosphere groups believe that feminism was flawed from its very inception and that American and Western society made a grave error in granting women economic, social and political independence from men. In their view, tearing down the system of patriarchy which was the norm throughout human history was a colossal mistake.

Even among the manosphere groups that believe feminism was flawed since its very inception in the mid-19th century, there is much diversity of opinion. Some of these groups come from a secular perspective and others come from a religious perspective.

For instance, there are atheists like Jesse Powell who are believe in and teach “secular patriarchy” and consider themselves “TFAs” or Traditional Family Activists. Jesse Powell argues that evolution shows that men are meant to lead, provide for and protect women and that the feminist revolution of the mid-19th century went against this and was doomed to failure because of the unique evolutionary design of men and women.

Mr. Powell not only decries the damage caused by feminism to Western world, but he also offers what he believes is a solution to the problem:

What society needs instead is for men to assert themselves as men and return to their roles as the guardians, protectors, and foundation of support for women so that women will be once again freed from the concerns and burdens of the man and instead be enabled to focus on giving to others of their femininity and their unique and particular strengths as women. The feminine contribution to the family and to society must be resurrected, must be revitalized, must be held up as a fundamental priority and concern of men once again.

Under coverture women’s role as women was upheld in both culture and law. The beginning of the feminist revolution can be dated back to the initial reforms that worked to undo the principles of coverture; namely the Custody of Infants Act of 1839 and the Married Women’s Property Act of 1870. TFAs wish to repeal the feminist revolution in its entirety and return to a period of stable and healthy relations between the sexes such as existed in the era of coverture.”

So, in his view the answer to fighting the damage feminism has caused to the family unit and Western civilization is to go back to the very beginnings of feminism in the mid-19th century and remove it at is very roots. That means removing women’s right to vote, property rights and child custody rights in divorce. This would force women’s complete dependence on men as had it been for this history of mankind throughout the world.

Rollo Tomassi’s “The Red Pill” or TRP

Other secularists like Rollo Tomassi at RationalMale.com take a different approach. He does not oppose women’s right to vote, property rights for women or even their right to abortion, but he does think that the ideology of feminism is at odds with human evolution and he does not buy into the false blank slate theory that all of our behavior comes from our environment. He rejects the crazy idea that you can educate away basic male and female behavioral traits.

Rollo Tomassi has made a career of his own take on “The Red Pill” which uses the 1999 movie “Matrix” to illustrate how men need to be awakened to what is actually happening around them. In the Matrix movie the mentor character Morpheus offers Neo, the main Protagonist a choice between a red pill and a blue pill. If he takes the red pill, he will be awakened to the false reality he has been living in and shown what the world actually looks like. If he takes the blue pill, he can go back to the fantasy world he has been living in his whole life. But if he does stay in that world, he will continue to be what he has been since his birth, a slave to the Matrix system. He can only be free by taking the red pill and waking up to the harsh real world around him. It will be a harder world, and he will have to fight against the system he used to serve as a slave, but he would be free.

I actually love the Matrix Trilogy and own them all on Blu Ray. I watch them a couple times a year with my sons. I think there are many life lessons that can be learned from them and I actually think the red pill/blue pill is an excellent analogy to how we are brought up in our culture to view our world. I would even use the red pill/blue pill analogy to teach people that there is a spiritual world that is beyond this physical world that we can see and touch.

But unlike Jesse Powell, Rollo Tomassi does not see the answer to the problem of “feminine primacy” in Western culture as a need to completely rollback all gains of feminism since the mid-19th century. Mr. Tomassi is not really looking at long term political solutions to the problem of feminism, but rather he is more interested in helping men to “game” the current feminine dominated culture to fulfill their “masculine imperative”. The masculine imperative in his view is for a man to have sex with as many women as possible. In essence, men are programmed to be polygamous, or most specifically polygynous. Women on the other hand are hypergamous by nature, meaning they seek the best man with which to mate based on his genetics and his ability to provide for and protect them. This is why women are most naturally attracted to muscular, good looking men who have a lot of money.

One of the most important concepts Mr. Tomassi teaches men in their efforts to “game women” is the “Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least”. By this he teaches men that the more they act like they need a woman, especially for sex, the more power she takes in the relationship and ultimately the less attractive he becomes to her.

And no introduction to the Red Pill ideology would be complete without the mention of alpha men, beta men and the concept of “Frame”. In his book “The Rational Male — Positive Masculinity” Tomassi writes:

“The sexual alphaness of a male towards a female is exhibited by her wanting to please him, and the sexual betaness of a male is exhibited by him needing to please her.

And on the subject of “Frame” Tomassi wrote the following in his article on RationalMale.com entitled “Hypergamy Knows Best”:

“One of the most basic Red Pill principles I’ve stressed since I began writing is the importance of Frame. The dynamic of Frame stretches into many aspects of a man’s life, but in a strictly intergender sense this applies to men establishing a positive dominance in their relationships with women. In a dating context of non-exclusivity (plate spinning) this means, as a man, you have a solid reality into which that woman wants to be included in. Holding Frame is not about force, or coercion, it’s about attraction and desire and a genuine want on the part of a woman to be considered for inclusion into that man’s reality.

Being allowed into a man’s dominant, confident Frame should be a compliment to that woman’s self-perception. It should be a prize she seeks.”

So here is a summary of what Tomassi is saying in these two statements. Men have a choice. They can be the beta male our post-feminist culture wants them to be. That means as a man you center your life on pleasing the women around you. If you are a beta male, your entire strategy in dating and eventually marriage is to make your wife happy each and every day. You will sacrifice your career, your sexual needs and anything else that is required in order to make her happy.

Alpha males are the polar opposite. The best summary of an Alpha male is man who absolutely and unequivocally does not care about what others think of him. He literally does what he wants to whether it is popular or not.

As an example, a beta male would ask his wife or girlfriend permission to go out with his friends on a given evening. The alpha male would tell his wife he was going out and not give her the option of a veto. Tomassi and other Red Pill philosophers have pointed to many studies which show women going after the “bad boy”, i.e. the guy who could care less about what anyone thinks of what he does. For instance, it is extremely common for a woman to be married to Mr. Nice Guy and then have an affair with Mr. Bad Boy who lives next store. The Mr. Nice Guy could work the 9 to 5 job and provide well for his wife and children. The Mr. Nice Guy could come home after work and help with the kids and even cook dinner. Mr. Nice Guy even takes his wife on regular weekly dates and even takes her on romantic trips a couple times a year. But instead his wife finds herself attracted to Mr. Bad Guy next store who is covered in tattoos, rides a Harley, would never want kids and has an endless string of bimbos coming in and out of his house.

This is because two of the driving forces that evoke what Tomassi calls “genuine” verses “negotiated” sexual desire in women are men that give off the allure of danger or excitement. Mr. Nice Guy is both safe and unexciting therefore his wife will most likely have no genuine desire to have sex with him and the most he can ever hope for is “transactional” or “negotiated” sex where he does things for her and then she gives him sex as a reward.

Another driver of genuine sexual desire in women, according to Tomassi, is fear or dread. Its not fear in the sense that she is afraid the man will hurt her if she does not have sex with him. It is not even fear that he might take away things like money or other things he supplies her with. This type of fear or dread as he refers to it is when a woman sees other women are interested in her man. It is really a jealous type of fear where she worries if she does not sexually please him, he will find what he wants elsewhere with these other women that want him.

And these are just some of the many techniques that Mr. Tomassi teaches men in order to stoke “genuine desire” for sex from women toward them. While he does talk about other masculine issues besides sex, his teachings could basically boil down to “How men can get laid both before and after marriage in a post-feminist world.” With teachings like these, it is not surprising that Mr. Tomassi has one of the largest followings in the Manosphere.

One of my many projects I have had in the works is to do an in-depth comparison of the doctrines of Biblical gender roles verses Red Pill ideology. I will say up front as a preview that Red Pill ideology is not all wrong from a Christian perspective. In fact, many observations of Red Pill ideology are backed up by the Bible.

But one of the big differences between Red Pill ideology and Biblical gender roles is that Red Pill just tells you what the differences are between men and women, it does not do a lot of explaining as to why those differences are there.

The only “why” you get from Red Pill for the differences between men and women is based on the evolutionary need to reproduce for the continuation of the species. Mr. Tomassi’s Red Pill ideology teaches that men have polygamous natures which causes them seek to sow their seed with as many women as possible. On the other hand, Tomassi teaches that women have hypergamous natures which causes them to be more selective and thus they seek out the most genetically superior males who can provide for and protect them and their children thus giving their offspring the best chance for survival.

The Bible actually shows that God made men with polygamous natures and it regulates polygamy and even blesses polygamy. So, in this area of man’s sexual nature the Bible would be in complete agreement with Red Pill ideology. The Bible would also agree with the fact that women have hypergamous natures but under Biblical laws women were not allowed to fully act on those hypergamous natures. While it is true that women often married for economic or political means, the fact is historically women had little to no choice in whom they married. Their fathers or other male relatives like uncles or brothers would decide who women married. Only widowed or divorced women had a choice in whom they married.

Also, before the sexual revolution which coincided with the second wave feminism of the 1960s, sex outside of marriage was the rarity and not the norm as it is today. Prior to the sexual revolution, a woman’s virginity was her most prized possession held and protected for marriage. So, the whole Red Pill ideology of cracking “the code of how to get laid” was meaningless for having sex with the vast majority of women. Prior to the advent of dating in the early 20th century and then the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the way a man got laid was to get married. And the way a man got married was to get a job, show he could provide and then earn the permission of the father, uncle or brother of the girl he wanted to marry. In many older cultures a man did not just earn the father’s permission with his character or by showing he could provide, but he also earned that permission by paying for the woman.

In other words, since the creation of mankind right up until the advent of mid-19th century feminist movements, women were considered the property of men. There were two primary ways men acquired women. They would take women as part of the spoils of war from the tribes or nations they conquered or among their own tribe or nation they would purchase women from their fathers or other male relatives.

So, when we look at the history of male/female relationship dynamics, a lot of what Red Pill ideology teaches only applies if a man fully accepts and just wants to “game” our post-feminist and post-sexual revolution culture to fulfill his own personnel desires for pleasure.

However, if you are trying to follow the Biblical model of gender roles some parts of Red Pill ideology will work within a Biblical framework but other parts of it will have to be discarded.

Now that we have talked about MRAs, Secular Patriarchists and Red Pill teachings from the manosphere we will now dive into MGTOWs.

What MGTOWs Believe

Here is the definition of MGTOW from mgtow.com’s “About” page:

M.G.T.O.W – Men Going Their Own Way is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: “No”. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a “man” is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didn’t.”

https://www.mgtow.com/about/

On mgtow.com’s “Manosphere” page they explain what happiness looks like to a man:

Happiness is a man who protects and cares for his family, goes forth and conquers, gives of himself for a greater cause, and ensures his legacy – because that’s what he was made to do. He doesn’t fear resistance, turbulence, or commitment, because his masculine frame turns resistance into rise, finds sustenance in turbulent waters, and relies on the steadfast roots of commitment to provide stability for himself and safety for those he vowed to protect.

But today’s men are encouraged to meet resistance head on while being shamed for expecting lift. They’re told to “man up” and tough it out through turbulent waters while being called misogynists for expecting sustenance. They’re shamed into putting down roots in infertile hypergamous soil that offers no support, then are financially ruined and separated from their children when they cannot weather the storm…

The women they encounter demand attention, loyalty, resources and undue privilege, while offering very little in return. The natural hypergamous nature that once served them well in their quest to secure the best possible mate is now a sustained lifestyle bringing an endless pursuit of bigger and better. The average young woman today is less concerned about the number of quality men who would commit to her than she is about the number of men who retweet a photo of her breasts.

Young men today attend churches with pastors who demand they “man up” and support the church and its female parishioners, but that same church does nothing to cultivate an environment that encourages feminine strength. Sunday after Sunday they listen as the same Bible used to preemptively absolve women of all past, current and future transgressions is used to condemn men…

Men haven’t lost their need to find happiness by providing, protecting, sacrificing and conquering; we’ve simply discovered that providing for the modern feminist, working like a dog to protect a family that can be taken away at a moment’s notice, or risking our lives to conquer resources for some ungrateful women who claims she can do it on her own is an empty way to live. We haven’t changed the mission; we’ve changed the method. We now provide for ourselves and our immediate families, protect our interests, make selective sacrifices when the situation warrants, and conquer mountains of poon.

https://www.mgtow.com/manosphere/

On the subject of sex mgtow.com gives this answer in their “Frequently Asked Questions” (https://www.mgtow.com/faq/) section:

“Do MGTOW have sex? Or are you all virgins who don’t get any.

You know who’s not getting any?

Boyfriends and husbands.

Sex is a worthless commodity that grows on trees. Any man who has enjoyed his fair share would know that. It’s available to any man, anywhere, for less effort, money and time than anyone would have you believe. If it’s that important to a man, he can order it like pizza. Right now. Even if the modern man has only 3 lovers in his entire life, he is enjoying more trim than his own grandfather – who was socially expected to marry her first. The value of western vagina has plummeted to $0.

A significant number of MGTOW are fathers. Guess how that happened.”

And finally on the subject of marriage mgtow.com gives this answer in their “Frequently Asked Questions” section:

Can you be married and a MGHOW?

There has been some deliberation on this, but the short answer is “no”.

While it’s certainly possible that a man may have married 20 years ago, and recently became self-aware of the very precarious legal position he finds himself in today . . . this would be the only real way he could consider adopting a MGTOW lifestyle if he were contemplating divorce.

Cohabitation and the signing of a marriage contract eliminates any possibility that he has a true 100% agency over the outcome of his marriage and future. With 72%+ of divorces solely initiated by women (the number is much higher because she can still passively initiate while making it look like his idea) his kids, house, cars, freedom and ultimate destiny no longer belong to him exclusively. No matter how much he wants his marriage to work, he can’t legally control the outcome and can be totally devastated by the divorce. Divorce is a huge, billion-dollar industry deliberately designed to transfer his wealth and freedom to her, leaving him with little or no recourse – even if he were totally faithful and she had 50 affairs since the wedding.

Save a male and stop a wedding™ is an unregistered trademark of MGTOW.com

Now that we have shown what MGTOWs believe straight from the horse’s mouth we will take a look at some things that MGTOWs teach that are in fact true.

What is Right About MGTOW?

From a Christian and Biblical perspective most of the groups in the Manosphere have some elements of truth in their philosophies. MRAs are correct in stating that courts and our legal system are biased in helping women and sticking it to men especially as it relates to divorce and child custody issues. Red Pill teachers like Rollo Tomassi are right that sex is a major driving force in any man’s life if he is being honest with himself. Tomassi is also right about men being polygamous by nature and women being hypergamous by nature. And MGTOWs are right about a few things as well.

MGTOWs Are Right About Happiness Drivers for Men

Mgtow.com stated “Happiness is a man who protects and cares for his family, goes forth and conquers, gives of himself for a greater cause, and ensures his legacy – because that’s what he was made to do.” That is absolutely a true and Biblical statement. Men are absolutely driven to create a legacy for themselves both in the children that will carry on their name and in the mark they leave on the world outside their home whether it is in their conquest of the worlds of business, politics, the arts, philosophy, science, medicine, sports or a host of other areas.

A simpler way to say this is that men have a built-in desire to be the hero both in their individual homes and to a larger audience outside their homes.

In Ecclesiastes 7:1 the Bible says A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one’s birth”. We read in Proverbs 13:22 that A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just”.

In Proverbs 3:13 the Bible saysHappy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding”. And in Psalm 127:3-5 the Scriptures state:

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

So, leaving behind a good and honorable name, an inheritance for one’s children and their grandchildren, learning and finding wisdom and understanding and having children were all meant by God to be sources of happiness for men.

MGTOW is absolutely right that one of the driving forces in a man’s life and one that is meant to bring him happiness is his legacy both in how he provided for and protected his family and how he left his mark on the world. As Bible believing Christians, we believe this is part of God’s design in man.

MGTOW is Absolutely Right About the Riskiness of Marriage for Men

Before the rise of feminism, a man could securely enter into marriage with a woman knowing she would be faithful to him for life. He could confidently set out to build his legacy with his wife and children at his side.

MGTOW is absolutely right that the modern feminist mindset has decimated the institution of marriage for men. They are right that around 70 percent of divorces are filed by women. They also right that the courts are biased toward women and that men can literally loose half or more of everything they have and be left with seeing their children much less than the mother does.

MGTOW is also right from a secularist perspective that in our post-feminist world a man does not need to marry to have sex. A man can get all the sex he wants whether through paying for it or using Red Pill gaming and pickup artist techniques. And it is absolutely true that many women freely give out sex to lure men into marriage and then once marriage comes, they stop having sex or only use it as a reward technique to keep their husbands in subservience to them.

MGTOW is Absolutely Right That Men Ought Not to Surrender Their Autonomy to Women

MGTOW is also right that for many men who do stay married, the only way they keep their wives from divorcing them is to surrender their autonomy to their wives. In other words, they must become full on beta husbands in order to avoid divorce.

The Bible tells us it is a shame when women or children rule over men:

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” – Isaiah 3:12

In the New Testament we read a direct command from God that women are not to take authority over men:

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” – 1 Timothy 2:12

Now that we have discussed what is right about MGTOW we must now warn Christian men as to what is wrong about MGTOW.

What is Wrong About MGTOW?

From a Christian perspective there are several core teachings of MGTOW that directly contradict the teachings of the Word of God.

MGTOW Misses Sex as a Primary Driver for Men

While MGTOW and Red Pill share much in common in their ideology one of the large differences between them is on the issue of sex. MGTOW sees a man’s legacy as his primary driver of happiness in life where Red Pill sees a man’s sexual fulfillment as his primary driver in life. The truth is that that BOTH the building of a legacy through providing for and protecting one’s family and a man’s life’s work as well as his sexual fulfillment were meant by God to be primary driving factors of a man’s happiness in life.

The Scriptures tell us the following in Proverbs 5:15-18:

“15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.

16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. 17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee.

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.”

Contrary to the teachings of MGTOW and Red Pill, God did not intend for men to find happiness in only their legacy or in meaningless sex with strange women. He did not mean for any man to share a woman with other men. He meant for a woman to belong to one man for her entire life and that she would never be sexually touched by another man as long as her husband lived. In other words, God meant for men to find sexual fulfillment in marriage with their wife, not outside of marriage with strange women.

God made man’s sexual drive so strong that he compares it to water and calls it a need in a man’s life. And the well to meet that need was meant to be his wife. Many MGTOWs deny sex is even a real need for a man and they advocate “Going Monk”. But other MGTOWs and the Red Pill folks while acknowledging sex as a true need in men teach men that they can fulfill this need with whorish women that give their bodies to many men.

MGTOW and Red Pill Miss the Most Important Driver for Men

Why did God plant both a strong desire for men to play the hero and build legacies both inside and outside their homes? Why did God plant such a strong sexual desire in men for the beauty and sexual pleasure of women? And really why did God create women with the power to give men such pleasure both visually and physically?

This is where much of the Manosphere won’t be able to give you an answer. But the Bible has a clear answer for this and it is found in the Apostle Paul’s divine commentary on the Genesis account in his first epistle to the Corinthian church:

“7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” – I Corinthians 11:7-9

Man was created by God to bring him glory by imaging him. That is his primary directive and his purpose in life.

By “image” we mean “to display”. Man was designed by God to display his nature and his attributes. God is strong, so he made man strong. God is aggressive, jealous and competitive. So, he made man aggressive, jealous and competitive. God is a worker, a builder and a conqueror. So, he made man to be a worker, a builder and a conqueror. God wants to lead, provide for and protect his people. So, he created man to desire to be a leader, provider and protector for his wife and children. God wants to leave his mark on this world and so to he designed man to want to leave his mark on it as well.

Lastly contrary to what many Christians believe about God, the Bible tells us God is a lover of pleasure and beauty. In Revelation 4:11 we read that all of creation was created for God’s pleasure:

“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”

Psalm 45:10-11 has been widely recognized by many Christian scholars as prophecy of Christ and his Church:

“10 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house; 11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.”

These passages I have just mentioned prove that God does seek out and enjoy pleasure and beauty and this is why men are hardwired by God to do just the same in regard to the beauty and pleasure that women can offer them.

So, if man was created by God to display or literally live out his attributes than why did God create woman? The passage I gave above from I Corinthians 11:9 gives us the answer to this question. God created woman for man. Period.

That means every part of a woman’s being, every part of her psychological and physiological makeup was created for man’s benefit and more specifically to help him live out the attributes of God. God created man strong, so man needed someone weaker to protect. That is why God made woman “the weaker vessel” as I Peter 3:7 tells us. Man needed someone to bear his legacies in the form of his children, care for them and care for the domestic needs of his home. That is why the Apostle Paul gives women this command in 1 Timothy 5:14:

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

As Christian men we must accept that our drive to have a legacy and to have sex for that matter were given to us cause us to image God with our lives.

MGTOW Denies Man’s Need for Female Companionship

MGTOWs encourage men to divorce themselves from the concept of female companionship. Sure, they will say if you need to have sex, go game a woman or find a prostitute. But we are not talking about sex here. We are talking about companionship. God said in Genesis 2:18:

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

In Malachi 2:14 the Scriptures state:

“Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.”

So, as we can see from the Bible, God did not just create woman for man’s for sexual pleasure, to be the mother of his children and the caretaker of his home. He also created her to be his companion throughout his life. He said it is not good for man to be alone. And he did not create another man to solve that problem. He created a woman.

God created woman for man to be his greatest cheerleader. He created her to cheer him in his victories and comfort him in his defeats. That is why the Scriptures tell us in Proverbs 12:4 that “A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones”. This is also why I Corinthians 11:7 states that woman is “the glory of man”.

MGTOW Promotes a Spirit of Fear in Men

As I said previously, I do not deny the we in western civilization are living in a feminine centric world. While women point to men still occupying the majority of top CEO positions, they neglect to point out that that the majority of middle management positions in companies are now held by women (except in technology companies). They also neglect the fact that women dominate colleges and universities. In most churches, even those led my men, women dominate and influence the teachings and direction of the church.

I do not deny that our courts are highly slanted toward women especially in divorce and child custody and marital property division decisions. The state literally incentives women to divorce their husbands.

Yes, this makes marriage a far riskier proposition for men than it has ever been in the history of mankind. And it is for these reasons that a core teaching and requirement to consider one’s self an MGTOW is to swear off marriage completely. This sets MGTOW apart from the ideologies of Red Pill and Secular Patriarchy and most importantly the Biblical principles regarding gender roles and marriage.

But let’s put the marriage risk into perspective. Statistics in recent years show marriages failing at a little less than 50 percent now. But let’s just round it up to 50 percent. Then we know that of that 50 percent of marriages ending, 70 percent of those marriages were ended by the woman. That means if you are a man you have a 35 percent chance that if you marry a woman, she will divorce you.

Now some might argue that the chance of divorce would go up higher if you did not become the beta man that many wives want their husbands to be. But we can offset that risk increase by men being choosier with the women they marry.

The are three ways this can be offset the risk that a man’s future wife will demand that he become a beta husband in order to save the marriage from the threat of divorce.

  1. Search out and marry a Red Pill American or western woman.
  2. Search out and marry a woman raised in another country that still has traditional gender roles and has not been poisoned by feminism.
  3. Search out an American woman who was raised in a conservative Christian home and that fully embraced male headship and Biblical gender roles as well as strict views on divorce.

Now as a Christian I would say we should only marry a Christian so even the first two women would have to be Christians. But for secular folks on the manosphere, the first two would still help to highly mitigate the chances of the divorce.

So, this is why if a man is careful in how he chooses his wife I believe the 35 percent chance of divorce is a dependable number. It may be far less if you find the right woman.

I want to encourage every man who as bought into the MGTOW spirit of fear to meditate on this passage of Scripture day and night and ask God remove the fear of marriage from your heart:

“For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” – 2 Timothy 1:7

7 Reasons that Christian Men Should Embrace Marriage and Reject MGTOW

I want leave MGTOW Christians with these reasons for marriage to combat all the MGTOW reasons against marriage.

You should marry because…

  1. God commanded marriage in his first command to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).
  2. God says that “is better to marry than to burn” with sexual desire (1 Corinthians 7:9).
  3. God only allows celibacy for those who have this special gift for undivided service to God (I Corinthians 7:7). The Bible does not allow celibacy for selfish reasons for fearful reasons regarding marriage.
  4. You cannot fully live out your purpose to image God without being a husband and father (I Corinthians 11:7).
  5. Married men are more successful and make more money than all other groups (single men, single women and married women (Proverbs 18:22).
  6. While a bad wife can cause great misery to a man, a good wife can bring great pleasure and happiness to his life. If you have a 65 percent chance of finding true joy and happiness in marriage as God designed it to be why would you not seize on this? (Proverbs 29:25)
  7. Even if you fall into that 35 of men whose wives divorce them your children from that marriage can remain a source of joy and happiness for the remainder of your life (Psalm 127:3-5)

I want to zoom on point number five above about married men being more successful than single men, single women or married women.

Quentin Fottrell wrote an article entitled “Married men earn more than everyone else (including single men)” for marketwatch.com where he made the following observations based on historic earnings data:

The wages of married men far surpass those of all of those groups. They exceed $80,000 per year by their peak earning years, while all the other groups barely graze $50,000 per year, according to data from the University of Minnesota and IPUMS-USA, a database of individual responses from the U.S. Census Bureau.”

While the world laments that married men still excel all other groups in their earnings this does not surprise me at all. It is a fulfillment of God’s Word:

“Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.” – Proverbs 18:22

There was a commenter on another blog that said something like this – “Women are like hand grenades for men. You just have to hope when you marry one, they won’t explode and destroy your life”.

But this is what God has to say about marriage and against the whoremongering that is encouraged by MGTOW ideology as well as Red Pill ideology:

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” – Hebrews 13:4

A Final Word to Christian Fathers

As a father to my sons I could have fully embraced the MGTOW ideology. My first wife had two affairs on me with her ex-boyfriend.  When we got divorced, she took me for half of everything I had and I was saddled with a huge child support payment (we had five children together in that marriage). It was one of the hardest times of my life.

I did go through a brief period of depression and then bitterness and anger. But my relationship with God was too important to me to allow that bitterness to fester and destroy any joy I had left in my life. So, I gave my hurts to God and decided to move forward and risk marriage again. A little over a year after my divorce I married my second wife. And I made sure she was very different than my first wife.

As any of my readers know, it is very true that my second wife was very different than my first wife. But that just meant I would have a whole new set of challenges with my second wife that I did not have with my first wife. But in the end God has preserved us despite the trials and I came to thank God for my trials because some wonderful things came of them. I have five beautiful children, two of whom are now working adults, from my first marriage. I treasure the relationship I have with them and I am so excited about the prospect of my first grandchildren hopefully in the next few years.

God also taught me through the breakup of my first marriage that even though I thought we were following Biblical gender roles I really was behaving much like a beta husband trying to please my wife and not confronting her sinful attitudes as I should have.  As a result of my first divorce I became a much stronger man, became more grounded in my faith. I also realized that I could not live to please my wife and try to make her happy as that was a violation of of what I knew marriage was about.  Marriage is about seeking holiness, not happiness.  But happiness can come as a result of seeking holiness.

That meant I would no longer go out of my way to make sure my future wife was never upset or angry at me.   I would do what I thought was right whether she agreed or not.  She would not be the center of my world as I had often made my first wife. But instead caring for her physical and spiritual needs (as opposed to her wants) would be seen as only one part of the mission God had given me as a man.

I also thank God for the trials in my second marriage. My second wife’s feminist upbringing and her bucking of Biblical gender roles prompted me to start this ministry back in 2014. Over the last four years I have had over 6.5 million views and have been able to help many people each week via emails, comments and articles I have written.

If you are a Christian father reading this that has taught MGTOW ideology to you sons and discouraged them from marriage I pray you will repent of this. It is one thing to encourage your sons to wait for marriage until they are financially prepared to care for a wife and children and then to choose a wife very carefully. But it is a very different thing to completely discourage your son from God’s institution of marriage no matter how much feminism has poisoned our culture.

Why Millennials Need A Kick in The Rear

In 1968, about 40 percent of young adults aged 18 to 24 were married and living on their own. As of 2018 that number has plummeted for this group to around 7 percent. A third of young people in the US, 24 million of those aged 18 to 34, still live with their parents.  About 9 percent of this 18 to 24 age group that does not still live with their parents cohabitates rather than marrying.

All of these statics I have just stated can be found in two Census Bureau studies.  The first is from a study entitled “Living with an Unmarried Partner Now Common for Young Adults” just released on November 15th, 2018.  The second is from a study entitled “Jobs, Marriage and Kids Come Later in Life”  which was released August 9th, 2017.

Here are some more observations about millennials from the study we have just mentioned entitled “Jobs, Marriage and Kids Come Later in Life”:

“What was once ubiquitous in their 20s is now not commonplace until their 30s – a trend that some demographers describe as a new stage between childhood and adulthood. They call it “emerging adulthood.”

A look at this new generation of young adults:

1 in 4 young people aged 25 to 34 living in their parents’ home (about 2.2 million) neither go to school nor work.

Most Americans believe educational and economic accomplishments are extremely important milestones of adulthood. In contrast, marriage and parenthood rank low: over half believe that marrying and having children are not an important part of becoming an adult.

Young people may delay marriage but most still eventually tie the knot. In the 1970s, 8 in 10 married by the time they turned 30. Today, not until the age of 45 have 8 in 10 people married.

In 2005, the majority of young adults lived independently, which was the predominant living arrangement in 35 states. By 2015, the number of states where the majority of young people lived independently fell to just six.

More young men are falling to the bottom of the income ladder. In 1975, only 25 percent of young men had incomes below $30,000 a year. By 2016, that share rose to 41 percent (incomes in both years are in 2015 dollars).

    Between 1975 and 2016, the share of young women who were homemakers fell from 43 percent to 14 percent.”

These statistics confirm what I and many other older adults have observed about millennials in their everyday lives.

Millennials value education and economic accomplishments more than marriage and children.

When you couple this with the fact than one third of millennials still live with their parents it tells us two other things about Millennials.  They are both fearful and selfish.  They are afraid to go out on their own and struggle financially as most young adults have done since the beginning of mankind.  Millennials in their 20s think they need to make what their parents do in their 40s before they can marry and have a family.

But if you really talk to many Millennials as I have you will also find that for a lot of them while they will say they can’t afford to have a family the truth is they “Just want to have fun and enjoy their life. Marriage and children can wait for much later in life”.

Another problem with millennials is the utter lack of ambition in millennial men.  They are willing to take their sweet time climbing the economic latter and live with mommy and daddy for a decade or more into adulthood with no shame about it.  This is one reason young men’s incomes have dropped compared to what they once were.

The other problem with millennial men is that they don’t want to get their hands dirty.  Many of them want a cushy office job with corner view and a nice parking space.  The skilled trades like carpentry, plumbing, electrical and welding jobs are screaming for young people to come and be apprentices.  The older generation that did all this work is not retiring and its ranks have not been replenished.

My 19-year-old son starting apprenticing as plumber just before he turned 18.  He has worked hard doing all the dig-ups and dirty work but at the same time he was hungry to learn the finer parts of the trade.  Now just over a year later he has excelled so well and learned so much that they are gave him his own plumbing truck and he is now working on commission. He is looking forward to eventually getting his journeyman’s card.

My son told me a story about when he was apprenticing and shadowing another plumber.  They were working on bathroom at a local high school where the plumbing had backed up and they were fixing the issue.  As with many plumbing jobs it was messy.

One of the teachers walked by with a few young men and as they saw the mess in the bathroom, the teacher made the following comment “Boys – that is why you want to stay in school and go to college, otherwise you will end up doing that kind of work”.  The older plumber whispered quietly to my son “And I make twice what that teacher does. So, who is the smarter one?”

My 20-year-old son recently finished his two-year IT certification program at a local community college and he is now working full time in IT.  He was shocked to find out at his new job that the overwhelming majority of young men there who were in their late 20’s still lived with their parents.  My son knows that he needs to be preparing to go out on his own soon.  I have been preparing him for this his whole life.  The goal I have set for my sons is for them to be on their own and financially independent by age 22 or 23 at the latest. If they can do it earlier so much the better.  The way I reached that number was giving them 4 years after high school to get a degree or go through some trade school or apprenticeship program and by then they should be ready.

My sons would view themselves as failures as men if they were still living with me by their late 20s.

Millennials Were Brought Up Wrong by Their Gen X Parents

The Gen X generation, my generation, also bears much culpability for problems we see with millennials today.  For instance, the idea of a parent sitting down and setting life goals with their sons and daughters as I have done with mine is foreign to most parents today.  “It is their life” after all and we as parents have no business telling them what they should or should not do. That is what we are told and have been told for decades.

The Gen X parents have raised a bunch of fearful, selfish and entitled young people and my generation even encouraged their children to take their time, wait to marry and have kids and “just do whatever makes you happy”.

These Gen X parents of one third of millennials are culpable by allowing their children to remain in their home at such late ages.

Parents have a duty to teach their children and prepare their children to go out in the world.  As parents we should be doing this from early teen years on.  We should be preparing our young men and young women for the responsibilities of adult hood which includes marriage and having children.

When Does a Person Become an Adult?

From a biological development perspective, girls begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11 and typically finish puberty between 15 and 17.  Boys typically start puberty at 11 to 12 years of age and finish by the time they are 16 or 17.  This is why it was common in older civilizations for a girl to be entering womanhood by age 12 (because most girls would have their first period before this age)   and for a boys would be considered to be starting manhood by 13 because they would be showing signs of puberty before that age.

But the question we are posing is not one of biological adulthood, but rather one of social adulthood.

I want to return to this statement from the Census Bureau study I cited above:

“Most Americans believe educational and economic accomplishments are extremely important milestones of adulthood. In contrast, marriage and parenthood rank low: over half believe that marrying and having children are not an important part of becoming an adult.”

So, by our modern standards, if a person finishes college and has a good job and a nice new car in the drive way, they are considered to be an adult.  Whether they still live with mommy and daddy is secondary.  And even for those who consider that a person must move out of their parents to be considered full adults, many today do not consider marriage and having children a critical part of becoming an adult.

But this thinking is in stark contrast to what has defined social adulthood throughout the history of the world.

Before the millennial generation, young men learned their trades from an early age and in their early teens they were often working full time in their trade.  By no later than the early 20s in most cases, and often times earlier, young men had saved enough money to build or buy a home and then they went and took on a wife to have children.

Young women often married in their early or mid-teens and became wives and mothers. Unlike how we raise our girls today, they witnessed child birth at much younger ages, learned to cook and sew and they were excited about and looked forward to marriage.

It was marriage and then having children that were considered critical milestones in becoming a full adult man or adult woman.

Today these milestones have been cast aside by millennials and Gen X parents’ bare responsibility for utterly failing to teach their children the importance of striving for these two milestones as soon as possible.

Secular Humanism Has Corrupted Parenting

What we are experiencing today can be very much explained by the definition of Secular Humanism found in the article “What is Secular Humanism?” from secularhumanism.org:

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

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

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

What do we see today as America has immersed herself in secular humanism for more than a century and removed all these “traditional controls”?

We see sons and daughters freed from the control of their parents.

We see wives freed from the control of their husbands.

We see church members freed from the control of their Pastors.

We see anarchists marching in the streets wanting to take down nations and borders.

The result of removing all these controls has been the devastation of marriage and the family unit not to mention the devastation of personal morality.

While the Bible absolutely shows certain “inalienable rights” as the United States Declaration of Independence states, it does not grant the rights that our modern American society has given its members.  God instituted the spheres of authority of the family, the church and the civil government.  He gave to each of these spheres different controls for the betterment and stability of society.  And now that we have removed all of these “traditional controls”, we are reaping the consequences of those choices.

Now I want to bring this back to Gen X parents.  The Gen X generation has helped advance the ideals of secular humanists more than any other generation of American parents.  Who could have imagined back in 1960s or 70s that gay marriage would not only be legal, but that gays and transgenders would then take their new-found freedom to launch an all-out assault on religious liberty in this country in only half a century?

The Gen X parents took off the controls of family, church and the state. It told its children they could do anything they wanted.  They could live with their parents as long as they wanted.  Get married or don’t get married.  Have children or don’t have children. Get a job or don’t get a job.  They taught their children to worship the false American gods of equality, education and the pursuit of individual happiness to the detriment of society.

And now we are reaping what the Gen X parenting generation has sown.

Feminism Has A Lot to Do with The Problems with Millennial Men

While Feminism had its origins in the egalitarian movements of the mid-19th century its most devasting blow to the institutions of marriage and the family were not felt until the rise of second-wave feminism in the 1960s.  Up until that point feminism had only been dropping small bombs on the God given institution of patriarchy in the home, the church and society.  But in the 1960s, second-wave feminism dropped the societal equivalent of a nuke on traditional gender roles and by extension marriage and the family.   It was also during second-wave feminism where feminism became more than just an equality for women movement, it became a full-on misandrist movement.

The Apostle Paul asked the following rhetorical question in I Corinthians 9:5:

“Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife?”

Now before anyone gets silly about this when he said “sister” he was referring to a “sister in Christ” meaning a Christian woman.  What he was saying is “Don’t we have the right to lead about a wife as long as she is Christian?”  Most new translations say “take”, “take along” or “be accompanied by”.   But the KJV’s translation is actually the most literal of commonly used translations when it says “lead about”.   It literally has the idea of man leading his wife through life. This is why in Biblical times and still some older cultures today when a man walks his wife walks behind him and then their children behind her.  This was a symbol in pre-modern cultures of the order of the family.

In Ephesians 5:23 the Bible tells us “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church” and in Ephesians 5:29 we read that husbands have a sacred duty to “nourisheth” meaning “to provide for” and “cherisheth” meaning “to protect” their wives.

God has literally designed men with this natural instinctive desire to lead, provide for and protect women.  God also gave men a strong physically based sexual desire toward women and that is why in Proverbs 5:15 he commands them to liberally drink of the well that is their wife’s body and in Proverbs 5:19 he tells men regarding their wives to “let her breasts satisfy thee at all times”.  In the New Testament the Apostle Paul tells men in Romans 1:27 that sex is “the natural use of the woman”.

It is a statistical fact that the vast majority of married men with children go much farther and faster in their careers than men who never marry or have children.  Why? Because men are given a strong desire from God to seek out women so they can have sex with them, lead them, provide for them and protect them.   And without a woman and children to provide for most men are far less driven in their careers.

Feminism has robbed men of the ability to lead women, provide for them or protect them in marriage by making them independent of men.  It has robbed men of having wives who actually need their provision and appreciate it.  It has robbed men of having mothers to care for their children and homemakers to care for their homes so they can excel in their careers.  It has robbed men of their sexual rights in marriage.  It is a common joke today that the best sex and the most sex a man will ever get from a woman is before they are married.

Feminism has so radically redefined marriage, sadly even amongst many Christians today, that women no longer seek a leader, provider and protector in a husband.  Instead they just want to “marry their best friend”.  Friends are great and even friendship in marriage is wonderful and should be a goal in marriage.  However, friendship is not the core purpose for which God designed marriage.  God designed marriage to paint a picture of Christ and the Church.  The husband is to emulate Christ in how he lovingly leads, provides for and protects his wife.  And the wife is to emulate the Church by following his leadership and submitting to him everything as the Church submits to Christ.

Before 19th and 20th century feminism economically freed women from men, women were highly dependent on men in order to survive.  Except for rare instances, women could not own property and it was difficult for women to work and make money except through their father or husband.

So it was primarily through economic means that a man acquired a wife.  Men did not have to “win the heart” of a woman in order to marry her.  They did not need to be the most handsome man .  They did not have to flatter the woman and tell her they wanted to worship her with her their lives.  They simply had to make enough money to support her and then if her father was impressed by his economic means then he would approve the marriage.

This is not to say that fathers did not often consider the character of a man to whom they would give their daughters in marriage in addition to his economic means.  But the point is, it was not the woman that the man had to impress in order to marry her, but rather it was her father.

But because of feminism there has been a massive paradigm switch in how men come to marry women.  No longer are fathers the ones who determine who marry their daughters, but it is the women themselves who set the terms.

And because women no longer want leaders, providers and protectors in men and because of how women routinely sexually deny men in marriage many men see absolutely no point in marrying.  Their core drivers to seek out marriage have been removed.

Marriage used to offer security for both men and women.  The man knew his wife would belong to him and him alone.  No other man would have her sexually or otherwise.  She would bear his children and care for them.  She would care for the domestic needs of his home.  The woman knew the man would provide for physical needs and the needs of her future children.  He would also be a source of protection for her and her future children.

But feminism has now all but shattered the security that marriage once offered to men.  Men risk a 50 percent chance their wives will grow tired of them and divorce them within the first four to seven years of marriage. And our society has made it so easy for women that in divorce they will walk away with half of everything the man has and most likely majority custody of the children unless the husband fights hard for 50/50 custody.

Sex is the most powerful driving force for men to seek women for marriage, but now that women freely offer sex outside of marriage men can get that need met without risking the damage women can do to them in marriage.

So, it for these reasons that we see many millennial men giving up on the institution of marriage altogether.

So How Do We Turn the Millennials Around?

So how can we turn back the tide of secular humanism and feminism that has so poisoned our millennial generation?

First and foremost, we need to pray for our nation and our world each and every day.  We need to pray that God will bring about a revival amongst his people.  That he will raise up a new generation of young pastors who call out secular humanism and feminism as ideologies that are evil and opposed to Biblical values.

And even many who are not Christians in America would agree that the Biblical values we once held as a nation resulted in far better marriages and families and individuals than what we have today.  People in America used to respect their parents and their country. They were proud of their families and their country.  They proudly served in the military.  And they were excited as young people to marry as soon as they could and start a family and raise children.

Millennials are not focused on finding a person who would make a good spouse to them and a good parent to their children. Starting a family is for “older people”.  It is not surprise that more and more millennials do not marry until they reach their late 20’s or earlier 30’s if they ever marry at all.

They are focused on what video game is coming out, what movie is coming out and talking with their friends on the phone or online.  They are focused on parties and taking trips around the country or even around the world.  They are obsessed with education and material things.  Homes get bigger and fancier each year and so do cars.  And these new fancier homes and cars come with much higher price tags that many millennials are willing to pay.

And to get and do all these things millennials sacrifice what matters most in this world – God, marriage and children.

But there are some other things that we who believe in Biblical values can do. We can encourage the young people we meet to do what is right.  We can tell them about what truly matters in the world.  We can teach them the Biblical concept that you will never be happy focusing your life on yourself and your own desires.

Millennials need to be taught that true happiness only comes by serving God and serving others for his glory and honor.

In my personal life I have made an effort both with my son’s young college age friends and even the young men I work with at my job to encourage and admonish them to do their duty that first to God and then to their society.  I have a duty to pay forward what their parents did for them and what their grand parents did for their parents.  They have a duty to marry, have children and love their spouses and children.  They have a solemn duty to the next generation.

Many of these young people will at first laugh and joke when I say these things.  They will say things like “So do you think it’s wrong to have fun and enjoy life?”.  I have told them absolutely not! Its not wrong to have fun and enjoy life.  The Bible teaches us that God has given us things that were meant for our pleasure and joy in this life:

 “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

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

Psalm 127:3-5

“18 Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion. 19 Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.”

Ecclesiastes 5:18-19

God has blessed us so richly and has given us many sources of happiness or “fun” as younger folks would call it.  God has given us companionship and sex in marriage.  Sex was definitely meant by God to be a source of fun! But God also gave us children and he tells us directly in Psalm 127:5 that he meant children to be a source of happiness for us.  I can tell you as a father of five children, while it can be hard sometimes, my children have been a great source of happiness and even fun.

I was a big computer game player in my youth.  But you know what is more fun than just playing video games? Its playing video games with your children! But we also watch movies together and go places together and we enjoy life together.  We learn about God’s Word together.

And God wants us to truly enjoy the fruit of our labors.  We don’t have feel bad if the Lord provides so that we can take a nice vacation with our family.

But what is my point to these young people? The point is the lie of this world is that marriage and children hold you back.  They keep you from truly being happy.  They tell you living for yourself is the only way to be happy. That is a lie! It is a lie straight from the devil himself.

We can serve God, marry, have children and serve our families and have a great joy in doing what God has designed us to do.

But when I speak to these young millennials whether at my house or at my job, I also express to them the darker consequences of the way they are living their lives.   I show them the fact of the fertility crisis that the world faces.  I show them UN studies that show by 2300 if the world continues living as American and Western millennials live the world population will drop to 25 percent of what is today.  And if no change is made in the selfish life style choices of future generations the world will die out within few centuries after that.  Literally the human race could become extinct by 2600 if the rising tide of secular humanism is not turned back.

I tell them this is why it is their duty to God, their parents, grandparents and other ancestors as well as their nation to marry and be fruitful and multiply.

A Message for Millennial Men Who are Afraid of Marriage

If you are millennial man who is a Christian reading what I just wrote on how feminism has robbed men of the security marriage you might have been saying “Amen! That is exactly why I am not getting married.”  While that might be an option for non-Christians, as a Christian man you don’t get to run away from marriage because it is scarier now than it is has ever been for men since the creation of the world.

God’s rule is marriage and his exception is celibacy for service to him. If you are trying to use God’s allowance for celibacy as your excuse to get out of marriage you need to re-read your Bible.

God’s first command to mankind in Genesis 1:28 was “Be fruitful, and multiply”.  He never rescinded that command, even in the New Testament.  In Hebrews 13:4 we read that “Marriage is honourable”.  In the New Testament he offers an exception to this command for service to him, not because one is afraid of the commitment of marriage or has a fear of divorce, but rather for undivided service to him.

The Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:9 that “it is better to marry than to burn” with sexual desire. If you have the gift of sexual desire then you do not have the gift of celibacy.  God does not give these two gifts together because they are contradictory to one another.

God wants you to marry, have sex and have children.  He wants you to find a woman so that together you and that woman can do what he designed you both to do together and that was to model the relationship of Christ and his Church.

Even if Millennials Do Not Listen Things Can Get Better

Many people write me accusing me of being such a huge pessimist about our current culture and our immediate future and I plead guilty to that accusation.  I am extremely saddened and discouraged by many things I have seen happen over the last couple decades in this country.  And our immediate future, as in the next few decades or even next half century does look very grim.  It will get much worse before it gets better.

But I also find hope in the fact that not all millennials have gone down this selfish path.  Many millennials when they get a little older return to church.  And traditional minded millennials are far out-breeding liberal millennials.  So, it is very possible that we could sit back and watch as the conservative and Christian millennials who actually marry and have many children raise up the next generation.

In the same way that socialism can only survive on the back of capitalism, so too liberalism which is anti-natal at its core can only survive on the back of pro-natal religious conservatives.  Another way of putting this is, liberals need conservatives to have babies with the hope that they can convert those babies to liberals by they time they reach adulthood.

This is how secular liberals use their church, the American public education system, to indoctrinate the youth of conservative born children into their secular humanism.

For many years this insidious agenda was hidden and naïve conservative parents who failed to teach their children the lies of secular humanism would eventually find by the end of high school or college that their children had become converts of secular humanism.

Thankfully over the past couple decades with the rise of conservative radio and TV media this insidious agenda has been exposed.  Many conservative parents are now inoculating their children from the disease that is secular humanism.  They are prepared for the secular humanist arguments and can even challenge their teachers and professors.  The tide has turned and this is what has progressives more frightened today than ever.

They can’t reproduce by converting children from native born conservative homes any more. Even some liberals are sounding the alarm on this.  They see the demographic writing on the wall. The many children of conservative millennials could far outnumber the few children of liberal millennials in the next generation resulting in a sea change in this nation.

This is also why liberals are for the allowance of mass immigration from poor countries with people that are far less educated and dependent on government.  These people are much easier to indoctrinate into liberal ideology and it will often not be until the the third generation of these immigrants that their children may turn from liberal ideology to conservative ideology.

But the Scriptures give us this hope for our millennials and the next generation they will give birth to:

“If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” – 2 Chronicles 7:14

We need to continue to pray for a revival in our land and pray that God will bring up a godly future generation to replace the secular humanist society that has come to dominate America.

New Studies Show Even Feminist Women Still Prefer Sexist Men

Women in general and even women who consider themselves strong feminists showed the same preference for sexist men over egalitarian men according to five studies carried out by scientists from the University of Kent and Iowa State University.  It turns out that no matter what political or philosophical background they come from, women prefer the muscular guy with money who opens doors for them to the weak and skinny egalitarian dude that will treat them just like one of the guys.

And in other breaking news a new study confirms that water is wet.  Ok that second study was fake.  But you get my point. Anyone who lives around women, works around women or has sisters knows what these studies concluded is just common sense.  Yes, there are those rare women, feminist or otherwise, that actually prefer the weak and skinny egalitarian dude that treats them like one of the guys but most women don’t operate that way.

Below are some conclusions the study found according to an article from the dailymail.co.uk:

“Benevolent means well-meaning or kind, and experts define the sexism as men who, for example, think women are more delicate or should be cherished or looked after by a man.

This is different to hostile sexism in which women are degraded, such as saying a woman’s place is in the kitchen.

Sexist attitudes were the norm for decades, particularly after the Second World War, and saw men as breadwinners and women as homemakers.

But this has shifted in recent years as gender attitudes change, more women focus on their careers, and couples increasingly share their parenting duties…

Women are more attracted to men who are sexist because they think they are more willing to protect them, provide for them and commit to a relationship, scientists say. Men who are considered to be sexist in a well-meaning way – for example if they are chivalrous or think women need a man to protect them – may be more attractive.

Even though women find these men patronising and can feel undermined by them, they are more likely to want to couple up with them than with men who don’t give them special treatment. Researchers say women may be hard-wired to think the benefits of being with a kind but sexist man outweigh the downsides.

The scientists maintain that, despite romantic and flattering elements of the relationship, even well-meaning sexism reinforces the idea women are inferior. And even women who consider themselves strong feminists showed the same preferences in the study by British and US researchers

In the study, women’s attraction to this willingness to invest is traced to a more basic hard-wired survival instinct, in which females choose mates in order to improve their children’s chance of survival.

A male who is more likely to be protective or provide food for the family would improve the chance of offspring surviving, the study explains.

This may have in turn shaped women’s psychology to make them subconsciously prefer men who are a bit sexist.”

The Great Lie of “Sexism”

In our American as well as other western cultures today, we are taught a great lie.  We are taught that if a person believes that someone’s gender determines what roles they should or should not perform in society that this person is holding an immoral belief.  The term “sexist” was coined in the late 1960’s by feminists and was employed as a scarlet letter of sorts to shame and ostracize anyone who held to such “unequal”, “outdated” and “unfair” beliefs about gender.

In fact, another word “misogynist” was used to ratchet up the heat on those who held to such “ancient” beliefs.  If you were a sexist, then you were also a misogynist or hater of women.  This same tactic was used in all kinds of social movements to paint anyone who believed in any different rights or privileges for anyone of any kind as being a “hater” of that group.

For instance, in 2018, we are told that if you believe both illegal and legal immigrants who are not United States citizens should not have the same rights and privileges as US citizens then you are a called a hater of immigrants.

But God’s Word shines a light on this great lie that believing men and women should have different rights and responsibilities somehow is hatred of women or immoral.  The belief that women should be “Barefoot and pregnant” or in other words get married, bear children and be homemakers is clearly backed up by the Bible:

“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)

Were Sexist Attitudes the Norm Only After World War II?

“Sexist attitudes were the norm for decades, particularly after the Second World War, and saw men as breadwinners and women as homemakers.” Really? Every time I see statements like this it makes me laugh.  The reason it makes me laugh is because of this myth that people teach today that somehow these “sexist” views of men and women were somehow new after World War II.

For the entire history of mankind these were the roles that societies across the world cast men and women into.  Were there exceptions to this rule? Yes.  Did some women have higher educations and careers throughout history? Yes.  In other cases, did many women help their husbands out on their family farms or other such family businesses? Certainly.  Were there families that were so destitute that the woman was forced to go and work away from the home while the children were cared for by another family member? Absolutely.

But the point is that this was not seen by society as the ideal to strive for.  Societies across the world prior to the Second Wave feminism of the 1960s very much held what we call today a “sexist” belief that men are to be providers and women are to be homemakers.

Three Different Kinds of Sexists

These studies came up with two categories of sexist men.  One they labeled as a “Hostile Sexist” and the other as a “Benevolent Sexist”.  I actually agree with them that there are multiple categories of sexist men but I would expand it to three categories of sexist men as opposed to just the two.

The Hostile Sexist Man

This study says that a man has hostile sexist views toward women if he believes “a woman’s place is in the kitchen”. The truth of the matter is that God’s Word reveals that the “kitchen”, or in other words the caring for the food needs of the home, does in fact belong to the woman as we see in the passage below:

“She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.”

Proverbs 31:15 (KJV)

So, if believing in different roles for men and women is not the Biblical definition of being a hostile sexist what is? We can find the answer by looking the follow passages for the answer:

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

I Peter 3:1 (KJV)

“Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.”

Colossians 3:19 (KJV)

As we can see according to the Bible, a hostile sexist man is one who dishonors and has bitterness toward women. 

Now Christian feminists would seize upon those two words “dishonors” and “bitterness” to fill in their own definitions.  I have been accused by countless readers of showing dishonor toward women and being bitter at women.  But it is not dishonoring to women to teach what God teaches about women.  It is not dishonoring to women to teach that God did not give men and women equal rights and equal responsibilities.

It is not showing bitterness toward women to share of the hurts that I have suffered at the hands of my first wife when she committed adultery or my second wife when she has sexually denied me or disrespected me based on her feminist background.  It is no more bitterness toward women to share of these hurtful things women do toward their husbands than it is for a woman’s site to share stories of emotional or physically abusive husbands.

I have actually warned men on this site many times not to allow their hurt or even righteous anger toward sinful behavior on the part of their wives to turn into bitterness.  I have had men come through this site throughout the years and display actual hatred toward the female sex and I have condemned such hatred.

The truth is that all these false accusations of me hating women is just a cop out on the part of my detractors.  These false accusations are what is called “ad hominem attacks”.  This is when someone attacks the person presenting a belief or an argument rather than the belief or argument itself.  These kinds of false attacks actually display the weakness of those who oppose the beliefs I espouse based on the Bible.

Believing in gender roles and hating feminism does not equate to being hostile toward or hating women.  This is part of the great lie we are told today and as Bible believing Christians we must combat this lie with the Word of God.

The Benevolent Sexist Man

The studies we are discussing defined the benevolent sexist man as one who is “well-meaning or kind, and experts define the sexism as men who, for example, think women are more delicate or should be cherished or looked after by a man.

This Benevolent Sexist man displays no hatred toward women but on the contrary he practically worships women.

But is this behavior what the Bible calls for on the part of men toward women? The answer is no. Some might respond with the question “Doesn’t the Bible tell men to cherish their wives?” Yes, it does.  It is absolutely true that the Bible commands husbands to cherish their wives as we see from the Scripture passage below:

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

Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

In the minds of most women today to cherish means to worship.  That really is the whole idea of romance.  Romance is about a man making a woman’s happiness the central focus of his life.  How many songs do we hear where men say things like “you’re the meaning in my life, you’re the inspiration”.

It is absolutely intoxicating for most women to hear men tell them that they can think of nothing but her.  They only have eyes for her.  Women love it, they just eat it up when a man tells them that their happiness is his most important goal in this world.

But the truth is that this is NOT what the Bible is saying when it tells men to cherish their wives. 

When the Bible tells men to cherish their wives it is telling them to protect their wives.  When it tells them to nourish their wives it is telling them to provide for their wives’ physical needs.  So yes, the Bible tells men to be providers and protectors of their wives but it never tells them to worship their wives or make their wives happiness the central focus of their lives.

This study reveals that women are attracted to these benevolent sexist men and why wouldn’t most women be attracted to men like this?  If a woman were to find a man who wants to provide for her, protect her and worship the very ground she walks on why would she not be attracted to this from a human perspective? Having someone who wants to be our servant, do whatever makes us happy and provide us with a house, food, clothes, money and also protect us from those who would do us harm would be attractive to many women and men for that matter.

A lot of Christian husbands today are actually benevolent sexists in how they date and in how they conduct themselves as husbands once they marry.  It is not wrong that they feel a duty to provide for and protect their wives.  It is not wrong that they want to display kindness toward women in general or their wives in particular.  Those traits are good traits that we as Christians should honor in men. But where these benevolent sexist Christian men fail is in worshiping their wives and making their wife’s happiness the central focus of their lives.

A Word on Fake Benevolent Sexist Men

Before I continue to the third type of sexist man we need to recognize the reality of men who fake being benevolent sexists. The truth is that many men while dating will play the part of the benevolent sexist only to reveal later on that they are actually a hostile sexist.  A lot of men know that worshiping a woman is the key to getting sex from her.  They have their mission, so they size her up and they do what it takes to get to their goal.  Some of these men go for the one-night stand where they worship a woman all night long acting like they want a long-term relationship only to disappear in the morning.  Others will see the relationship through until marriage and then after marriage their true hostile sexist mentality is revealed.  And just as a side note – there are men that fake being egalitarians too just to get in the ladies’ pants.  There are myriads of these men in Hollywood and across America.

The Biblical Sexist Man

The Biblical sexist man believes very much like the genuine benevolent sexist man that God wants him as a man to provide for, protect and commit to a woman in marriage.  He also believes God calls him to be kind and compassionate toward women in general and especially his wife in particular. 

This Biblical Sexist man does not act in hateful ways toward women as the Hostile sexist man neither does he engage in woman worship as the Benevolent sexist man does.

The Biblical sexist man worships God alone and at the same time shows proper love and honor toward his woman not only by providing for her and protecting her by also by leading her as Christ does his Church and  teaching her and correcting her by washing her spiritual spots and wrinkles with the Word of God.

He knows that to worship his woman or make her the central focus of his life would betray the purpose for which God made him, women and intimate relationships between men and women.

The Scriptures tell us God’s purpose in making male human beings in the Genesis account:

“26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. “

Genesis 1:26-27 (KJV)

The Apostle Paul gives us divine commentary from God further elaborating on the Genesis creation account:

“3 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…7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

I Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9 (KJV)

Paul points out to us that God created man to be his image bearer and he created woman to help man in playing out his image bearer role. Man could only fully image God by being a husband and a father.  This is why God created woman and marriage to help man fulfill this task.   God shows us this purpose in marriage the same chapter that tells men to cherish(protect) their wives:

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

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

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

Ephesians 5:22-28 (KJV)

God created marriage so that man and woman could model the relationship of God to his people and thus this would help man to fulfill his purpose to image God.  God wants husbands to love their wives as he loves his people.  He wants men to sacrificially love their wives, he wants them to teach and correct their wives and so wash their spiritual spots and blemishes with the Word of God.  He wants men to care for their wives as they do their own bodies by protecting them and providing for them as they would their own bodies.

God also wants women to submit to and serve their husbands as mankind is to submit to and serve God.  A wife’s mission is her husband, her children and her home.  In regard to her husband, her mission is to help him fulfill the mission God has given to him.

The Biblical sexist man knows that to make his wife’s happiness the central focus of his relationship with her would be to betray his purpose to image God as a husband to his wife. He knows that he must lead her, teach her and correct her and this will not always make her happy.  He also realizes that as part of his leadership of his wife he must teach her to live out the truth that God made him to serve God by imaging him and he made her for him to help him in his mission.

In other words, one of the greatest duties a Biblical sexist man has in his marriage is to teach his wife that their marriage does not revolve her desires and her happiness.  Instead every Biblical sexist husband must teach his wife that he is to focus on his mission to image God and she is to focus on her mission to serve him and help him in his mission.

The Biblical sexist man also knows though that while his relationships with his wife and children are vital parts of his overall mission to image God they are not all God has for him to do.  God is not just a husband to his people or a father to his children but he is also an inventor, a builder, a teacher, a worker, an artist, a writer, a warrior and a ruler.  So too God calls men to be in these different roles and in doing so they image him.  The Scriptures tell us the following concerning men and their work:

“And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”

Genesis 3:15 (KJV)

“Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening.”

Psalm 104:23 (KJV)

“Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion…”

Ecclesiastes 3:22 (KJV)

“And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;”

Colossians 3:23 (KJV)

“And let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it.”

Psalm 90:17 (KJV)

Reclaiming Sexism For Christ

To often we as conservatives and Christians allow liberal Christians and non-Christians to define the language of our discussions.  Leftist and secularists are masters of taking words and twisting them for their perverted purposes.  Take the word “gay” which at one time simply meant “happy”.  This word was hijacked to represent homosexual men.

Some may be shocked at the title of this section “Reclaiming Sexism For Christ” because in our culture we associate Sexism with bad behavior.  But we as Christians serve a God who is in the business of reclaiming things for his purposes.  The cross was once a symbol of shame yet Christ took it and made it a symbol of hope and salvation.  Even the term “Christian” was once used as a derogatory term in labeling followers of Christ.  But again Christians took what was meant as badge of shame and made it a badge of honor.

In the same way we as Christians can redeem the Sexism and specifically the word “sexist” for Christ.  When people say they can’t stand “sexists” that is our opportunity as Bible believing Christians to share with them the truth of God.  I have actually done this on many occasions.  I have told people in these conversations that I am a sexist but when I explain to them what kind of sexist I am and why believe what I believe from the Bible often times they have never heard the Scriptures I present.

In fact I was just at a dinner recently with family where I shared why I was a sexist and one woman was astonished at the Scriptures I presented.  I explained to her that in no way do I hate women or ever want to see women as a gender demeaned or dishonored.  I explained to her that we as men should honor our mothers and our wives as God commands.  But I said I also believe that God created men and women for very different purposes.  I told her that because I believe men and women should do different things based on their gender that makes me a sexist.

She asked “Why have I never heard these Scriptures in Church before?” And I told her because our churches have been infested with feminism and the vast majority of Pastors have simply bowed to our culture.

I told her that God calls us as Christians to live counter to the culture.  He calls us to not conform to the patterns and thinking of this world but to be transformed by his Word.  In this way I was actually able to use the term “sexist” as a way to teach the truth of God’s Word.

Conclusion

The fact that women are attracted to sexist men who are strong and can provide for them is not simply some hardwiring left over by evolution.   As Christians we know this is by the design of almighty God.

The Bible tells us in I Corinthians 11:9 that “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.  Every part of a woman’s being was made for man and his benefit.  Woman was perfectly created for her task by God.  In doing this God created woman as “the weaker vessel” (I Peter 3:7) because God wanted her to need man’s strength as mankind needs God’s strength. God created woman to be beautiful and he created her to desire to be beautiful because God desires the beauty of his people (Psalm 45:11). He created her to be a companion and the bearer of his children.

God created every desire a woman has to help man fulfill his primary mission to image God.  God planted in the female human nature her desire for the strength, protection and provision of man.  He did this so that man could be the strong protector and provider to woman as God is the strong provider and protector to mankind. The man would desire to protect and provide for a woman and a woman would desire to be protected and provided for by a man.  It was a beautiful and glorious picture that God meant to be painted.  He setup the pieces perfectly.

But sin corrupted God’s plan for man and woman.  Sin warped and twisted a woman’s desire for the strength, protection and provision of man into a desire to make men their servants, rather than their masters as God intended it to be.  Instead of desiring to serve her husband and follow his leadership, her sin nature causes her to desire to control her husband (Genesis 3:16).

Application for Christian Men

  1.  Will you as a Christian man repent of any dishonorable behavior or bitterness that you have toward women as a gender or even particular women in your life?
  2. Will you as a Christian man accept that your desire to protect and provide for a woman is not wrong but is in fact right in God’s eyes?
  3.  Will you as a Christian man accept that your desire to lead a woman and your family is not wrong but is in fact right in God’s eyes?
  4.  Will you as a Christian man stop being ashamed of your masculine nature and accept that this is in fact the image of God in you?
  5.  Will you as a Christian man accept that worshiping women is just as much a sin in the eyes of God’s as being hostile toward women?

Application for Christian Woman

  1. Will you as a Christian woman accept all God’s design for you as a woman and not just the parts you like as in your attraction to strong men who are able to provide?
  2.  Will you as a Christian woman reject your sinful inclination to be worshiped by men?
  3.  Will you as a Christian woman reject your sinful inclination to be the center of your husband’s life?
  4.  Will you as a Christian woman accept that you were created for man and that he was not created for you?

Is BiblicalGenderRoles.com advocating for overthrowing the government?

I love both the institution of government and my American nation in particular and I also love the institution of the Church as well as my local church that I attend.  But that does not mean that I will not point out failure and corruptions that have occurred in both these institutions that are ordained by God.

There is a feminist and egalitarian writer on Patheos.com name Suzanne Calulu that has been reviewing various articles on my blog for some time.  She is not really writing full reviews – but they really are just quick comments.  Every once in a while I will check out what she has to say about my blog if I am in the mood for a chuckle.

If you search for the tag “Larry Solomon – Biblical Gender Roles” on Patheos.com you will see all her reviews of my past articles.  If you look closely at many of her reviews (which are just a couple of paragraph comments) you will see she often misrepresents me to build a straw man for her audience.  Up until now I have not felt the need to respond but because of recent accusations she has made against me regarding my views of government I felt I needed to publically respond to her libel.

Suzanne Calulu posted a review of my blog on April 5th 2018 entitled “Seizing Christian Evangelical Control Over the Government by Suppressing Women?” in which she stated the following:

I have used screen shots here just in case she tries to delete the article or change her wording.  So if you notice in her title she says I that advocated for Christian evangelicals seize control of the government.  Then in her comment she writes that I said Christians need to “overthrow everything…in order to establish an Evangelical Theocracy.”

In a second review she posted on April 12th 2018 entitled “Suck It Up Brown and Black People – White Folks Rule According to Larry Solomon” Calulu writes the following statement below:

Calulu ‘s statement “He has advocated the violent overthrow of our government by his Theocracy buddies…” and then she insinuates that I should be on the radar of the FBI for what I have written regarding government.

If you look at the two articles she is referencing, which she does not even mention because she does not want her readers actually reading my site, you will find no such assertions by me in either article or for that matter any article on BiblicalGenderRoles.com.

The two articles she is reviewing are “The Case for Christian Nationalism” and “Why Whites Don’t Have to Apologize For White Privilege”.   Read these articles for yourself and you will see the falseness of her accusations.

In the Case for Christian Nationalism I write this about how I envision it would be possible for Christian Nationalism to come to power:

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

So, in no way was I advocating for the “violent overthrow of our government.  I said clearly that only God can take down the strongholds that exist in our government and that eventually the government will collapse and I did not insinuate this would happen due to some evangelical Christian army invading Washington, D.C. But rather it will collapse because God brings it down for violating his design of government, nations, marriage and genders.

How will God cause the collapse of the United States?

My wife and I like to watch home remodeling and improvement shows.  What you will find when watching these shows is when they look to knock out walls they must take into consideration that there might be main support beams.  They have to work around these beams or if they can’t they have to add additional supports elsewhere.  If they just cut out the support beams what used to be a solid house structure will eventually crumble.  Sure the house might look nice cosmetically, but if its structure is not sound none of that will matter and it will eventually fall.

The same principle is true in a nation.  As I showed in my article “The Case for Christian Nationalism”, there are three main pillars which support any nation.  These pillars are common religion, common ethnicity and common language.  If you remove any of those pillars eventually that nation will fall.

I showed the United States started as a nation whose people were overwhelming Christian, were mostly of British descent and who spoke English.  I said the founders in their efforts to guard against Christian Church-State governments left the door wide open for secularism to take over America.  Eventually this pillar, that of common religion, began to collapse.

After the Civil War and then changes in immigration law in the 1960’s another pillar was badly damaged and this is the pillar of common ethnicity.  Previously there were quotas in place to make sure most immigrants to America came from Northern European white countries.  These quotas were removed.

So, in a way it is like someone took a saw to two of the main support beams of a house (common religion and common ethnicity) and cut three quarters of the way through each one.  Eventually when one of them snaps the house caves in.

I believe that God has been holding the weakened supports of the United States together but at a point very soon he will let go and allow his natural laws to take full effect.  We in America have sowed “diversity” or what it really is – “division” and we will reap the consequences of that.  Racial, political and religious differences on multiple fronts will eventually lead to the collapse of the United States.

My point in my statements in previous articles was not for advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States government by some Evangelical Christian army.  But instead it was that once the government collapses due to a variety of factors Christians should be ready to take control in the absence of a functioning government as opposed to overthrowing a functioning government like what we have now (despite its many flaws and imperfections). Even then when I talk about taking control what I am really alluding to is secession or the mutual breakup of the United States into smaller more unified and thus less diversified parts.

Update 4/25/2018:

I was going to do an article with small short story illustrating a possible future breakup of the United States scenario.  But I have really gotten into writing the story and it is growing and will take some time to get all my ideas into it.  So I will do some other shorter articles in the meantime and get back to you when this story is done.  I am really enjoying it and I might have some friends help me proof read it and make adjustments for style.