The Egalitarian Bastardization of Christ’s Servant Leadership

“We are to live under a different system, where neither husband nor wife exerts power over the other. Our God was not a “servant leader” but an actual servant. The difference is huge.

Imagine a king who chooses to live among his subjects. He works with them, eats with them, and shares conversation with them. But he can’t be one of them, because he has power they don’t. He can change his life—or theirs—on a whim, and they can’t. He and his subjects can appear the same, but they can’t be the same as long as this power differential exists. The only way he can change this is to give up the crown. That’s what Jesus did. And that is what Paul calls husbands to do in Ephesians 5.”

The statement above comes from an article entitled “Why Marriage Must Be Egalitarian to Be Truly Christ-like” from CBEInternational.org.   And the statement above is nothing less than a complete and utter bastardization of Christ’s teachings regarding servant leadership.

This is what the Devil does.  He takes some bit of truth and then twists it into a lie to fit his purposes.  Is it true that Christ said leaders should serve those under their leadership? Absolutely.  But he did not teach or do the things that Egalitarians say he did in the statement above.

To expose this heresy that Egalitarians teach we will look at what Christ actually said and what he actually did in comparison to their assertions.

Christ’s Teaching and Example of Servant Leadership

In Mark 10:42-45 Christ made the following statement:

“But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:  And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.  For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

This is probably the greatest statement Christ gave on serving.   But to fully understand Christ’s Words in Mark 10:42-45 we must contrast them with another statement he made to the Jewish leaders in Matthew 26:63-64:

“But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.   Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

The Jewish leaders knew exactly what Jesus was alluding to when he said he would come on “the clouds of heaven”.  This was a reference to what the prophet Daniel said in Daniel 7:13-14:

“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”

In Jesus’s first coming, he did not yet come to establish his earthly kingdom, but instead he came to be the suffering servant. He came to do for us that which we could not do for ourselves.  He came to pay for our sins and to purchase his church, his bride, with his blood (Acts 20:28).

But one day he will return to establish his earthly kingdom.  And in that kingdom, he will compel all nations to serve him.  And if they do not, they will be punished with drought and plagues as Zechariah 14:16-19 shows.

Christ Was Not Just a Servant, He Was a Servant Leader

The egalitarian assertion that Christ, “Our God was not a “servant leader” but an actual servant” is demonstrably false.   

Jesus did NOT lay aside his crown or kingship, he was still king of heaven but he had not yet established his earthly kingdom as he stated in John 18:36:

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.“

When Christ drove the money lenders from the temple, that was an exercise of his authority and power in John 2:15-16:

"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;  And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."

Only a leader can issue commands to others, and that is what Christ did with his Apostles in Mark 6:7-8:

“And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;  And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse”

Christ “commanded” his twelve disciples and only a leader can do that.   He gave them power over unclean spirits and once again only a person with power can give power.

Christ spoke as “one having authority” as the people saw in Matthew 7:28-29:

“And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:  For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”

He gave a great commission in which he first asserted his power then gave the following commands to his Apostles in Matthew 28:18-20:

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

No, my egalitarian friends – our God, Jesus Christ, was not just a servant, he was indeed the ultimate servant leader!

Christ Was Correcting Earthly Authority, Not Abolishing It

Christ made the following decree through his Apostle Paul in Romans 13:1-7:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.   For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. 
Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.  
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.  Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

And in Hebrews 13:7 Christ made the following statement through the writer of Hebrews regarding obedience to church authorities:

“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.”

In 1 Peter 3:1-2 & 5-6 Christ tells wives through his Apostle Peter:

“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.”

And in Ephesians 6:1 Christ tells children through his Apostle Paul:

“Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.”

So, as we can see from the passages above, Christ was not abolishing human authority or saying it was wrong for human authorities to exercise their power over those under their leadership.   But rather, he was showing us how human authorities at all levels should conduct themselves. He was showing us the difference between good and bad leadership.  The difference between a selfish leader and a servant leader.

Selfish leaders only think of themselves and not the good of those whom they lead.  A Christ-like servant leader thinks of the good his people.  He is willing to step in and do any job when his people cannot do it for themselves even to the point of giving his life for his people as Christ did.  But as we can see from the fuller picture of Christ’s leadership, a servant leader still compels the obedience and service of those under his authority. 

Servant Leaders Compel Their People to Fulfill Their Mission

Christ had a mission, and so does every leader. Civil leaders have the mission of protecting the rights of the people by punishing evil doers and praising those who do well.   Church leaders have the mission of spreading the Gospel, discipling believers and disciplining those who bring shame on the church by their public sins.  

And husbands have the greatest mission of all earthly authorities.  This mission is seen in 1 Corinthians 11:7:

“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.”

A man’s life mission is to live out the very attributes of the masculine God which we serve and thereby bring God glory.  A part of his mission is for him to image God as a father to his children in teaching them, disciplining them and preparing them for the roles which God has given them in this life. 

One of the most crucial aspect of a man’s mission is his leadership of his wife.  This leadership is to imitate God’s leadership of his people.  The requirements of this part of man’s mission are seen in Ephesians 5:25-29:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”

Men have the awesome responsibility of washing their wives’ spiritual spots and wrinkles with the Word of God, just as Christ does his church.  The purpose of this washing is to help a wife to reach her full potential as a wife, to be the glorious wife God wants her to be. 

And what does it mean to be a glorious wife? That is also revealed in this same chapter of Ephesians in verses 22-24 and 33.

“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…Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

A glorious wife according to these Scriptures is one who submits to her husband as she would to God with the exception of if her husband asks her to do something which violates God’s law (Acts 5:29).  A glorious wife submits to her husband in everything, not just things she is comfortable with or feels like doing.  And a glorious wife reverences her husband with a deep and profound respect.

It is not a coincidence that there are two things’ men desire most from their women – submission and respect.  Because this desire in men directly represents the image of God in man.

Another part of a man’s washing of his wife requires that he also follow Christ’s example with his churches in Revelation 3:19 where said “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”  So, a man washes his wife with the Word of God and he rebukes and chastens her all to bring her to the point of being the glorious wife she should be.

In addition to his responsibility to wash, rebuke and discipline his wife he also has the responsibility to nourish (provide for) and cherish (protect) his wife as he would his own body. 

All of these acts together constitute a man’s service and his love toward his wife.  His leadership of her is his service to her. His teaching her the Word of God and washing her spiritual flaws to make her a better a wife is his service to her.  His discipline of her is his service to her.  His provision for her material needs and his protection of her to the point that he would be willing to give his life for hers is his service to her.

A Wife’s Service to Her Husband Looks Very Different Than His Service to Her

While it is absolutely Biblically true that a husband and wife ought to serve one another, this does not mean that their service looks the same. In fact, the way they should serve one another looks very different according to the Bible.

God has called wives to serve their husbands by bearing and caring for their children. In 1 Timothy 5:14 the Bible calls on women to “bear children” and in Titus 2:4 the Bible calls on women to love and care for their children.

God has called wives to serve their husbands by managing the domestic affairs of the home. In 1 Timothy 5:14 the Bible calls on women to “guide” the domestic affairs of the home and in Titus 2:5 it tells women to be “keepers at home”.  

God has called wives to serve their husbands by freely and willingly offering their bodies to their husbands for their sexual use and satisfaction. In Romans 1:27 the Bible calls sex “the natural use of the woman” and in Proverbs 5:19 it commands men to “satisfy” themselves with their wife’s body. 

God has called wives to serve their husbands by bringing them glory.  In Proverbs 12:4 the Bible says that a “A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband” and in 1 Corinthians 11:7 we read that “the woman is glory of the man”.  A woman brings her husband glory by serving him faithfully in submitting to his leadership, in her mothering of his children, in her keeping of his home and in her satisfying his sexual desires with her body.  She brings him glory with both her inward beauty and her outward beauty.

Conclusion

Egalitarianism is nothing less than complete rebellion against God’s establishment of patriarchy, male headship, in all areas of society including the family, the church and civil government.  The lack of male leadership in any of these spheres leads to chaos and destruction.  God spoke about this in Isaiah 3:12 when he said “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”.   And this is what we are witnessing today in our equality obsessed western nations.

Jesus Christ never gave up his heavenly kingship when he came to earth.  But rather he asserted it many times while he was here in his earthly ministry.  He was not just a servant, but truly he was a servant leader.

Christ taught us that a servant leader does not use his leadership only to fulfill his own desires.  But rather he works with and helps the people under his leadership to work together to fulfill the mission he has been given or that he has set for himself.   He develops the people under his leadership and seeks to help them reach their full potential.  He steps in wherever help is needed and sacrifices himself for his people, but he also pushes his people to do what they ought to do and disciplines those under his authority to help them to do what they ought to be doing.

The truth we find in the Bible is that while God has called husbands and wives to serve one another, he has called them to serve one another in very different ways. The husband serves his wife as her head, while she serves him as his helper. He uses his headship to make her the most glorious wife she can be by God’s standards, and she helps him by bringing glory to him in all that she says and does.

The Complementarian Counterfeit

Complementarianism is a counterfeit doctrine, an unbiblical compromise between the false doctrine of egalitarianism and the true doctrine of Biblical patriarchy.  The sad truth is that in many ways’ complementarianism is more dangerous than egalitarianism, because complementarianism proports to uphold the biblical doctrines of male headship and woman’s submission where egalitarianism unequivocally denies these doctrines.

You have to look very close at the teachings of complementarianism and biblical patriarchy, like two bills, to really see the differences between the two teachings. 

Origins of Complementarianism

Complementarianism was started as a reaction to the false teachings of egalitarianism.  The term “Complementarian” was coined by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) in 1988. 

According to John Piper, who was one of the council’s founding members, complementarianism was born out of an effort to address the error of “the negation of gender differences” by egalitarians.   

Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), an egalitarian organization, lists these egalitarian principles on their website:

“We believe that women and men are equally created in God’s image and given equal authority and stewardship of God’s creation.

Patriarchy (male dominance) is not a biblical ideal but a result of sin.

Patriarchy is an abuse of power, taking from females what God has given them: their dignity, and freedom, their leadership, and often their very lives.

While the Bible reflects patriarchal culture, the Bible does not teach patriarchy in human relationships.

Christ’s redemptive work frees all people from patriarchy, calling women and men to share authority equally in service and leadership.

The unrestricted use of women’s gifts is integral to the work of the Holy Spirit and essential for the advancement of the gospel in the world.

Followers of Christ are to oppose injustice and patriarchal teachings and practices that marginalize and abuse females and males.”

So, as you can clearly see from the list of egalitarian doctrines above, egalitarianism was an all-out assault on the biblical practice and doctrines of patriarchy. Christian egalitarianism was simply a rebranding of feminism for Christian consumption.

While the CBE helped to organize and codify their doctrines in the late 80’s, these doctrines had already been spreading within churches long before that time and this is what prompted the formation of the CBMW.

The CBMW issued the famous “Danvers Statement” in 1987 which included the following key statements below in response to egalitarianism:

“Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).

Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).

The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).

    In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.

    In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.”

So, if you look at the two statements above, it is very easy to see two primary differences between egalitarianism and complementarianism. 

Egalitarianism completely denies the biblical concept of gender roles, while complementarianism appears to affirm it.

Egalitarianism completely denies the biblical concept of male headship while complementarianism appears to affirm it.

But while complementarianism proports to be the genuine article when it comes to the biblical view of gender roles, upon closer examination we will find that complementarianism is actually a counterfeit doctrine of biblical gender roles.

The Complementarian Abandonment of Patriarchy

Egalitarianism was not the only reason complementarianism was formed. In an article entitled “God Created Man Male and Female – What Does It Mean to Be Complementarian?”,  John Piper explains that complementarianism was designed to take the “middle ground” between what he and other Christian leaders saw as “two kinds of errors” in the churches.  The first error which we have already addressed was egalitarianism.

But then there was a second error that complementarianism was designed to address.  And that error, from their point of view, was male domination of women in society, the church and the home.  They believed the terms “traditional” and “patriarchy” were linked with male domination and “the history of abuses of women personally and systemically”.  And it was because of this, that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood decided that a new term must be coined to replace “traditional” and “patriarchy” in regard to the discussion of gender roles.  So, they coined the term “complementarian”.

Complementarians Limit Male Headship to the Home and the Church

If you look closely at the Danvers Statement from the CBMW, you will notice that they only speak of “headship” in the home and “limitations” on women’s roles in the church.  In other words, the Danvers Statement only recognizes male headship in the spheres of the home and the church but it does not recognize male headship in society.

In 2008, when John McCain was running for President with Sarah Palin as his running mate, John Piper tried to fill in this large void left by the Danvers Statement.  In his article entitled “Why a Woman Shouldn’t Run for Vice President, but Wise People May Still Vote for Her”, Piper wrote the following:

“My convictions about the implications of manhood and womanhood for political life are nuanced and rooted in Scripture. They are also complex and controversial. So they don’t fit blogs well. But I’ll try. The gist is this:

I think that the Bible summons men to bear the burden of primary leadership, provision, and protection in the home (Ephesians 5:21–33) and in the church (1 Timothy 2:8–15). Add to this that these texts (and others, like Genesis 1–3) build their case not on the basis of culture (which changes) but on the basis of God’s design in creation (which does not change).

Therefore, I am not able to say that God only speaks to the role of men and women in home and church. If our roles are rooted in the way God created us as male and female, then these differences shape the way we live everywhere and all the time…

These and other teachings in Scripture incline me to believe that manhood and womanhood are not mere social constructs. They are rooted in God’s design for creation. They are meant to shape culture, not merely be shaped by culture…

And I certainly do not think all of my conclusions should be codified in law. It should not be illegal, in this fallen age, for a woman to be President of the United States. Christ does not implement his revealed will in this age with guns and fines. But all human government (rightly) enforces its laws with guns and fines. So law is not the way to deal with this issue. Christians should not crusade in this fallen age to pass laws to forbid women from the Presidency.”

As you can see from the statement above, complementarians while holding strong to the fact that male headship is God’s design for the home and the church, tend to get a lot more wishy-washy about male headship outside the home and the church.

Look at the way Piper couches his language as if he is sorry that it appears that God’s design might prohibit a woman from becoming President or Vice President.  But then of course he quickly states that he does not believe God’s design of gender roles should be “codified in law”. 

Complementarians Dismiss Patriarchy as a Cultural Rather than Biblical Concept

In the Numbers 30:3-5 we read the following:

“3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth;

4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.

5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.”

Complementarians deny God’s design of the social classes of men, women and children and instead embrace the false humanist social classes of “adult” and “minor” that were invented by John Locke in the 17th century.   They believe that once young women reach adulthood, they have the same autonomy as men to determine the course of their lives and that fathers have no right to override the decisions of their daughters once they reach the social class of “adult”.

Complementarians dismiss Numbers chapter 30 and its prescriptions regarding Patriarchal order with fathers being able to override their daughter’s life decisions and husbands being able to override their wife’s life decisions.   They see the commands of Numbers 30 as well as other examples of Patriarchal order in the Old Testament as temporary and “cultural” and only specifically apply to the theocracy of Israel.

Complementarians Fail to See the Moral Law of God in the Civil Laws of Israel

Exodus 22:16-17 provides a good example of the blindness of complementarians to the moral law of God found in the civil laws of Israel.

Complementarians deny that the right given to a father in Exodus 22:16-17 to allow or refuse his daughter’s hand in marriage to a man was lasting moral law, but rather they teach that it was temporary civil law which was done away with in the New Covenant.

The reason their interpretation of this passage is flawed is because they fail to see that many civil laws in Israel also contained the moral law of God.  In other words, many civil laws of Israel handled the punishment or reparations to be made for violating God’s moral law.

Below is a breakdown of the moral law and then civil reparations to be made for breaking God’s moral law in Exodus 22:16-17:

God’s Moral Law: “And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her”

God’s Civil Reparation for the theocracy of Israel: “he shall surely endow her to be his wife”

God’s Moral Law: “If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him”

God’s Civil Reparation for the theocracy of Israel: “he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins”

So, if we separate the moral law from the civil reparation for breaking that moral law, we can see there are two moral laws presented by God in Exodus 22:16-17. 

The first moral law presented is that God does not allow sex outside of the covenant of marriage. 

The second moral law we see in Exodus 22:16-17 is that of a father’s right to allow or refuse his daughter’s hand in marriage. When a man and woman have premarital sex, they have both sinned not just against God, but also against the woman’s father.  The woman has sinned against her father by giving away that which was not hers to give and the man as well has sinned against her father by taking that which was not his to take.

Complementarians Teach That Male Domination Was A Result of the Fall

Complementarians actually agree with Egalitarians in their belief that male domination was a result of the fall.  In his article “Manhood and Womanhood: Conflict and Confusion After the Fall” , John Piper wrote “And when sin has the upper hand in man, he will respond in like manner and with his strength subdue her, or rule over her”.  And in another article entitled “Lionhearted and Lamblike: The Christian Husband as Head, Part 1“, Piper stated that a husband’s “headship is not a right to control” and a wife’s submission to her husband should not be “coerced” but that it must only be submission that is “free and willing”.

Complementarians and egalitarians say that the word “shall” in the phrase “he shall rule over thee” is not God’s command for husbands to rule over their wives, but rather God predicting that sin would cause men to dominate their wives.

But the complementarian position fails to take into account God’s command to Cain in Genesis 4:7:

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

The parallels between Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7 cannot be denied.  In both instances God commands that the person should rule over the other person who is trying to control them.  In the case of Cain, God personifies his sin nature as a man that is trying to control Cain.  But God commands that Cain should rule over that man.  And in the same way God says in Genesis 3:16 because of the corruption sin wives would try to control their husbands, but that husbands must rule over their wives.

Complementarianism Teaches a Limited form of Submission for Women

In his article entitled “Lionhearted and Lamblike: The Christian Husband as Head, Part 1“, Piper states the following:

submission is not slavish or coerced or cowering. That’s not the way Christ wants the church to respond to his leadership and protection and provision. He wants the submission of the church to be free and willing and glad and refining and strengthening”

Piper uses three key words which he says are the opposite of Biblical submission and those are “slavish”, “coerced” and “cowering”.  So, let’s look at each one.

A Wife’s Submission is to Surpass that of a Slave

I have previously written an article entitled “8 Biblical Differences Between Wives and Slaves” which details the differences between the wives and slaves in the Bible.  The difference could be summed up as follows.

Biblically speaking, wives and slaves are both owned by masters (Exodus 20:17, Deuteronomy 22:22, 1 Peter 3:6).  Both slaves and wives are told to obey their masters in everything except if they are told to sin (Ephesians 5:24).  Wives are told that their bodies are for their husband’s sexual satisfaction and use (Proverbs 5:18-19, Romans 1:27).  A wife’s submission to her husband is to be even greater than that of slave to their master because her husband has the right to the sexual use of her body for his satisfaction.

So, if a wife’s submission to her husband as her master is to be greater than that of the typical master/slave relationship what is the difference between a wife and slave? The answer is found in the Biblical requirements for husbands in regard to the treatment of their wives.

A husband is required to love his wife as his own body, and to provide for her needs as he would his own body (Ephesians 5:28-29).   He is to be willing to lay down his life to save his wife (Ephesians 5::25).   A husband is responsible for the spiritual discipline and teaching of his wife. A husband is required to give his wife sexual access to his body (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).  A husband is required to allow his wife to enjoy the fruit of her labors (Proverbs 31:31).  None of these things were required of masters toward their slaves.

The Danvers Statement says a woman’s submission is not about “servility” and Piper said in the statement we are examining now that is not “slavish”.  And both of those statements are completely wrong.  Biblically speaking a wife’s submission to her husband is to surpass “slavish” or “servile” submission because unlike slaves, God has created wives to serve their husbands with their lives (1 Corinthians 11:9).

A Wife’s Submission Can Be in Response to Coercion

Piper’s assertion that a woman’s submission is to not come as a result of coercion from her husband is directly refuted by Christ’s statement to his churches in Revelation 3:19:

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”

While it is true that Christ wants his church to freely submit to him, the fact is that Christ will receive submission from his church based on him using coercive means just as God used coercive means with his wife Israel to compel her submission.

And since we know that a husband is to model his love for his wife off Christ’s love for his church and that the wife is to model her submission toward her husband off the church’s submission to Christ – we can rightly say that complementarianism again is absolutely wrong on this.  A wife’s submission can Biblically be coerced from her husband.

A Wife’s Submission is to be Cowering

Piper’s assertion that a wife’s submission does not involve cowering is again directly refuted by the Bible in 1 Peter 3:1-2:

“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.”

Women should absolutely fear their husbands in both the sense of showing reverence toward them and also fearing discipline if they disobey.  Cowering is a Biblical aspect of a woman’s submission to her husband.

Conclusion

No one would argue that there were not abuses committed against women both by individual husbands as well as systematically by various cultures. And even in post-feminist cultures like America today, some men still abuse their wives.  But that does not mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater.  We can as Bible believing Christians uphold God’s order of patriarchy and at the same time call out the abuses of patriarchy where they occur both at the individual family level as well as the larger cultural systematic level.

In regard to the term “traditional” as it relates to gender roles.  We can uphold traditional and cultural values that do not conflict with the Word of God and especially those which match with the Bible and at the same time set aside some traditional values our culture may have that conflict with the Word of God.

Hebrews 9:1-10 shows us that only the civil prescriptions for punishments or reparations for breaking God’s moral law as well as the ceremonial laws are set aside in the New Covenant.  But the moral law of God remains.  That means we are still under the moral law found in both the Old and New Testaments.

And contrary to what complementarians and egalitarians teach, it is not a sin for a husband to dominate (rule over, control) his wife, but rather it is a sin for him NOT to dominate his wife. 

In the complementarian view, a husband may only lead his wife by example or suggestions to her, but he may never lead her by commanding her or seeking to control her through coercive methods.  And it is precisely because of the denial that male domination of woman is God’s command, that complementarianism teaches a hollow and weak form of male headship and female submission in the home.

When it comes to the doctrines of the Bible concerning gender roles, there is no “middle ground” and no room for compromise with egalitarianism.   Complementarianism is a counterfeit doctrine of male headship and female submission.

3 Ways Wives Try to Control Their Husbands

Sexual denial, threats of divorce and threats of suicide. These are the three primary ways that wives use to manipulate and gain complete power over their husbands and their homes.  The first way which works with the majority of men is sexual denial.  Women use sex as a reward system.  If the husband follows his wife’s wishes in whatever she wants to do in the home she will give him sex as a reward for his submission to her.  At the slightest resistance of the husband to anything the wife wishes, she will turn off the sexual tap.

But for some men, the attempts of their wives to manipulate them with sex does not work.  But rather it reinforces their resolve with their wives.  These men might even engage in disciplinary tactics like taking away credit cards, access to the bank or canceling date nights or other things the wife wants.  So, then the wife moves on to her next method of control.  The threat of divorce. And for many women, it is not just a threat, but indeed it is a promise.

And this willingness of women to so easily divorce their husbands because of their own selfish ambitions should not surprise us.  Millions of women each year murder their unborn children because of their selfish ambitions.    And it is with this same self-centered attitude, that millions of women each year subject their children to disunity, fighting and ultimately the divorce of their parents.   These women only care about one person and one person alone – themselves.

But some women are unwilling to deal with the prospect of their husband marrying another woman or having to share joint custody with him where his new wife raises their children.  They want their husband; they want their children and they also want to retain their power over the decisions of the family.  So, after sexual denial and threats of divorce don’t work to bring their husbands into submission to their will, they turn to the ultimate weapon.  They threaten suicide.

Recently I received an email from a man calling himself Alex.  Alex has gone through all three of these attempts at manipulation that wives use to take power in their homes and bring their husbands into subjection.  Below are excerpts from that email.

Alex’s Story

My wife recently threatened that she may commit suicide if I do not back down from exercising my spiritual authority over her as her husband.  This was her last-ditch effort to get me to retreat.  And that is exactly what I did – I retreated.

I met my wife in a good Bible believing and Bible preaching church.  My church is actually one of those five percent of churches you talk about that still preach gender roles and male headship.  My wife is a stay at home mom who homeschools our children while I am the sole provider for our home.

We have been married about 10 years now.  When we were dating my wife seemed to be a good, submissive and Christian woman.  But after we married her true nature began to reveal itself.  Her stubbornness and her unwillingness to listen to me on even the smallest matters was evident.  And if I mounted even the slightest challenge to what she wanted to do in our home she would deny me sex and that combined with a very cold shoulder for days would get me to bend and apologize to her every time.

In order to maintain the peace in our home and have any chance at sex I completely caved.  I never confronted her about anything anymore.  What she wanted to spend we spent.  What she wanted to teach the kids we taught them.  What she allowed them to do or not do that is what we did.

About 2 months ago, after my Pastor taught a series on the duty of husbands to lead their homes and properly exercise their spiritual authority over their wives God convicted me in my heart that I had been a coward all these years.  I had been a coward for the sake of peace and for the sake of sex.

I came and had a private meeting with my Pastor.   I described what had been going on in my marriage for years.  He told me I was involved in a spiritual battle.  And I need to take back the spiritual leadership in my home and challenge my wife’s sinful rebellion and stubbornness.

So, I implemented his advice.  I opened a new bank account and changed my paycheck to deposit into that new account.  I called all of our credit cards of which I am the primary and she is only secondary and had her name removed from the accounts.  I reported all our cards missing so her cards would be useless.  I shredded my cards and ordered new ones.

She went to use one our credit cards to purchase something online as she does often and it was declined.  She called the credit card company and they told her she was no longer active on the account and then I was the next phone call she made.  I told her we would talk when I got home.

When I got home from work that evening, I sat her down and explained what I was doing and why I was doing it.  That it was because she was in complete rebellion against my spiritual authority as the head of our home.  That she spent money she should not spend.  That she did not listen to me regarding the teaching and discipline of our children.  That she denied her body to me in our marriage bed.

Then she threatened divorce. 

My pastor had prepared me for that threat.  I told her “Go ahead.  If you want to see me married to another woman and raising your children with her and only seeing them every other week go for it.  Because trust me, I will mortgage this house and burn through every savings and investment we have to make sure I get full joint custody of our kids with equal parenting time.”  She stormed out without saying another word.

Days went by and then it turned into weeks.  We basically were in a cold war footing.  I did my thing and she did hers.  I slept in our bed and she slept in our guest room.  Barely any words were spoken except those which were absolutely necessary.

Finally, when sexual denial and threats of divorce did not work, she moved to her final weapon against me which was threats of suicide.  She claimed she would rather die than witness her children being raised by another woman and she would rather die than live under my “tyrannical rule”.  My Pastor had not prepared me for that. And that weapon worked.  I caved.  I retreated.  I gave her back access to our bank and credit cards and ultimately the reigns of our home.

Was my pastor’s advice wrong? It did not seem to work.  If it was not wrong, how do I deal with her threats of suicide?  Can I really start this battle all over again?  Is it worth her possibly losing her life?”

What follows is my response to Alex and other men on how to deal with these kinds of manipulation tactics from wives who resist the authority which God gives to their husbands and commands them to exercise over their wives.

How to Deal with Your Wife Using Suicide as a Weapon to Keep or Seize Power

I agree with your Pastor that you need to break her will, or I would say more accurately, break the stubborn spirit your wife has. But at the same time, you need to speak truth into her life.  Your attempts at exercising your spiritual headship over her in these areas where you see problems is not an act of tyranny.

Today our humanist dominated culture defines tyranny in marriage as a husband trying to exercise any control whatsoever over his wife . But Biblically speaking, tyranny is the cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control, not control itself.

A man exercising control over his wife is one of the greatest sins to a humanist, whether they be a Christian humanist or an atheist humanist.  While a woman exercising control over a man is seen more as a minor transgression in the world of humanism.

For us as Biblicist Christians, a man exercising control over his wife is one of the greatest virtues a man can exhibit in his life.  And likewise a man who allows his woman to “usurp authority” (1 Timothy 2:12) over him sins against God and denies part of the core purpose for which he was created, which was to image God with his life.

A man who does not exercise control over his wife is not a man in God’s eyes.  God created woman to be in subjection to man, to be controlled by man.  He created her to give man someone upon whom he could exercise all the attributes of God that are within his masculine human nature.

So, no this not about you as a husband acting in a tyrannical manner toward your wife.  It is about doing what God has commanded you to do. And it is all about framing the narrative, that is so important.   Constantly refocusing her thoughts and redirecting them toward a proper perspective.

Now to your wife’s threat of suicide.

Make no mistake that is what is going on.  It is a power struggle. And it is not just a power struggle, but it is a spiritual war going on your family.

The Bible says the following in Ephesians 6:12-18:

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;  And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;  Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:  Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints”

You need to realize that the real battle you are in is not with your wife, but with the sin that is in your wife’s heart.  Satan is using your wife as an instrument of sin and spiritual oppression against you.  He is using your wife as an instrument to launch his fiery darts at you.

Being firm is not being harsh.  It is being firm.  Being harsh is being cruel.  Sometimes when as men we are firm with our wives it may appear that we are being harsh and they may try and frame it that way saying things like “Why do you have to be so mean and so harsh?” but again that is just the wife trying to twist the narrative.  Remember having the right perspective and constantly re-framing the narrative for both yourself and your wife is critical.

The Bible commands men to be firm when it states in 1 Corinthians 16:13 (NASB) “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong”.  There is a spiritual war going on in your home and this was simply one battle in that war.  You fired the first salvos to begin to wage war on your wife’s lack of submissiveness and her spirit of stubbornness.  She first tried firing the divorce darts at you.  It did not work as you were prepared for that.  So  she opened fire with threats of suicide.  You were not prepared for that and you buckled under her fire and retreated.  You lost your resolve and you are no longer standing firm in the faith, acting like a man and being strong in the face of your wife’s threats and rebellion.

So, the question is will you continue to give way to fear? Will you allow her to continue to manipulate you with fears of suicide or divorce?  Or will you reorganize and get back into this spiritual warfare God has called you to?

Jesus talked about the cost of following him and the cost of obedience to God.  He asked in Luke 14:31 “Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?”  You must know and fully accept the consequences of waging spiritual warfare in obedience to God.  You must be fully prepared for the onslaught of threats or even the consequences of if your wife carries through with those threats and you must have firm resolve in the face of those threats.

So here is my advice for dealing with your wife’s threats of suicide whenever you attempt to exercise your God given and God commanded authority over her.   You do the same thing as if she had a true mental health disorder and had suicidal tendencies.   You take her to the ER of a hospital in your area where they have a mental ward.  You explain to the nurses that your wife is threatening suicide.

I know of many Christian husbands who have done this with great success. And there is one particular instance that comes to mind that I think will give encouragement to men who find themselves with these kinds of manipulative wives.

I heard this story from a pastor friend of mine. A member of his church took his wife to the local ER after she threatened to commit suicide if he would not surrender to her wishes in the home.   She wanted an egalitarian marriage and he would not give it to her.  He told her they were going to have a patriarchal marriage or no marriage at all.  He showed her the door and said she was free to leave at any time.   At this point she threatened suicide if he would not bow to her wishes and this was when he took her to the ER.  And he made sure the hospital he took her too had a mental ward.

His wife told him how she was going to tell the ER people how horrible of a husband he was.  So, when he got to the ER, she did just that.  She railed on and on to the nurses about horrible of a husband he was.  Then they asked him to leave the room.  This was probably the time they asked her if she was being physically abused by him or if she felt trapped in her home.  Eventually they had a psychiatrist come down from the mental ward of that hospital who interviewed her and then recommend that she be committed.  He even persuaded the wife it would be good for her and she agreed and signed the papers.  He said it would be for just one week.

So, the husband gets a call in the middle of the week to come down for session with the psychiatrist and his wife.  He went over all the discussions he had with his wife.   The psychiatrist told the husband all of his wife’s concerns and asked him if he would be willing to go to marriage counseling and modify their marriage so it would be more pleasing for his wife.  The husband gave the psychiatrist a flat answer of “NO”.  He was unwilling to see any counselor.  His beliefs as to how marriage was to be conducted were firmly based upon his Biblical beliefs and would not change.

The psychiatrist asked him if he was holding her at home against her will or if he had ever physically abused her. The husband’s response was “No sir.  Never laid a finger on her. I have told my wife she is free to leave our home and our marriage at any time.  But if she wants to stay, I will not change my beliefs on how marriage is to be conducted”.

At this point the psychiatrist turned to his wife and said the following.  “You have told me in our private sessions that your husband has never raised a hand to you.  That he has never made you feel trapped in your home.  You just want him to change right?” And her answer was “Yes.”  At this point the psychiatrist turned to the wife and said “You and your husband are clearly incompatible.   He will not change and neither will you.  It is unhealthy for you to continue in this relationship if you cannot agree to a common framework of marriage.  But threats of suicide are never the answer.  Divorce may be an answer, but suicide is not.”

His wife was released from the mental ward a few days later.  She hated being in that mental ward.  And she never threatened suicide again.  So, when his wife saw that threats of sexual denial, divorce and suicide did not work she eventually came to an acceptance of her husband and the way he conducted their marriage.  She did not always agree and still gave him much grief at times.  But she realized her husband was a man who was immune to her tactics of manipulation.

Conclusion

If you are a husband dealing with a situation like this with your wife you need to think on and answer the following questions for yourself.

Are you willing to see that you retreated from a spiritual battle with your wife, but also that the war is not over with? You can reorganize, you can steel your resolve and you can disarm her tactics of trying to manipulate you through fear.

Will you put on the whole armor of God? Will you realize that what you are fighting for is righteous in the sight of God and your wife’s resistance to your authority is an act of sinful rebellion against God?

Will you take the shield of faith and hold it up when she fires darts at you like threats of sexual denial, divorce or suicide? Will you take the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, and cut through your wife’s evil thought patterns?

Will you use God’s Word to speak truth in your wife’s life?  And will you resolve that obedience to God is more important than temporary peace in your home? That it is so important you are willing to risk losing your marriage or your wife?

The Bible tells us in 1 Timothy 2:12 “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”.    How long will you continue to allow your wife to usurp authority over you as the man of your house in direct contradiction to God’s commands?

These are the decisions you must face.

Will you be the man God has called you to be?  Or will you cower in fear for the remainder of your days?  The choice is yours.  But I pray you will make the right one.

Men Should Exercise Control Over Themselves and Their Women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Is Red Pill Biblical?

In 2015, a popular Red Pill Blogger named Rollo Tomassi agreed with some traditionalist Christians that “Christianity was already Red Pill before there was a Red Pill”.  “Red Pill” refers to a  collection of theories of how human intersexual dynamics work.   The Red Pill theory has been spreading across the internet for almost two decades.  The phrase “The Red Pill”, as it is used in the Manosphere, is based upon the 1999 sci-fi movie “The Matrix” starring Keanu Reeves. In this film’s dystopian future, all of humanity has been enslaved by machines in a simulated reality known as “The Matrix” by an artificial intelligence that mankind had created long ago.

In the movie a character named Morpheus offers Neo, the movie’s main protagonist, a choice between a blue pill and a red pill in the famous quote below:

“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”

This Red Pill/Blue Pill paradigm was adopted by the manosphere over the past two decades to compare and contrast two different collections of theories of how human civilization should be conducted.

Even though I will be quoting from Tomassi’s blog during this series to compare and contrast Red Pill with the Bible, I want to make clear from Tomassi’s own words that he is not the inventor of Red Pill theory.

In his article entitled “The Purple Pill” , Tomassi, wrote this about the origins of the Red Pill:

“While I am humbled to be accounted as one of the Red Pill’s prominent writers I will never lay claim to having created it. The Red Pill in its truest sense belongs to the collective that has contributed to it as a whole. It belongs to the men who’ve fostered it, who’ve risked their livelihoods and families apart from it to make other men aware; it belongs to those who understand that its objectivity is what’s kept it open and honest, discussable and debatable.”

Rollo Tomassi began studying psychology and behaviorism in 2001.  His emphasis was on behaviorism and specifically behaviorism as it relates to how the human genders think and act.

He began by taking his gender centered behaviorism theories to an online forum called https://www.sosuave.com/ where he debated and discussed them with others to refine his theories.

10 years after starting his journey, in 2011, he started TheRationalMale.com blog.  His blog was an instant success becoming one of the most popular blogs in the Manosphere.  In 2013, he published his book “The Rational Male” which was essentially an edited version of his first year’s blog posts along with many questions he had from commenters and his answers to them.

This then leads us to the most important question Christians must answer about Red Pill.

Do the doctrines of the Bible, upon which Christianity was founded, agree with any part of Red Pill theory?

The answer to this question can be found in the following two statements by Tomassi.

In his article “Male Authority Provisioning vs Duty” :

“I’ve been watching Outlaw King on Netflix recently. There’s a part where the wife of Robert the Bruce says ‘Power is making decisions, and whatever course you are charting, I choose you, my husband’ It struck me that my own wife had said almost these same words to me in 2005. When I’d decided to take a job in Orlando that would uproot us from family and friends. There was no “,…but what about my friends, career, etc.?” from her and I had no hesitation to consider anything but taking the position. She said, “You are my husband, I go where you go.

How many men hold a default Frame in their marriage? Many women are reluctant to even accept their husband’s last name today. There’s a lot of bullshit reasons for this, but the core truth is that women have no confidence in their man in the long term. They don’t trust his ‘course’. There’s holding Frame, and then there’s establishing a long term Frame, a paradigm, a reality of his own, that defines a man’s authority in his marriage and family relationships. Women today still want marriage, but few want to defer to their husband’s ‘course’. They don’t trust him with her life.

And then there is this second quote from Tomassi from his article “Male Authority Be a Man” :

“There are numerous ways a feminine-primary social order removes the teeth from male authority today. First and foremost is the social pretense of blank-slate equalism. A default presumption that men and women are coequal agents in every aspect – physical, emotional, psychological, intellectual – is the cover story necessary to remove an authority that was based on the conventional differences between the sexes. To the blank-slate equalist gender is a social construct, but gender is only the starting point for a social constructionist belief set. Social constructionism is a necessary foundation upon which blank-slate equalism is built, but ultimately it’s a means of control. By denying each sex its innate differences social constructionism denies men their innate advantages and strengths. Once this became the normalized social convention it was a simple step to remove male authority…

The authority men used to claim innate legitimacy of in the past is now only legitimate when a woman wields it. Men need to retake this authority and own it as is their birthright once again.”

The sentiment that Tomassi has just stated, that a man’s authority over his wife and his children is his “birthright” and that a wife should trust her husband with the course he has plotted for them and with her very life is 100% Biblical.

The Bible agrees with Red Pill that male authority over woman is indeed the birth right of every man.  In 1 Corinthians 11:3 we read “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man” and in 1 Timothy 2:12 the Bible states that women are forbidden to “to usurp authority over the man”.   In Ephesians 5:23 we read “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church”.

I also want to return to Tomassi’s first comment about women in our modern era having no trust or confidence in their husbands. The Bible speaks to this trust women are called to:

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 3:5-6 (KJV)

The Bible calls on women to obey and be in subjection to their husbands because they trust God and his design of male headship over women.   In other words, women should trust their husbands ‘course’, to use Tomassi’s language, because they trust that God has given their husbands the ‘course’ he wishes them to follow.

So, the answer to the question of “Do the doctrines of the Bible, upon which Christianity was founded, agree with any part of Red Pill theory?” is a resounding YES!

But just because the Bible would be Red Pill in some areas does not mean it is Red Pill in all areas.

And this is what I will be exploring in this new series “Is Red Pill Biblical?”  There are a lot of different aspects of Red Pill to cover and I want to break them down into bite sized pieces so that Christians can fully understand the Red Pill Theory and where Red Pill is in agreement with a Biblical world view and where Red Pill is in conflict with a Biblical world view.

The next topic we will cover in this series is “Is Red Pill A Theory Or A Religion?

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)

Why Husbands Are NOT Accountable to Their Wives

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

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

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

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

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

The Husband and Wife are One Flesh

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

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

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

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

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

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” – Ephesians 5:22-24

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

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

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

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

Does Responsibility Always Equal Accountability?

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

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

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church” – Ephesians 5:25-29

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

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

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

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

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

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

Men and Women Were Created Unequal for a Specific Purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” – Genesis 1:27

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

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

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

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

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

The American Egalitarian Lie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Accountability Keeps Us Out of Sin!

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

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

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

Accountability Partners Sharpen Our Character and Make us Better Christians

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

Accountability Partners Give Us Someone to Confess Our Fault To

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

Accountability Partners Keep Our Secrets

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

Accountability Partners Tell Us When We Are Wrong

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

Accountability Partners Encourage Us to Keep Doing What is Right

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

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

Why A Husband Should NOT Make His Wife His Accountability Partner

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

There really are two reasons.

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

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

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

“But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

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

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;  That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

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

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

Why Women Want to Know Everything About Their Husbands

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

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

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

Women need men to keep them in line. 

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

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

In the Genesis account we read the following:

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

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

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

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

Wives, It is Not for You to Know

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

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

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

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

That’s right. It was Jesus Christ himself.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now to Christian men.

I advise you to follow Paul’s admonition below:

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

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

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

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

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

Does the Bible Teach that Women are Second Class Citizens?

I recently received an email from a woman asking for Scriptural proof that that God does not want women to be treated as second class citizens.  She could have sent this email to a lot of Christian sites and they may have sent her back Scriptures that they believe support the idea that women should be treated completely equal with men.

The most common Scripture passage used to try and say the Bible supports equal rights for women is found in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians:

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

The advocates for woman’s rights hail this verse saying that it teaches that God intends for there to be absolutely no distinction and thus completely equal rights between men and women. But is this passage from Galatians God’s complete revelation on the subject of gender? We will explore the answer to that question later in this article.

I have changed the name of the woman who wrote me to Lauren in order protect her anonymity as she gave me her real name in the email.  What follows are several statements from her in the email and my response to her showing her from the Bible what God’s Word says on this issue.

LAUREN’S STATEMENT:

“I am raising daughters that have been in an environment that teaches them that women are second class… Do you know any podcast, bible verses, bible studies, websites, etc that can guide them back to trusting the Bible as God’s word and that the verses are not intending women to be second class citizens?”

MY RESPONSE:

First, we need to define what treating someone like a “second class citizen” is.  In common language usage today treating someone like a second-class citizen would be to show disdain for them or mistreat them in some way.  If we were talking about treating with disdain or hatred we can easily show that Biblically speaking this is wrong.  We are to be kind to all people no matter what their race, gender or ethnicity is.   We are also to treat others as we would want to be treated as Christ exhorted us in what has become known as “The Golden Rule”:

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12 (KJV)

But often times this rule that we should treat others as we would want to be treated is vastly abused by many to cancel out entire sections of the Scriptures.

I get people writing me all the time saying “You only believe the way you do because you are a man and it is advantageous to you to believe in Biblical Gender Roles.  If you were a woman you would not so easily believe in such things.”   You know what my response is to such assertions? I tell them if I was a woman like my mother or my daughter or many other godly women I knew growing up I would absolutely believe the way I do about Biblical Gender Roles.  I don’t believe in Biblical Gender Roles because it is advantageous to me as a man – I believe in Biblical Gender Roles because that it is what the Bible teaches.

Trust me, it is not easy living counter to the culture you live in.  It is also not as easy as women think to be a man especially in this day when masculinity is attacked and women no longer respect men. Marriage has become more of a battlefield today than it ever was thanks to feminism poisoning the minds of women. Many men have just given up and given the reigns to their wife and they do whatever she says and whatever makes her happy.  That is taking the easy and cowardly way out.

Returning back to the subject of women being treated as second-class citizens – we are not talking about mistreating women in the sense of treating them with disdain, dishonor or unkindness by Biblical standards.

The key phrase in my last statement is “by Biblical standards”.   Our culture has a whole different set of standards by which women are said to be treated with disdain, dishonor and in an inhumane way.  Before I speak to this let me give a dictionary definition of a “second class citizen” according to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/second-class_citizen:

“A person belonging to a social or political group whose rights and opportunities are inferior to those of the dominant group in a society.”

So, if one social group of people has inferior rights and opportunities to that of some other dominant group than they are said to be treated as second class citizens.

American and Western culture in general have devised a new standard of treating someone as “less than a person” or treating someone in “an inhumane way”.  The standard is equal rights.  If a culture has different classes of people with different classes of rights then they are said to be treating those people with hatred, disdain and in an inhumane manner.  No one is allowed to question this modern definition of treating someone in an inhumane way.

In fact, in America we have sacrificed the doctrines of our Christian faith as well as our marriages and many other things on the altar to our false god of equality.  It is ok if we worship the Christian god too, as long as our service to the god of equality comes first.

So now the question then becomes does the Bible advocate for women to be treated as second class citizens to men according to the dictionary definition I just gave?

The answer simply put is YES.  The Bible does in fact advocate for women to be treated as second class citizens to men if “second class citizen” simply means they are to have less rights and opportunities than men.

In fact, women occupy the second of three social classes of humanity that God designed.

The Three Social Classes Ordained by God

Contrary to modern Western and American ideals about equality God’s original design of mankind features a social order with three classes of people.

God’s First-Class Citizen – Man as God’s Image Bearer

“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)

There are a great number of Christian theologians that misread this famous Biblical account of the creation of man and woman.  This passage does NOT teach that God created “them” (male and female) in his image. It clearly states “in the image of God created he HIM”. Many Christian teachers (even non-feminist teachers) have tried to argue that because “man” can refer to mankind that this can mean “So God created mankind in his own image”.  That is absolutely true that sometimes “man” (or Adam as it is in the original Hebrew) can refer to an individual man or mankind in general. The problem with this interpretation in this particular passage is found in the second phrase with the word “him” which is a translation of the Hebrew phrase “eth haa-‘adam” which literally means “this same man”.

So in Genesis 1:27 the Scriptures are telling us “God created Adam in his own image, in the image of God created he this same Adam.  Male and Female created he them.”

This passage tells us two very important truths.  God created man (male human beings) in his image and also that he created women as well.  It does not say he created women in his image, only that he created women.

And if there was any doubt as to the correct interpretation of this passage God gave the Apostle Paul this divine commentary on Genesis account:

“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.” I Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

God’s Second-Class Citizen – Woman the helper to man

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” – Genesis 2:18 (KJV)

In Genesis chapter 2 we see that God did not want Adam to be alone and so he created a helper for him.  Now a helper can be one in authority (like a manager who helps his workers), a helper can be an equal partner or a helper can be a subordinate.  So which kind of helper did not create Eve to be? The Genesis account tells us that Adam named her type “woman” and later he even gave her personal name which was Eve.  This was a sign that she would be a subordinate helper, not an authority helper nor an equal partner.  Throughout the Old Testament this is maintained when we see that men ruled over women and that husbands could override any decision of their wives and fathers could override any decision of their daughters (Numbers 30).

Multiple New Testament passages confirm that woman was designed by God to be a subordinate helper to man.

“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 (KJV)

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

God designed woman to be man’s subordinate helper in many ways.  She helps him by bearing and caring for his home and his children (1 Timothy 5:14). She helps him by being a faithful companion (Proverbs 31:11, Malachi 2:14). She helps him by bringing him sexual pleasure (Proverbs 5:15-19).  But another way she helps her husband is simply by being “the weaker vessel” (1 Timothy 5:14) and needing his leadership, provision and protection.  A man cannot fully image God as he was designed to do without being a husband and father and woman helps him in this way to fulfill image God to his fullest capability.

So, if you are asking “Why did God make women to be second class citizens?” the answer is found in a passage we just stated above:

“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 (KJV)

Not only was man made to image God and thus bring glory to him but marriage between a man and woman was made by God to model the relationship between God and his people. So, by fully embracing their status as second-class citizens to men women help men to fully image God and also model the relationship between God and his people.

To our equality obsessed world this makes no sense but this is why we as Christians are called to honor women for being the second-class citizens God designed them to be (I Peter 3:7).

Let me put this another way.  God could have made a partner for man that was his equal in every way. In fact, God could have created man as a hermaphrodite (with both sexes) and then humans could have just chosen any other human as partners. They could have equally broken up the division of having children, caring for the home, leading, providing and protecting.  If what I just said sounds familiar it is because this is exactly what our culture does today.  We promote homosexuality and gender equality – both ideologies which are in direct contradiction to God’s Word and his design.

But if humans existed in pair bonded relationships as equals this would not have properly modeled the relationship of God to his people.  Only if there were two genders with one dependent on the other for their leadership, provision and protection could the relationship of God to his people be properly modeled.

God’s Third-Class Citizen – Children as God’s inheritance to man

“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.  4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.” Psalm 127:3-5 (KJV)

While man does not create life in exactly the same way God does – God wanted man to have a taste of his ability to create life and in this way, he blessed man with the ability to father children.

Children help both men and women to fulfill their God given God given roles by having someone who needs their care and support.  Children help men to exercise their father role in the way God is father to his children.

Summary of God’s three ordained social classes

Now let’s summarize the three classes and how they relate to one another. Men are to be the image bearers of God. One of the ways a man images God is by loving his wife as Christ loved his Church. Another way a man images God is by loving his children as God loves his children.  Women are to show respect and deference toward men in general and specific obedience and submission toward their father and later their husband.  Children are to show respect and deference to adult men and women and they are specifically to obey and honor their father and mother.  This is God’s original creation design and order of humanity.

A fourth social class allowed by God because of Sin

Sin’s entrance into the world resulted in crime, laziness, poverty and war.  These four human conditions would necessitate that God allow for a fourth class of citizen which is that of a slave.

“If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave’s service.  He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee.  He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers.  For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale.  You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God.  As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.  Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.  You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.”  Leviticus 25:39-46 (NASB)

While God allowed for slavery he also specifically gave rules regarding the humane treatment of slaves and the conditions under which slavery may occur.  The version of slavery that occurred in North and South America neither met the conditions allowed for slavery or the treatment of slaves.  See my article “Why Christians should not be ashamed of Slavery in the Bible” for more on this subject.

Is a woman’s second-class status only applicable if she is married or living with her father?

Some might think by the passages I mentioned previously that a woman’s second-class status only applies to her if she is married or perhaps is still a young woman living at home with her father.  Such thinking is flawed and does not take into account the entire witness of the Scriptures.  Yes, God allows and even praises celibacy in both women and men (I Corinthians 7).  However, celibacy is God’s exception to his first command to mankind to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) and to keep this command men and women must marry, have sex and have children.

Even if a woman feels called by God to celibacy in his service this does not remove her second-class status.  Paul’s divine commentary on the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman makes this clear.

“3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

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

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

I Corinthians 11:3-10 (KJV)

This is one of the most controversial and most un-preached passages in modern churches today. Why? Because it blows away our entire “equality based society”.  Men and women are equal in their humanity because woman was taken from man. However, Paul explains why women were to wear head coverings in worship services – because they were to reflect the order of God’s creation.  Notice there is no mention in this passage of marriage or the relationship between a husband and wife. Instead this speaks to the social order between men and women in general.  This is why women regardless of their marital status are to wear a sign of authority on their head when they come to worship.

LAUREN’S STATEMENT:

 “We attended home church and was told that women are to be submissive to their husbands, and not speak in the church.”

MY RESPONSE:

If you had church services in your home (as many churches do) then your husband would be right in teaching that you and your daughters should remain silent and simply listen during the spiritual instruction given by the men.  This is actually very clearly taught in the Scriptures.

“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” 1 Timothy 2:11-13 (KJV)

Now does these mean women can never speak in their home because it is also used for church services? No.  Paul even commands that elder women are to teach younger women in the Lord when he writes:

“3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” Titus 2:1-5 (KJV)

So, it is perfectly Biblical for elder women in the Lord to conduct women’s Bible studies in their home or maintain blogs online with other women as long as this occurs under the authority of their husbands.  The women teaching should teach what is in accordance with their husband’s teachings and the women attending should do so with their husband’s permission.

LAUREN’S STATEMENT:

 “Some of the men in the church were not very caring and loving husbands and they did not honor their wives.  Last year I realized that my efforts to be a proverbs 31 wife has led me to have a relationship that is not what I consider to be what God wants.  My husband is verbally abusive, self-centered, and has neglected his role as Father and Husband.”

MY RESPONSE:

Who determines if a husband is acting in a caring or loving way toward his wife or honoring his wife? I can tell you who does not determine this.  Neither his wife nor his children. Ultimately it is God himself who judges whether your husband is caring and loving to you and honoring you in the way God expects of him.  And how does he determine God’s will in these areas? By examining the Scriptures and how God loves his wife.

Now this is not to say that men should not listen to the counsel of other men whether it be their fathers or their pastors or other spiritually mature men in the Lord.  The Scriptures tell us “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” (Proverbs 11:14).  Also, men should hear their wife’s concerns but men must weigh their wife’s concerns by the Word of God. Is what she is asking for within the commands or example of God’s love toward his wife? Maybe.  But is it also possible that how a wife feels her husband should care for her and love her is not warranted or commanded by the Scriptures? Could she actually be selfishly ambitious for a type of love that God does not entitle her to?

For instance, what is verbally abusive? If a man simply raises his voice to his wife is that verbally abusive? You won’t find that anywhere in the Scriptures. If a man calls his wife foolish for acting or talking in a certain way is that verbally abusive? No – in fact we have the example of one of the most righteous men in the Bible doing just that with his wife and the Scriptures tell us he did not sin in doing so (Job 2:10).

LAUREN’S STATEMENT:

“As my daughters are growing up they are rejecting this unfair situation and are questioning the Bible.  They see how there are many verses that are not in favor of women and that we are not as entitled as men… My daughters are losing interest in the Bible as they feel how can God want us to be treated unfairly and they also think that because men wrote the Bible that their sin and attitude about women is revealed in their writing.”

MY RESPONSE:

If I had a dime for every woman that wrote me over the past few years saying something like this “Thanks for confirming for me from the Bible why I never want to be a Christian” or “Thanks for helping me to leave the Christian faith your gender role teachings” I would be a wealthy man. The Atheist emails are especially humorous with their “I love your site – keep up the good preaching! You will convert everyone to atheists like me.”

I have had others write me things like “Please stop teaching these gender role doctrines.  The Gospel is the most important thing people need to believe but people will never come to hear the Gospel if they first hear these gender role doctrines.  Let them discover these passages on their own and decide for themselves what they believe.  Stop putting a stumbling block for people coming to Christ.”

What are all these complaints really saying? They are saying that Christians need to leave behind anything in the Bible that conflicts with our modern culture.  We need to teach people what makes them feel good and things that match the values of our culture or so we are told.  A lot of big churches today do just that.  Even many small churches do this.  The sad fact is only a small percentage of Christian Churches today follow Paul’s example when he stated in Acts 20:27 “for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” 

The fact is the doctrines of Biblical gender roles are part of “the whole counsel of God”.  Pastors and Christian teachers do exactly what the Apostle Paul warned them NOT to do:

“1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” 2 Timothy 4:1-4 (KJV)

What do most Pastors and Christian teachers do today? They teach only what their congregation’s itching ears want to hear.  They have conformed themselves to the pattern of this world and the culture we live instead of transforming their minds and seeing the sin that the lays before them in our culture as the Bible exhorts us to do:

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

We need to pray for preachers who will once again not be afraid to preach “Thus saith the Lord”.

But Christ didn’t treat women as second-class citizens!

The truth is that there are many Christian Pastors and teachers today that “preacheth another Jesus” (II Corinthians 11:4).  The Christ they preach is a feminized Christ who is not Lord of all, but one who bows the knee to the false god of equality.

Some online articles try and point to the fact that Jesus broke some social norms of his age when it came to interactions with women and that somehow shows he was a feminist or rejected patriarchy as I have shown the Bible clearly supports.

Their supposed evidence for this is that Jesus encouraged women to sit and listen to him rather than doing house work while he taught (Luke 10:38-42), he spoke to a Samaritan woman (John 4:6-30) or that he had women followers who came along with his disciples.

None of these actions by Christ prove one iota that Christ did not in fact treat women as second-class citizens to men.  What it proves is that he believed the men had had gone too far in forbidding women to hear the teaching of God’s Word (which many did).

Did Christ have even one of his twelve Apostles whom he commissioned to build his Church be a woman? No, he did not. Did Christ one time tell women they should be social equals with men? No, he did not.  Did he tell women not to submit to their husbands? No, he did not.

But the biggest problem with saying Jesus Christ believed in treating women completely equal with men is the fact that his Word says otherwise! Remember that what the Prophets before Christ and the Apostles after Christ wrote came directly from God.  Some Christians falsely believe that the words Christ spoke while he walked among men are more authoritative then the words he gave to his Apostles after he ascended to heaven. To attack the teachings of the Apostles like Peter and Paul regarding gender roles is to attack Christ himself who gave them his Word.

Conclusion

We have shown that those who use Paul’s statement that “there is neither male nor female“ in Galatians 3:28 and Christ’s actions in teaching women have built a false platform of support of equal rights for women.  When we examine the whole counsel of God as found in the entirety of the Scriptures we see this is not the case.

If you are a Christian woman who feels as Lauren and her daughters do toward your husband, father or just men in general this is what you need to do.  You need to heed the words of the Apostle James where he wrote:

“13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.” James 3:13-16 (NIV)

As a woman who feels the way Lauren and her daughters do – you need to recognize your feelings for what they are when measured against the Word of God.  If you desire anything God did not intend for you to have that is by definition selfish ambition.  If you are desire the status that someone else has that is envy.

If you as a woman desire to be a first-class citizen – meaning to have all the rights and privileges of a man, then you have selfish ambition and envy in your heart.  You need to get down on your knees and pray the prayer of David in Psalm 51:10 where he prays “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.” You need to fully embrace your position as the weaker vessel and your place in God’s design.

If you are a father, husband or teachers of God’s Word you must have the courage to stand firm against the evil attitudes and ambitions in the women of our age.

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

I Corinthians 16:13 (NASB)

Why you should teach your daughter NOT to be independent

This famous cartoon created by Laura Foster in 1912, an opponent of women’s suffrage, has proven to be absolutely true a century after the passage of woman’s suffrage. A new study released this week confirms “women’s greater economic independence” as a contributing factor of rising cohabitation rates and declining marriage rates in the United States.

Here is more of the story from Reuters:

“More Americans 50 years and older are copying younger generations and eschewing marriage, opting instead to live with their partners, according to new research.

In 2016 about 18 million Americans were cohabiting, defined as living with an unmarried partner, and nearly a quarter of them were people over 50, an increase of 75 percent since 2007, data released on Thursday from Pew Research Center showed…

Government figures show that so-called “gray divorce,” or splits among adults 50 and over, has about doubled since the 1990s and could partly account for the increase in cohabitation.

Fewer marriages, changing social norms and women’s greater economic independence are other explanations for the rise, Stepler added.

As cohabiting has gone up, the marriage rate in the United States has dropped, from 8.2 per 1,000 population in 2000 to 6.9 in 2014, according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Stepler also pointed to an increase in the number of older Americans who have never married. Pew found that 27 percent of people 50 years and older who are cohabiting have never married, while more than half are divorced and 13 percent are widowed.”

Whenever reports like this come up about declining marriage rates and rising cohabitations rates you have to look very closely to see the actual cause buried in the fine print that no one wants to address.

Newtons third law of physics states:

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”

And this law of physics actually applies to changes in society as well.  If you take social “action” there will always be “an equal and opposite reaction” in society for the betterment or worsening of society.

While this report tries to show “fewer marriages, changing social norms and women’s greater economic independence” as factors in the rise of cohabitation rates and decline of marriage they are not really three different causes.  Fewer marriages and changing social norms (the acceptability of cohabiting outside of marriage) are a direct result of women’s greater economic independence and what gave women greater economic independence? The women’s rights movement, the movement to make women be social equals with men that started in the mid 1800’s.

The Driving forces of Marriage before Feminism

For the history of mankind women had fewer rights than men. Women were for the most part owned by men.  Few women owned property and still fewer women held positions of power.  The result was that women were compelled to seek out marriage to men for their economic prosperity.

In fact, in many cases women did not even chose whom they would marry but rather their fathers did.  Often men would literally purchase their wives from the woman’s father.

This was the simple formula that served as the foundation of the human family for all of human civilization:

Man seeks out woman for her beauty, sexual pleasure, bearing his children, caring for them and caring for the affairs of his home. 

Woman seeks man for his protection and provision.

America and other westernized nations have neutralized both of these primary historical drivers of marriage for women and replaced it with something that was rarely if ever a driver for marriage before the modern times – romantic feelings.

Governments have now granted rights to women to be socially and economically equal with men and for those women who still cannot support themselves the government will step in and help through welfare benefits.  Modern police forces provide all the protection women need so again in this area women do not need a husband anymore.

So now romance is the only driver for marriage If a man sufficiently worships a woman telling her how wonderful she is and agreeing to support her as her equal companion in whatever she chooses whether it is a career or having children she will grant him the privilege of marrying her.

And since she has no need from him other than his emotional support of her and constant worshiping of her if either of these things diminishes there is no need for the marriage to continue.

This change in the foundation for marriage has directly lead to a decline in marriage itself.  Because after all if marriage is just based on feelings – why does anyone need a paper? Why make a commitment that will just cause more complications? Live on feelings and when the feelings are gone each person can go their separate ways.

This is not just about economics but about spirituality

As Christians, we know there is much more going on here than just the destabilization of marriage because of the economic independence of women.  We know that marriage is about more than just a mutually beneficial economic relationship (although God did intend for it to be a mutually beneficial relationship as well).

The Bible shows that God designed marriage as a spiritual symbol of the relationship between himself and his people:

 “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…

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

Ephesians 5:23-24 & 28-29(KJV)

The Biblical model of marriage is simple.

Man loves his wife by leading her, protecting her and providing for her as Christ does the Church.  Woman submits to and serves her husband as the Church submits to and serves Christ.

The Bible show us specifically how a wife serves her husband in this world:

She serves him by making herself affectionate, beautiful and sexually pleasing him

“19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:19 (KJV)

She serves him by bearing his children and caring for the domestic needs of his home

“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)

This is the model of marriage that our creator designed.  While human beings imperfectly followed this model for thousands of years it served human civilization well.

But then we thought we knew better than God.  We overturned thousands of years of civilization for an experiment with women’s rights and women’s independence. We broke God’s model for not only marriage but society at large – that model was patriarchy. And now we are reaping the consequences of that decision.

As a direct result of feminism, marriage as an institution is crumbling and women are having so few children that western nations can only keep their populations growing by importing people from less developed nations. Third world nations from Central and South America and Africa are overrunning Europe and America as a direct result of our failed experiment with equal rights for women.

What can we do in the face of this disaster?

The Scriptures tell us “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

It can be very disheartening to those of us who recognize the collapse of our culture and soon as a result the collapse of our nation.

We must restore the foundation for our society one family at a time and that foundation begins with Jesus Christ himself:

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

1 Corinthians 3:11 (KJV)

But then what is next? We must build upon his Word as given by his Apostles and Prophets in the Bible:

“19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone

Ephesians 2:19-20 (KJV)

In keeping with the Word of God as our foundation we must teach women NOT to be independent of men but rather we should teach our daughters to depend on us as their fathers as we all should depend on our heavenly father.

We should teach them what God’s word says a young woman’s primary goals should be:

“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)

There is not one passage in all the Bible that encourages women’s independence from men.  Not one.  And we as Christian parents continue to do a disservice to our society when we encourage our daughter’s independence but more importantly we sin against God’s design for men and women in this world when we do this.

It is up to Christian fathers and mothers to encourage our daughters to play the part that God has given them to play.  When we return to doing things God’s way – we will reap the benefits not only in our families and churches but in our societies and nations as well.

Should we discourage our daughters from being educated?

This question will certainly be asked in the face of my advocating for parents not to teach their daughters to be independent of men.  In fact , women not being educated was one of the ways in which society for thousands of years discouraged women’s independence.

However, I don’t think as Christians we need to completely discourage our daughters from being educated.  The Bible tells us in Proverbs 31:26 of the virtuous wife that she “She openeth her mouth with wisdom” and in the New Testament elder women are encouraged to teach younger women in the Lord:

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

Titus 2:3-5 (KJV)

But we should teach our daughters that their education should be channeled toward the primary directives God has for them to marry, bear children and keep their future home in order. If they are pursuing education fields that are not supportive of those goals then that may be questioned.

I am not saying women can’t learn history or science or other such subjects even though they don’t directly relate to her home making duties.  Especially when we know that if she is going to home school or even help her children with their homework as mothers should she needs to have some knowledge of these subjects.

But we as parents should always be cognizant of the direction our daughters are taking.   We must ask a simple question in any activity our daughter undertakes:

Will this be a help or a hindrance to her following God’s directive for her to eventually marry, bear children and guide the domestic affairs of her home?

If we feel the answer is that it will be a hindrance  – then we should discourage whatever it is.

Being a stay at home mom should be illegal?

“We should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed…So long as we as a nation cling to the lie that only a stay-at-home mum is best placed to assume the responsibilities of caregiver then working fathers will continue to feel insecure about stepping off the corporate treadmill to spend more time with their children.” This is the advice given by Australian journalist Sarrah Le Marquand writing for the Daily Telegraph in Australia.

Her advice comes as a result of public outcry in Australia regarding a study that recommended stay at home moms would be better off in the work place then at home:

“It’s the topic of stay-at-home mums. More specifically, the release of any data or analysis that dares recommend Australian women should get out of the living room/kitchen/nursery and back into the workforce.

So the outcry has been predictable in the wake of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) recent report which had the audacity to suggest stay-at-home mums would be better off putting their skills to use in paid employment.”

Now to be fair to Sarrah Le Marquand she has advocated for women to be able to choose to stay at home with their children until they reach school age:

“And yes, the role played by parents in the early months and years following the birth of a child is vital and irreplaceable. It also stands to reason that for many (but certainly not all) families, it is the mother who opts to take time off work during this period to solely focus on caring for her baby.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, that time at home should be a privilege afforded to more new mums, which is why a few years back I was a lone voice in supporting Tony Abbott’s grossly misunderstood and thus ill-fated paid parental leave scheme, which proposed all female employees receive their normal salary for six months.”

So this is Sarrah Le Marquand’s full position – she is arguing in this article that while women should have the choice to stay at home with their children while they are infants and younger, once they reach school age they should be forced by law to enter the work force full time alongside their husbands.

Near the end of the article she reveals what the ultimate goal of her advocating for forcing stay at home moms back into the workforce is:

“Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.”

The last line says it all. Forcing stay at home moms to enter the work force would be the final assault on gender roles as God designed them.

This is the logical progression of equality movements.  When you don’t get the results you want, then you use the government to force the results you want.  When you don’t have of the racial or ethnic representation in a given area whether it be higher education or certain areas of employment you force it through government quotas. When women don’t make the same amount as men you force it by taking away merit based pay systems. And when some women refuse to try and make themselves equal with their husbands by working outside the home like their husbands – you force it upon them.

Is it really better for both genders when women leave the home for careers?

I get emails and comments on a regular basis from women who after years have pursuing careers outside the home have come to regret that decision.

Recently I received the following comments from a woman that had what she described was her “dream job” as the chief editor of a newspaper only to realize the devastating impact her career had on her children and her marriage.

“Since the advent of feminism, women have in fact become slaves to the status quo and materialism. Children are being raised by institutions and strangers and, frankly, the consequences of that alone have been terrifying to watch unfold. Homes are falling apart and marriages are crumbling. Every woman struggles with going back to work after having a baby…

I am a mother to three girls, and over the past 11 years, I’ve worked and stayed home for periods of time. I am currently working in what I thought was my “dream job” as the chief editor of a newspaper, but this decision has brought my family and marriage nothing but pain and stress. My husband and I have prayerfully decided that, after the end of this year, I will stay home again and care for our family, permanently this time. I will not return to work again.

Although our budget is tighter when we don’t have two incomes, we are infinitely happier and, as this is God’s will for our family, He always provides abundantly for us.”

This woman’s experience is by no means unique. It happens to millions of women across the western world who buy into feminism’s lie to women that “you can have it all”.  When we break God’s gender roles that he has assigned to man and woman we will reap the consequences both on an individual level as well as a societal level.

But there is more than just anecdotal evidence to support the premise that the mass exodus of women from being keepers at home to career women has been bad for western culture.

See these comments from a study entitled “THE RISE OF DIVORCE AND SEPARATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1880–1990”:

“Marital dissolution for reasons other than widowhood has increased dramatically over the course of the past century. Only about 5% of marriages contracted in 1867 ended in divorce, but over one-half of marriages contracted in 1967 are expected to end in divorce (Cherlin 1992; Preston and MacDonald 1979). Scholars and commentators have consistently explained this change as a product of the changing sexual division of labor. Writing in 1893, Durkheim (1960 [1893]) pointed to the sexual division of labor as a source of interdependence between men and women, producing what he called “organic solidarity.”

Less conservative scholars use different terminology, but most stress the same agent of change. They argue that the rise in economic opportunities for women was a necessary condition for the increase in divorce and separation (Cherlin 1992; Degler 1980; McLanahan 1991; Ross and Sawhill 1975). According to this interpretation, women in the past who lacked independent means of support were often trapped in bad marriages; as the opportunities for female wage-labor expanded, women were increasingly able to escape and live on their own. Thus, the rising economic power of women undermined patriarchal authority and destabilized marriages

The rise of individualism associated with urbanization and industrialization has meant increasing emphasis on self-fulfillment and growing intolerance of unsuccessful marriages. In essence, the cultural argument suggests that marriages in the past tended to be governed more by social norms and less by rational calculation to maximize individual happiness. Since the nineteenth century, increasingly individualistic values could have simultaneously contributed to rising female market-labor participation and to rising marital instability.”

The key phrase that from the analysis of women working as it relates to marriage stability is this one:

“the rising economic power of women undermined patriarchal authority and destabilized marriages”   

I would go a step further.

The Bible tells us that it is God, not man that instituted patriarchal authority:

“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)

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

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

Ephesians 5:22-24 & 28-29 (KJV)

“4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:4-5

The Bible clearly establishes patriarchy – male headship over women.  It establishes the relationship of man to woman in clear and unequivocal terms.  Men are to be the leaders, protectors and providers for women. Women are to be dependent upon their fathers and then ultimately their husbands for leadership, provision and protection in the same way the Church is to depend on Christ for these things.

Western culture, and really the cultures of the entire world used to embrace this basic principle of society.  Only since the mid 19th century with the rise of egalitarianism which spawned feminism did the Western world turn its back on God’s design and we are reaping the natural consequences of that decision.

What if we reversed Sarrah Le Marquand’s advice?

What if instead of making it illegal for stay at home moms to stay home after their children reached school age we made it illegal for married women to enter the workforce at all? I know GASP! That is crazy right.  What if we restored by law the dependence of women upon men and reversed all the so called “progress” of the woman’s rights movement?

The fact is we know from the history of mankind that if we made it more difficult for women to work outside the home or own property husbands would once again have the help meets God designed for them and children would have their mothers back.  Women would once again be able to fully concentrate on their homes rather than dealing with the struggle between work life and home life balance that feminists like Sarrah Le Marquand think is so great but other women know has a horrible effect on their lives and that of their families.

Yes there would be some negatives. Some women would again be trapped in bad marriages or abusive situations.

But we have to ask ourselves this question.  Which was better for society? Was society worse off by having a patriarchal authority or by eliminating patriarchal authority to address injustices against women? I would argue that if the measure of a society is the strength of the family unit and not the size of our homes or bank accounts we have the answer to that question.

I have said it before and I will say it again.  Feminism will come to end one way or the other.  Either governments will abolish feminism before they collapse due to its negative effects on their cultures or those governments will collapse giving rise to new governments that will have the courage to do what must be done.