Why Am I Here?

“Why Am I here?” The answer to this question was known from the beginning thousands of years ago when God created man. But then mankind turned against the one true God and turned to false gods and false religions and the truth of our origins was forgotten by much of mankind.  Many philosophers have tried to answer this question apart from the Bible and have failed in their attempts.

One of the most popular Christian books written in the last couple decades, “The Purpose Driven Life” by Rick Warren, sought to answer this question from a Biblical perspective. Like all Christian writers before him, Pastor Warren correctly states that we were created to bring glory to God.

But we must answer the question of HOW God meant for us to bring him glory other wise the answer has no practical guidance for our lives. Every thing God created was made to bring him glory in a unique way.  As men and women we were created by God to bring him glory in very unique and special ways.

In my new 12 part podcast series on BGRLearning.com entitled “His Image Our Purpose” I show that while Rick Warren had good intentions with his book, he actually missed the primary way that God meant for us as men and women to bring him glory.

Click here to go to the free section of BGRLearning.com to hear one of the episodes from this 12 part series.  If you find this to be a blessing you can subscribe to BGRLearning.com to hear all 12 parts of this series along with other new episodes on various other topics from a Biblical perspective that are posted each Saturday.

 

The Root Cause of Antinatalism in America

Within the span of just a few days we have had a congressional representative ask “is it okay to still have children?“ and yesterday we saw Democratic senators blocking a vote to protect infants that survive abortion attempts.  As Christians and as pro-life advocates we speak out against such evil ideologies as we should.  But many Christians and pro-life advocates fail to even recognize, let alone address the root cause of America’s Antinatalism.

Yes, Having Children is a “moral question”

Fox News reported the following about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “legitimate question” that she asked just a few days ago:

“Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said young people have to ask a “legitimate question” in the wake of climate change and mounting student loan debt: “Is it okay to still have children?”

“Our planet is going to face disaster if we don’t turn this ship around,” she said, as she chopped sweet potatoes. “And so it’s basically like, there is a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult and it does lead, I think young people, to have a legitimate question. Ya know, should—is it okay to still have children?

She continued: “Not just financially because people are graduating with 20, 30, 100 thousand dollars of student loan debt so they can’t even afford to have kids in the house, but there’s also just this basic moral question, like, what do we do?””

I actually agree with Miss Ocasio-Cortez that the decision to have children is a “basic moral question”.  And I am glad she framed it that way as a moral question and not a just a “personal decision” as we so often hear. So, here is the answer to Miss Ocasio-Cortez’s question – It is not only “okay to still have children” but it is actually commanded by God:

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Genesis 1:28 (KJV)

God’s very first command to mankind was to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” and until he rescinds that command, we are obliged to obey it.

For young men that means working toward a career that can support a wife and children and as soon as they can support a family seeking out a wife for marriage.

For young women they should be working with their fathers to find godly husbands who can support them and then getting married not long after high school or even dropping out of high school for marriage if their father finds a man earlier and that he approves of.

But whenever we talk about God’s first command and its continuing relevance for our lives today, we must also talk about his exception to that command which is celibacy.

“7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.  9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”

I Corinthians 7:7-9 (KJV)

God gives some people the gift of celibacy for undivided service to him.  Celibacy is not meant as a “get out of marriage free card” as some like to use it.  It is not meant to allow one to live a selfish life free of the responsibilities of marriage and children. It is meant for undivided service to God and is the ONLY exception to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply which means – get married, have sex and have children.

Abortion on Demand is a Natural Consequence of Giving Woman Equal Rights with Men

What I said previously about young women seeking marriage right after high school or even dropping out of high school for marriage may be offensive even to some pro-life people reading this.  But you must understand that God did not command that women have college educations and careers but rather he commanded that they marry and have children:

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

1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV)

Our society’s push for women’s equality with men and independence from men, whether it be in education, careers or voting has directly led to some very tragic realities that are all but buried by our media and sadly even our churches today.

Before the woman’s rights movement began in the mid 1800’s, divorce rates were 3 percent.

By the time of the passage of Woman’s Suffrage in 1920 the divorce rates had jumped to 13 percent.

In the mid 1980’s divorce rates had peaked at 53 percent.  The only reason they eventually fell to the mid 40 percent range since the 1980’s is because of the wide scale abandonment of marriage.

Today, 60 percent of people ages 18 to 34 are not married. And the majority of this critical age group is not even cohabitating.

Based on all the statistics we know about increased divorce rates and falling marriage rates since the beginning of the woman’s rights movements in the mid-19th century, we must admit the following truth:

Male/female relationships and most importantly the institution of marriage itself has been decimated by the woman’s rights movement in America.

Over 60 million divorces have occurred since the women’s rights movement began pushing for women’s legal and financial independence from men.  And if you are pro-life you probably know that over 60 million abortions have taken place since the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade.

Please hear me as a fellow pro-life advocate, you cannot separate abortion from the woman’s rights movement.  Abortion rights were simply the logical consequence of making women equal with men and making women financially and legally independent of men. God never meant for women to be social equals with men anymore than he meant for children to be social equals with their parents.

The Bible tells us God’s social order in the following Scripture passages:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

1 Timothy 2:12 (KJV)

But we in America and Western civilization thought we knew better.  We over turned God’s social order and we have reaped what we have sown.

Abortion leads to Infanticide

Yesterday, we had Democrats blocking the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” as reported by Fox News:

“Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a Republican bill that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don’t try saving the life of infants born alive during failed abortions, leading conservatives to wonder openly whether Democrats were embracing “infanticide” to appeal to left-wing voters.

All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic delaying tactics — seven votes short of the 60 needed…

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that “any health care practitioner present” at the time of a birth “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.””

As a society we have placed women’s rights on such a high pedestal that we are now literally willing to sacrifice the life of not just unborn children, but even those who have been born.  When will we open our eyes to this evil?

Conclusion

We cannot continue to avoid this question.  How did we as a society come to a point where on February 25th, 2019 the United State’s Senate actually blocked a bill protecting infants that are born alive from being allowed to simply die on a table with no help?

The root of this issue started on July 19th, 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York with the first women’s rights convention. After this conference new rights were given to women in divorce making divorce easier and less painful for women which lead to a spike in divorces even before the passage of Woman’s Suffrage in 1920.

Women from 1848 and forward began to rebel against the authority of their fathers and their husbands.  This led to the rejection of courtship and the embrace of the new practice of dating.   Dating led to rampant sex outside of marriage and a jump in out of wedlock births which eventually peaked at what we have today which is a 40 percent out-wedlock birth rate.

This change to woman-centric marriages and relationships also lead to a 53 percent divorce rate at its peak in the 1980’s.  After divorce rates peaked at 53 percent the next generation began rejecting marriage and even dating became dysfunctional to the point that in our current culture 60 percent of people ages 18-34 are not married.

So, we can see the natural progression.

Giving women more rights and control over their lives, bodies and who they married led to more divorce, more sex outside of marriage, more children born out of wedlock, abortion and finally now in 2019 legalized infanticide.

When will we admit the root of all this evil?  When will we admit that overturning God’s design and his social order of men ruling over women was a colossal mistake? How far must we go as a society before we will come to our senses?  Will our civilization have to collapse before we will undo all the rights we have given to women since the Seneca Falls convention in 1848?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In his first point Reinke states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are many false statements made here by Piper and repeated by Reinke. But before I show why they are false I need to show you a passage of Scripture that is not mentioned in this review:
“7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
I Corinthians 11:7-9 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

In that article Piper states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Piper states:

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

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

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

Piper states:

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

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

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

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

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

Piper states:

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

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

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

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

Piper states:

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

Again, the statement that “God is not male and God is not female” directly contradicts the reading of I Corinthians 11:7 which Piper chooses to explain away and ignore:
“For a MAN (“aner” – the male human being”) indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he IS the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
I Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”
I Peter 3:7 (KJV)

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

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

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

Men Should Boycott Gillette Razors

Gillette Razors decided to jump into the MeToo# movement with an ad telling men they need to be their best – a take on their slogan “the best a man can get”.  Now as Christians we also want to encourage men to be their best.  So, what could be wrong with such an ad? I have attached the ad in question to this article for you to watch and now I will break down some of the key scenes from this “short story” from Gillette.

It starts with a scene of a boy running from other boys who want to hurt him, or in other words bullies. Another scene features young boys sitting on a couch watching TV with an old cartoon where men were catcalling a woman and then another scene where a man on a TV show grabbed the maid’s behind.  Then they then show a scene where a male business man interrupts a female business woman and explains what she was saying and it zooms in on her face to show her feelings were hurt by this action.

In another scene they show a traditional neighborhood backyard barbeque where two boys are fighting in the grass as the fathers look on smiling.

It is here where we see a row of men in front of Barbeques saying “Boys will boys” and repeating the phrase over and over again.

Then the Gillette ad says they “believe in the best in men” followed by a CSPAN clip of the actor Terry Crew speaking before congress stating that “Men need to hold other men accountable” to which Gillette follows his words with “to say the right thing, to act the right way”.

When using the phrase “say the right thing” they have boys at a pool saying something crass to some girls with other boys stepping in to stop them.  For the phrase “act the right way” they have an attractive woman in a tight outfit walking down a busy city side walk with a man checking her out and he goes to walk toward her to say something and another man stops him and says “not cool, not cool”.

We then see a scene of the boy from the beginning of the ad running from the same bullies as another father sees the situation.  We see a video of a father telling his daughter to repeat the phrase “I am strong, I am strong”.

We then see the father on the street intervene to help the boy who was being chased by bullies followed by the Dad in the infamous neighborhood backyard barbeque intervening in the boys fighting in the grass telling them “That’s not how we treat each other ok”.

What is Wrong with This Ad?

The first problem is that this ad mixes in the bad behavior of some men with behavior by most men that may not actually be wrong.

We as Christian men would absolutely condemn bullying at any age. We should teach our sons not to bully others.  So Christian men would clearly condemn the group of boys chasing the other boy or texting nasty things to another boy.

But what about the two young boys fighting at the neighborhood barbeque.  We don’t know how that fight started.  It may have started with one boy actually bullying the other or punching the other boy and then we only see the end of it with the boy fighting back against the bully.

Contrary to our modern cultural ideas, violence is not always wrong.  If violence is done in self-defense or defense of others than it can be noble and right.

King David even speaks of the fact that God teaches men to fight and make war:

“Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight

Psalm 144:1 (KJV)

Men are naturally aggressive, competitive, protective and physical.  Having raised 4 boys, two which are now adults and two who are in their mid-teens, I can tell you boys are all these things.  And yes, sometimes my boys have fought.

And while I have intervened at times when I thought it was getting too rough or out of hand, I certainly was not going to intervene at the first sign of physical aggression from one brother to another.

But our modern world teaches us that male physical aggression in any form or shape is always wrong and it must be immediately stopped.  And that was the message that Gillette was trying to get across.  That is why so many today condemn highly physical sports like football, hockey or boxing which encourage male aggression.

Now let’s take on the catcalling scenes.  No Christian man should approve of a man shouting out crude sexual comments to a random woman he does not know walking down the street.  But what about just telling a woman she is beautiful and asking for her phone number? There was a time in our society when most women would have found this flattering, but now it is lumped in as catcalling by many today.

So, let’s take the scene where a man sees a beautiful woman walking down the side walk, checks her out and wants to go talk to her.  We have no idea what he was going to say.  What if he walked up to her and told her she was beautiful and wanted her number to call her to go out some time?  But instead we have the “white knight” man who steps in to save this poor woman from this other man’s brutish behavior.  Now if he had something sexually crude, I would have been all for the “white knight” treatment.

But we simply don’t know what his intentions were.  And the producer of the video is leaving it vague on purpose.  Why? Because the producer of this Gillette ad wants us to condemn this man for going after a woman simply because she was beautiful.  By doing so he is “sexually objectifying her”.  Instead men should only ask women on dates after they get to know them and are interested in their “full person”, fully appreciating their mind and intellect.  Someone please get me a vomit bag.

Men need to stop being physically oriented visual creatures and instead they need to become more like women who are relational and holistic in their attraction mechanisms, that is one message of this ad.

And before we continue, here is a little something to consider for all my detractors out there.  We are taught today that men can only see women as sex objects to be used for their pleasure or as persons.  They must make a conscious choice we are told because it is supposedly impossible for a man to see a woman both as a sex object and as a person.

I chuckle every time I read an article or watch a YouTube video reviewing my site where they say I believe woman were only made for man’s sexual pleasure.  Anyone who has read my blog for some time and is honest about what I have said will admit that I say ONE of the reasons God made woman was for man’s sexual pleasure.  But it certainly was not the only reason.  But it’s easier to demonize my teachings if someone can say I teach that the only reason a woman was made was for man’s sexual pleasure.  The truth is that most of my detractors find it offensive that I teach woman was made for man at all, whether as a helper, mother, homemaker or lover.

If you want to understand how it is actually possible for a man to view a woman as a sex object and as a person, I encourage you to read my article “Why it is NOT Wrong for Men to See Women as Sex Objects”.

Now let’s return to the Gillette commercial.  So what message were we supposed to be getting with that board room scene?

In that scene we see a man explaining what one of the female members at the table has said.  This is a condemnation of what feminists call “mansplaining”.  This is when a man tries to explain something that a woman has said and this ALWAYS wrong according to feminists. Now of course when a woman explains what a man has said this is always right.  Maybe the woman was a new employee and had struggled to explain something correctly.  But the message is, if a woman has an upset look on her face the man must automatically be wrong. But I digress.

So, like most of the liberal progressive propaganda, they mix some behaviors that the vast majority of Christian and non-Christian people would condemn with situations that may or may not be wrong for men or boys depending on the circumstances. Then they say that men approve of all bad behaviors by men by saying “Boys will boys”.  Like if a man grabs some random woman’s breast or bottom, we will all just laugh and say “Boys will be boys”. Or if some group of boys is chasing down another boy to give him a beat down, we will just smile and say “Boys will boys”.  Such an insinuation is insulting to men as gender.

The Liberal bastardization of the phrase “Boys will boys”

“Boys will be boys” has historically been used to talk about normal masculine behavior.  It was NOT used to talk about abnormal masculine behavior.  So, to say that “Boys will boys” applies to things like bullying, catcalling women with crude sexual language, groping women or raping women is to say this has been normal behavior for men.  In other words, they are saying most men have historically done this and most men today are still doing this.

Such an accusation is demonstrably false!  Most men have not and do not walk up to random women and use crude sexual language, grope them or try to rape them.  Even in work place settings or in dating situations the vast majority of men do not do these things.

Have there always been some men like this throughout the history of mankind? Yes. But to say most men have acted in this way or that most men today act in this way is wrong.

The real agenda with intermixing clearly bad behavior with what might be normal masculine behavior and then lumping it all together saying “Boys will boys” is to attack what is truly normal masculine behavior.

The feminists and secular progressives are on a mission today to erase the two genders God created to form their own new “non-gendered” person.  In this effort they encourage women to be more assertive and competitive like men while at the same time telling men they need to be more like women by being less assertive, less aggressive and less competitive.  In the sexual arena again, they encourage women to be more physically oriented like men and they encourage men to be more relationally oriented like women.  Women need to toughen up and men need to get in touch with their feelings, or so we are told.

Again, this all part of an insidious effort to erase the distinctions between the genders that God created. And this is part of a larger cultural cold war that is only now beginning to heat up.  But secular progressives living in their safe little spaces believe with education commercials like this Gillette ad they can literally reprogram men to be what they want them to be.   This is because they embrace the flawed “blank slate” theory that all human behavior is taught and learned from one’s culture and surroundings.  So, you can just educate people and change the culture to change human nature or so the feminists and secular progressives tell us.

But the truth is that while we are influenced by our upbringing and our culture there are some things that are biologically hardwired into our brains as men and women by God.  And the masculine traits of being more aggressive, assertive, competitive, protective, stoic and more physically sexually oriented are in fact hardwired traits in the brains of most men.

Then of course we have the exceptions, the abnormal men who are more feminine and the abnormal women who are more masculine.  How do we explain that from a Christian perspective? For answers to that see my articles “Masculine Women and Feminine Men Part 1” and “Masculine Women and Feminine Men Part 2”.

The Attack on Masculinity is an Attack on God himself

The Bible tells us why God made the distinct masculine and feminine human natures in the following two passages:

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

I Corinthians 11:7-9 (KJV)

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

Ephesians 5:23-24 (KJV)

These passages tell us that God made the masculine human nature to image his own nature and thereby bring him glory.  He created man for his own glory and he created woman for the glory of man. He created woman and by extension marriage to help man fully image him as a husband and father.  Woman was purposefully created as the “weaker vessel” (I Peter 3:7) to symbolize how the people of God are weaker than he is and dependent on his leadership, provision and protection.

So, when people who are Christians or non-Christians attack Biblical gender roles or attack masculinity while elevating femininity, they are in essence elevating mankind to being equal with God.

When we as a culture encourage women to be independent of men and not look to men for their leadership, provision or protection we are symbolizing that mankind does not need God nor should mankind look to God for leadership, provision and protection.

Most secular progressives would stand up and applaud what I just said as they want to rid humanity of worshiping God.  But the Christian Egalitarians on the other hand have a harder task then the secular progressives.  They have to try and keep the parts of the Bible they like while throwing out all this gender symbolism that is seen throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

The Choice Before You

I know we can’t boycott everything.  But changing razors is not a hard thing to do.  I have been using Gillette for probably 20 years, but the next time I go to buy a razor I will associate their brand with this and I will look for an alternative.

As a Christian you have this same choice to make.  Will you stand with a society that has declared war on the masculine nature which is the very image of God? Or will you take a stand not only for masculinity but the God whose image masculinity portrays? Will you fight with your pocket book and your vote for your faith?

I have read and watched many articles and YouTube videos with people saying that the gender roles I teach on this blog straight out of the Bible are “evil”.  Some even go as far as to condemn the God of the Bible as an evil God.  Today many American Christians do not even realize they are worshiping the false American gods of humanity, equality and education.  They give vast amounts of their time and wealth to the furtherance of these American idols.

The choice before you is the same choice Joshua gave to the nation of Israel. Will you call God evil and follow our false American gods or will you serve the one true and living God who created us for his glory?

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

Joshua 24:15 (KJV)

Should A Christian Wife Submit to Her Husband’s Sexual Sadism?

“What do you do as a spiritual wife if you know that your husband is aroused by your pain (sexual sadism). And that it is inflicted purposefully? How much of this type of pain is it our duty to endure?”

These were some questions that were sent in on my article “Why A Wife Should Endure Painful Sex with Her Husband”.

What is Sexual Sadism?

The overwhelming vast majority of men would be turned off by their wife expressing any symptoms of pain during sexual intercourse.  This natural response is by the design of God.   Whether it be with our wives, our children, other human beings or even animals the natural human response to pain is that we are uncomfortable with seeing it.

A sadist is one who actually enjoys causing pain, or watching pain being caused to others. A sexual sadist is one who is sexually aroused by causing pain to others.  Some sexual sadists cannot be aroused to sex by any other way except causing the person they are about to have sex with pain. And to continue their arousal during sex they need to continually be causing pain to that person as they are having sex with them.

Unfortunately, though, pain is apart of living in this sin cursed world.  We all experience lesser or greater amounts of pain from various activities.  Some people experience chronic types of pain every day of their lives.  Many common chronic types of pain revolve around neck, back, shoulder, and joint paint that people suffer on a daily basis especially as they age.

Many couples have to overcome chronic neck, shoulder and back pain in order to have sex.

And in some situations, husbands must overcome how their wife’s chronic pain inhibits their sexual arousal. They take no joy or arousal from their wife’s pain, and they must block it out to find any enjoyment in sexual intercourse with her.  They must train their minds to take pleasure from sexual intercourse with their wife DESPITE her pain for the proper bonding of their marriage and to keep from sexual temptation.

A husband who is a sexual sadist is one who is aroused by the pain his wife is having both before or during sex, and he is most aroused by pain that he inflicts on her.  A husband who is not aroused by his wife’s pain, but has sex with her DESPITE her pain for the good of their marriage cannot be classified as a sexual sadist.

The Bible Condemns All Forms of Sadism

The Bible condemns sadism in several passages including the following passage from Mark 7:20-23:

“20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”

The English word “wickedness” found in verse 22 is a translation of the Greek word ‘’Poneria” not to be confused with “Porneia” which refers to sexually immoral acts.  This word refers to taking pleasure from causing others pain.

The English phrase “evil eye” also found in verse 22 is a translation of the Greek words “Poneros” and “Ophthalmos”.  What this phrase refers to is one who derives pleasure from watching another person cause pain to others.

God shows us in Revelation 21:4 that suffering and pain are a result of the corrupting influence of sin on this world:

“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” – Revelation 21:4

A man who seeks to cause his wife pain to arouse himself sexually is engaging in wickedness.  1 Corinthians 11:9 tell us of man that he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.  The Scriptures tell us as part of this sacred duty for men to live out the attributes of God that they are to paint a picture of the relationship between Christ and his Church with their wives:

“25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself f or 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 5:25-29

Can we honestly say that Christ gets a kick out of needlessly causing the church pain? The answer is no! While it is absolutely true that Christ disciplines his churches as seen in Revelation 3:19 he does this for their holiness, not because he gets his kicks from causing them pain.

God does not cause his people pain to arouse himself or amuse himself.

A husband is who causes his wife pain to sexually arouse himself is not protecting his wife’s body as he does his own.  When a man causes his wife pain for his own arousal or amusement he is doing the exact opposite of what God calls him to do in Ephesians 5:29.

Husbands Who Use Misuse Biblical Truths to Satisfy their Sadism

Some Christian men take the doctrines of Biblical gender roles and use them for evil instead of for the purposes for which God intended them.  The Scriptures tell us the following principles regarding the roles for which God created men and women:

Principle # 1 – Man is the Head of Woman and Woman Was Made for Man

“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… Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” – I Corinthians 11:3 & 9

Principle # 2 – Part of God’s Purpose in Making Woman was For Man’s Pleasure

“Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 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

Principle # 3- Women are to Submit to their Husbands in Everything

“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

Principle # 4- Women are to Submit Even to Husbands Who Disobey God’s Word

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear… For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” – I Peter 3:1-2 & 5-6

Some Christian husbands use these four Biblical principles for evil and not for the purposes for which God intended them.  Instead of using their God given position to image God and paint the picture of Christ and his Church with their wife they use their position for their own evil desires.  And as we have said previously if a man seeks to be aroused by his wife’s pain this is an evil desire.

Some Christian husbands abuse their authority to convince their wife to do horrible and heinous things.

I have corresponded with Christian husbands, professing the name of Christ, who have admitted that they forced their wives to strip naked in the presence of other men and then encouraged those other men to masturbate and ejaculate on their wife.  They would convince their wife that she was not actually having sex with the man because he never physically touched them. Yes this really happened and does happen.

I have conversed with husbands via email who force their wives to endure horrible pain through vaginal fisting or rough anal sex and the more pain they cause their wives the more it turns them on.

Some sadist husbands’ men whip their wives or hurt them in ways that will only leave bruises in places people cannot see and they tell themselves as long as they don’t break any bones or cause a permanent damage this is all fine before God.

I have conversed with men via email who have forced their wives to purposefully wear very revealing clothes to public places and forced them to show nipples to waiters or other men.

These actions of these husbands causing both pain and humiliation to their wives are textbook examples of sexual sadism.

They justify all this behavior by twisting the principle that God made their wives for them and that their wife must obey them in everything.  They convince their wives that even if they ask them to sin, that she bears no consequences and the consequences are all on him.  These men  take their wives through mental conditioning courses breaking down their opposition to these heinous acts teaching them that I Peter 3:1-2 absolves a woman from all sin that her husband commands her to do.

Some men literally have used I Peter 3:1-2 to convince their wife to have full sexual intercourse with other men for their amusement.

So, what has my response been to these men who misuse Biblical truths to get their wives to submit to their sexual sadism?  My response from one man who claims Christ to another who claims Christ has been simple.   REPENT.  What you are doing is wicked and you are perverting what God meant for his glory and not your desire for sin. You must recognize that if you are a Christian man with sadist tendencies these tendencies are NOT from God.  They are a corruption of the sexual nature he designed in you.

You need to repent both to God and to your wife for this evil you have committed against her.  And as a failsafe against you giving into your evil desires again, you need to tell your wife that she must resist your sadism with all her ability if this happens again.  You need to explain to her the principles I will now outline for wives in dealing with their husbands who have sadist desires.

How Should a Christian Wife Respond to Her Husband’s Sexual Sadism?

In a previous article I wrote entitled “Why God Wants You to STAY in an Abusive Relationship” I made the following statements:

“So on the one hand Biblically speaking we do not have to suffer or allow every kind of abuse from every sphere in our life but on the other hand the Bible does not allow us to or encourage us to do what the world says and confront EVERY kind of abuse or mistreatment toward us no matter what the offense is or where it comes from.

We all need to look to Christ’s example of “taking it patiently”.

What I was tackling in that article was the American “abuse” industry.  We are told here in America that we are not to tolerate any kind mistreatment by others.

Many people did not actually fully read that article and did not see the disclaimers I made.  I made it clear that if a person feels their life is threatened, or they are suffering serious physical abuse that causes permanent damage they should get out.  They should seek out the proper authorities for help.

But today we have people saying if a husband or wife calls the other person a name that is “verbal abuse” and they need to get out of that relationship.

Now let’s relate this to a husband engaging in sexual sadism with his wife.  This is definitely an abuse or mistreatment toward his wife.  God did not give a man his wife so that he could arouse himself by causing her pain.  This is evil and wicked in the sight of God.

So how should a Christian wife respond? Some Christian teachers would say she should separate from him and tell him if he does not seek counseling to address the issue, she will divorce him.  The problem with that advice is that it is completely based on emotion and not one ounce of Scripture.  That Bible does NOT allow a person to be divorced or free from their marriage for just any kind of mistreatment by their spouse.  See my article “For what reasons does God allow divorce” for the Scriptural reasons that God allows divorce.

Other Christians teachers will say that a wife must patiently and quietly take sexual sadism from her husband and that she is following Christ’s example in suffering in doing so.

But I would argue when it comes to sexual sadism that if a wife offers no resistance that she is in effect partaking in her husband’s sin.  And that is something the Bible forbids for us to do:

“And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.  But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.  For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

Ephesians 5:2-7

Many women today wrongly believe they are to be the Holy Spirit for their husbands.  They believe they must try to correct their husband’s every sin. This is unbiblical and false. The Apostle Peter gave wives what was to be their default behavior toward their husbands when they acted in disobedient ways against God’s Word:

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.” – I Peter 3:1-2

So rather than constantly rebuking and chastising their husbands, which is out of place for a wife, she is to win her husband without a word by her submission and reverent behavior toward her husband.

However, there is another Scriptural principle that I Peter 3:1-2 must be balanced against.  The same Apostle Peter who told wives to win their husbands without a word by their submission and reverent behavior also stated the following:

“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” – Acts 5:29

So how do these two Biblical principles harmonize?

If a husband’s disobedience does not require his wife’s participation in his sin, and does not place her life or her children’s lives in imminent danger or risk of serious bodily harm then she is to say and do NOTHING.  She is not to preach the Word at her husband and tell him that he needs to repent.  She is to submit to him and attempt to win him with her life and actions, not her words.

Now what I just said there is a VERY hard pill for most American women, including Christian women, to swallow.  But it is the truth of God’s Word.  You are not his mother, you are not his equal partner, you are his wife which is his subordinate helper.

But if you as a Christian wife are asked to fulfill your husband’s sadist desires by letting him purposefully cause you pain to arouse himself the Ephesians 5:7 principle that you are not to be a partaker in other’s sin comes into play.  You must resist your husband to the best of your ability. 

What I just said I do not say lightly. Just as husbands can abuse their Biblical authority over their wives so too women can abuse God’s rare allowance for them to disobey their husbands.

Christian women – God calls on you to submit to your sinful and disobedient husbands, but you are not to be a willing partaker in his sin, including his sin of sadism.

“Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” – 1 Timothy 5:22

A Woman Should Disobey Her Husband for the Gospel

The Bible tells wives in Ephesians 5:24 to be subject to their husbands “in everything”. So what is a Christian wife to do if her husband commands her not to speak of the Gospel to her children? Does God want her to obey that command?

My inspiration for this article came from a comment I recently received from a woman calling herself Alice. She had been talking about how her husband had left the Christian faith and she worried about her children:

“BGR, my husband is not requiring me to abandon my faith or church, so I do not need to do anything. I really do believe if I keep my mouth shut, God will lead him home. If he wants me to accompany him to religious services at a Buddhist temple, I will, but I do worry about the children. I do not contradict him in front of them, but I am worried because he is very vocal about his disdain for Christianity.

They are in Catholic school and he does not want them to move, but his point of view is in direct contradiction of what they are learning and I don’t know what to do. I don’t tell them privately that their father is wrong, that seems like the height of disrespect toward my husband, but I also don’t want my children thinking Christianity is wrong. I also know it is not my place to teach my husband anything spiritually, so I mostly try and steer conversations away from religion. Politics is always a good foil!”

There are three separate issues here that this Christian wife is faced with.  How does a Christian woman evangelize her unbelieving husband?  How does she evangelize her children? And should she attend the temple of false god with him? First let’s tackle how she evangelizes her husband.

Wives Should Win Their Husbands With Their Behavior, Not Their Words

The Apostle Peter wrote the following to wives whose husbands are disobedient to the Word of God (this covers both unbelieving husbands and professing Christian husbands who are disobedient):

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

I Peter 3:1-2

So the Scriptures make clear that wives are not to try and win their husbands by preaching the Gospel at them but instead they are to win them by their subjection, and their pure and respectful behavior toward their husbands.

A key phrase that many people miss in I Peter 3:1 is the word “Likewise”.  What this means is the Apostle Peter is referring to another group he was just talking about.  In the previous chapter just before speaking to wives Peter speaks to slaves where he says something very similar:

“Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward.”

I Peter 2:18

Peter was telling slaves or servants to set the example of Christ with their master’s even if their masters were cruel and made them suffer.  The point was that by setting the example of Christ they may win some of their masters by their behavior.

Is Peter saying wives are identical to slaves? No.  But what he is saying is that “likewise” or in the same way he had just told slaves be in subjection to their masters, even masters who mistreated them and caused them to suffer, so too wives are to use this approach with their husbands to try to win them to Christ.

Let’s bring this back to Alice now.   Alice is exactly right in keeping her “mouth shut” with her husband.   She needs to win him by her subjection and reverent (fearful respect) behavior. But what about her children?

God Sent A Woman Behind Her Husband’s Back

While her husband is allowing them to stay in Catholic school, he is directly contradicting everything they learn about the Christian faith. And Alice worries that she cannot go behind her husband’s back to them their father is wrong.  So what should she do? What if she did go behind his back and he found out and forbid her from sharing the truth of the Gospel with her children? How should a Christian woman in Alice’s position handle this situation?

The answer to this question can be found in two passages of the Scriptures.  The first is found in New Testament in the book of Acts.  The Apostles had been imprisoned by the Jewish High Priest for going around preaching the Gospel but the Angel of the Lord came by night and freed them and total them to continue preaching the Gospel.  The High Priests have them captured again and brought before them where the following conversation took place:

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

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

Acts 5:27-30

So we see here that when our earthly authority commands us to not speak the Gospel we have a higher authority in God which compels us to.  Some may argue – “Well these were men and not wives”.  There is absolutely no reason this same principle would not apply to a woman or a wife as well.

Sometimes even a wife must go against her husband for the sake of God or to save the lives of her family members from her husband’s evil actions.  For an example of this we will look to an Old Testament woman named Abigail.

In I Samuel chapter 25 we read of a man named Nabal who has a wife named Abigail. The Bible tells us he was an evil man. David and his men were in need of food and water so he sent some men to ask for help from Nabal.  Nabal rudely turned David’s men away refusing to help and asked who David thought he was to ask for such help.

David hears of this and rally’s 400 of his men to go and kill Nabal and all the men of his house.  Abigail hears of the evil her husband had done and the impending death that that was coming for all the men of her household at the hands of David and his men.

She tells the servants to get food together to go to meet David and his men.  In I Samuel 25:19 we read “But she told not her husband Nabal”.  She literally secretly went behind his back to do what was right to save her family.

She met David and told him her husband was wrong and she was going to make amends for her husband’s evil actions.  David tells her in I Samuel 25:32 – “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me”.

This was not mistake, or some sin on the part of Abigail that she needed to confess later.  God wanted her to act against her husband’s evil to save the men of her house from certain death due to her husband’s evil ways.

Again let’s bring this back to Alice and her children.  While she should remain silent directly toward her husband as I Peter 3:1-2 indicates the situation is different with her children.  Why is it different? The reason is that her children are not her authority. Notice in I Peter 2 and I Peter 3 Peter is speaking to how we speak and act toward those above us.  He tells slaves or servants to win their masters with their behavior and he says the same of wives toward their husbands.

But did this mean a slave or servant could not and should not share the Gospel with a fellow servant? Absolutely not! They have a God given obligation to do so.  In the same way a Christian mother has an obligation to share the Gospel with those who are her equals or and especially with her children who are under her care.

What about attending the Temple of a False god?

Alice made the following statement about attending a Buddhist temple with her husband:

“If he wants me to accompany him to religious services at a Buddhist temple, I will”

But this is what the Scriptures tell us:
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.”

2 Corinthians 6:14-17

It is one thing if your husband wants you to attend a different Christian denomination then you have been.  Perhaps you were Presbyterian and he converts to Baptist.  Then you should follow him to the Baptist church.  Or maybe you were Baptist and he converts to Presbyterian, then should follow him to the Presbyterian church.

And while I know some will disagree with me – if you were Protestant and your husband converts to Catholicism you should follow him to the Catholic Church.  Why? Then answer is found in the following Scripture passage:

“1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

I John 4:1-3

All churches have some doctrinal errors and some churches have more doctrinal errors than others.  But a Christian teacher and a Christian church is defined by one thing.  Those who confess and preach that Jesus was the Messiah, the Savior and God in the flesh are Christian churches and those who deny any part of this are not.  Period.

We can and will have strong disagreements between Christian Churches.  But we need to be very careful of ever saying someone, or a church that believes Jesus was the Messiah, the Savior and God in the flesh and died for our sins on the cross cannot be called a Christian  or a Christian church.

Conclusion

Christian wives have clear direction on how to handle an unsaved husband and father to their children.  In regard to him they should place themselves in subjection to their husband and try to win their husband not with words, but with their pure and reverent behavior.  But in regard to their children or others they may come in contact with they should follow the Abigail example of going behind their husband’s back to do what God has commanded.

They should share the Gospel with others and most importantly their children.

Abigail acknowledged her husband was wrong in a particular area, and so too a Christian mother can maintain the respect for the children’s father but at the same time teach them the godly principle that we must always “obey God rather than men”.  If anyone tells us not to tell others the Gospel, we can and must disobey such a command because God is our higher authority.

Also in following this same principle of obeying “God rather than men” I do not think a woman in Alice’s situation should attend a Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic or other non-Christian house of worship.   The Scriptures are clear when they state And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?…Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

It is one thing if a woman’s unbelieving husband wants to live with her in peace.  The Bible tells us she should in I Corinthians 7:13 where it states And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

But she cannot go against her Lord whether it be in sharing her faith with others including her children or in attending the temple of idols.  The Scriptures are clear that we must love Christ more than our family and for a Christian wife that would include her husband:

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.”

Matthew 10:36-38

Lastly – I want to stress that this kind of situation where a wife must go behind her husband’s back as Abigail did should be the rarity.  This should be for a life and death situation and not just for any disagreement.  And the Gospel is a life and death situation.  Your children’s eternal life hangs in the balance.

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.