Christian Marriage, Complementarianism, Doctrine as Idol, Egalitarianism, Extra-Biblical Nonsense, Feminist Agenda, Marriage, Marriages Damaged-Destroyed by Sp. Ab., Misuse of Scripture, Women and the Church

Feminism: Is it a rebellion against God?

Julie Anne

***

I’m just going to plop this video link into this post and see what happens. It’s only 2 minutes, 36 seconds. That’s it. Below is my attempt at transcribing someone speaking off the cuff (a little challenging on the punctuation, just sayin’).  ~ja

 

feminism-3215990_640 No attribution req'd

 

 

 

Are you a feminist? Are you a feminist? My guess is feminism has influenced you. And
maybe it’s not the kind of feminism that [says] true feminism means that all women must be lesbian, that we have to have contraceptions [sic] for everyone, that we have to be able to terminate babies if we want to. I don’t mean that kind of feminism. I don’t even mean the kind of feminism that says equal pay for equal work.

But I know you’re a feminist or you’ve been influenced by feminism when I tell you this:  the Bible says, “Wives submit to your own husbands as to the Lord.”

Case closed.

I can hear you, “What about this –  what about that –  my husband’s an unbeliever?’

Well, read  1 Peter 3. You’ve been influenced by feminism, and I know I have, because when I say these words, it’s difficult, “Wives submit to your own husbands,” – it’s a command.

You say, “Well I’m more spiritual, I’ve got a higher IQ, you don’t know about my husband.” “Wives submit to your own husbands,” that’s exactly what the text says, “as to the Lord.”

And then Paul ties it to the church, “for the husband is head of the wife even as Christ is head of the church, His body, and He Himself is the Savior.”

And so what do we do to try to get out of the feminism trap? I mean, I haven’t even said yet, “Wives do you obey your husbands?” and, “Sarah obeyed Abraham, even calling him what — Lord.”

I haven’t even gotten there, but we are so influenced –  we are so eager, so egalitarian, not just with function, but with nature, and both and vice versa, that we can’t say “you know, we are equal, my wife is more godly than I am. She is more spiritual. She does all the things in light of Christ’s work better than I do. I think she is more godly, but I am the head of the household. Why? Because God decrees that.

And I’ll tell you what happens: people who are feminists have the same problem that’s found in antisemitism.

You say, “How do you equate those? Don’t call me names.” It is a revolt against the sovereignty of God. God says, “I picked the Jews and no one else. These are my people – my covenant people.” And everybody freaks out.

And then God says, “In marriage, here’s how it works: husbands are the leaders; wives are the followers. Wives are their submitters.”

And so the rebellion isn’t really against masculinity, it’s a rebellion against God, himself.

Are you a feminist?

189 thoughts on “Feminism: Is it a rebellion against God?”

  1. So, listened to a podcast/you tube video someone posted on your Facebook page the other day… the speaker said new papyri have been discovered and have given more context, and that the and word hupatuso (however you spell it) that has been translated as”submit” may actually mean “support.” Changes everything, doesn’t it?

    Like

  2. My wife is a godly Christian woman – former unbelieving feminist. She’d freak out if I showed this to her. A would explain it away. Like unbelievers explain away the Gospel. So, is she in rebellion against God? I’d like your thoughts and prayers.

    Like

  6. Once upon a time, people lived on an island called “turtle island”…… the women could have as many husbands as she wanted…….

    oh wait. Immigrants showed up.

    Like

  7. Note that, as a man, presumably, he doesn’t even have to defend why his interpretation is correct. Just finds that one prooftext.

    Wonder what he would think about this one: “But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.”

    case closed

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!! I just can’t believe that there are people who take this guy seriously. Honestly, it’s freaking amazing how many grown adults don’t care if they make complete idiots of themselves. . . oh, my. . .

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Yikes! As if it weren’t enough to just stay in touch with God throughout the day, and follow Him closely as we stumble along–now we are in rebellion for having the wrong opinion. Ugh.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. No, Carmen, he plays to these underlying fears. People tend to be religious in the sense that they want a list of do’s and don’t’s to follow so that they can be safe from whatever future state – be it reincarnation, heaven, etc.

    So, when someone like this comes along and is very black and white – God says X, you must obey – it ends up being a very insidious spiritually abusive message. That’s why prooftexting is such a big hammer in Evangelical circles.

    Actually was visiting my daughter’s school today and there was a quote: “Give me a place to stand and I can move the world” – Archimedes. The implication was that her school was that place. Of course, it is so laughable, because what Archimedes said was “Give me a lever and a place to stand…” which completely, utterly changes the meaning. He is talking completely physically whereas the misquote implies that he is talking metaphorically about cultural change. It’s so easy to miss the point of the authors in prooftexting.

    Incidentally, I’ve probably heard hundreds of sermons on authority (child/wife/citizen). I think I have yet to hear a sermon on the “defending the sheep” passage in Ezekiel. Is it that hard to understand that our typical church leaders are taking advantage of the members and that God hates that? Or is it just pastors being afraid to confront that issue and yet, they say what “must be said” about wifely submission not fearing the repercussions (like high-fives from all the abusive husbands?)

    Liked by 2 people

  11. So, is that a transcript below the video? (Oh, OK, I re-read your post, you say yes, it’s your para-phrase of the video)
    This guy is saying feminism is rebellion against God?

    He’s saying if you don’t agree with his (I assume complementarian) interpretation of the Bible, that you are
    1. a feminist and
    2. therefore in rebellion against God?

    I do not identify as feminist. I find some of their (feminist) views on some topics wrong or kooky, but they are occasionally right on some things.

    This guy has a problem with someone like me who is conservative (right wing), I am not a feminist but yet, I reject the complementarian view of the Bible.

    I’m not so easy to pigeon-hole on this.

    I reject complementarianism yet I’m not a feminist.

    I rejected complementarianism years ago because it makes the Bible contradict itself, because it produced rotten fruit in my life, and later, I recognized that it’s codependency for women with a biblical veneer.

    I did not reject complementarianism (and it’s “male headship” view) because of feminist influence.

    (Stand by for 142,324 more posts by me about this video. Sorry, but I hate complementarianism with a fiery passion. I don’t mean to monopolize the comment box on purpose, but I really cannot stand comp.) 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  12. For those that are interested, here’s another link with more info on the Greek word Hupotasso and ancient papyri writings:

    https://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/priscilla-papers/papyri-women-and-word-meaning-new-testament

    From that article:

    “While the word Hupotasso was rare in literature, it was a very common word in the papyri. Does it occur with the meaning “submit” in the papyri? No, it occurs commonly in the postal documents, with the semantic range of “support,” “append,” and “uphold.”

    The article has a lot of interesting points including this insight on that famous Timothy verse:

    “1 Tim. 2:12-13 should be translated as follows: “I most certainly do not grant authority to a woman to teach that she is the originator of a man: rather, she is not to cause a fuss. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”

    “Why would a woman teach that she is the originator of a man? At the time 1 Timothy was written, Gnosticism was in its early stages. The Gnostic literature states that Eve was formed first, then enlisted the help of a goddess to help her form Adam. Thus at the time 1 Timothy was written, early Gnostics were stating that women were the originators of men.”

    Liked by 1 person

  13. The “feminism is rebellion against God” video guy said,

    You say, “Well I’m more spiritual, I’ve got a higher IQ, you don’t know about my husband.” “Wives submit to your own husbands,” that’s exactly what the text says, “as to the Lord.”

    Oh no. For complementarianism to really work in the context of marriage, certain criteria must work for it to be a healthy, successful marriage.

    If this guy wants marriages that perpetuate abuse or that stress the wife out because the husband she’s married to is a violent abusive type or a barely-literate, dim-witted idiot, mission accomplished, Video Guy.

    The man I was engaged to for about 3 – 4 years (we were a couple for seven years) was an absolute doofus, dumb as a box of rocks.

    Had I married him, I would not have been able to “submit,” to him as complementarian video guy teaches, or else, the doofus and I would’ve been evicted and homeless.

    My ex was terribly stupid and financially irresponsible. At times, he felt more like a son than an equal partner to me. He certainly was not the competent leader material that comps teach that men should be.

    _Gender Complementarianism Does Not Adequately Address, or Address At All, Incompetent, Loser, Or Incapacitated Men_

    Telling a woman who is naive enough to walk into a marriage with a guy who is really, really dumb (or who has brain injuries, or is a drug addict and is therefore incapable of being responsible and carrying full responsibilities in a marriage) is not a realistic or workable solution.

    It’s very Pat Robertson- like advice: “You chose him, sweetie! You married him. So you gotta stay and put up with him!”
    (That’s usually Robertson’s advice to women in troubled marriage who write him for advice on his Christian TV show, The 700 Club. No empathy from him at all. A variation of “you made you bed, now you must lie in it” type of thing.)

    No you don’t.
    As I said on the last complementarian- related thread on here earlier today, you, a grown woman, do not need anyone’s permission (not God’s, not the Bible’s, not your pastor’s) to divorce a man if you feel and think that is best for you.

    A lot of men turn abusive right after the marriage. It’s a bait and switch. I’ve read so many real life stories like this – the man treats the lady really nice prior to marriage, but after they tie the knot, the guy becomes physically or verbally abusive, or he acts controlling and demanding. He sold the woman a false bill of good – no woman should be expected to stay in a marriage where the man duped her.

    Like

  14. Daisy, it’s a transcript, not a paraphrase. It’s sometimes difficult to type the words someone is speaking off the cuff and have it make sense when it is written.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Oh, mistake in my last comment, with a correction added – my brain sometimes works faster than my fingers can keep up when composing these comments:

    Telling a woman who is naive enough to walk into a marriage with a guy who is really, really dumb (or who has brain injuries, or is a drug addict and is therefore incapable of being responsible and carrying full responsibilities in a marriage)
    that she must stay married to the guy and submit to him regardless (“Wives submit to your own husbands,” that’s exactly what the text says” – so, in other words,, ‘suck it up buttercup, and just put up with your man’s incompetence or abusive behavior, because the Bible says so’) is not a realistic or workable solution.

    This guy is also assuming he is understanding “submit” correctly. He’s assuming his complementarian understanding of marriage and the Bible is correct.

    Like

  16. Video Guy said,

    But I know you’re a feminist or you’ve been influenced by feminism when I tell you this: the Bible says, “Wives submit to your own husbands as to the Lord.”

    Case closed.

    Video guy, I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible.

    I also disagree with you applying the label of “feminist” to me merely because I reject your particular understanding of what certain Bible verses mean.

    I think you’re a sexist, Video Guy, in part because of you choose to interpret that Bible in a sexist fashion.

    A related link:
    _Perhaps feminism is not the enemy_, by Michael Jensen

    Like

  17. (part 1)
    Video Guy said,

    And I’ll tell you what happens: people who are feminists have the same problem that’s found in antisemitism.

    You say, “How do you equate those? Don’t call me names.”

    It is a revolt against the sovereignty of God. God says, “I picked the Jews and no one else. These are my people – my covenant people.” And everybody freaks out.

    And then God says, “In marriage, here’s how it works: husbands are the leaders; wives are the followers. Wives are their submitters.”

    And so the rebellion isn’t really against masculinity, it’s a rebellion against God, himself.

    First of all, people who disagree with complementarianism are not “anti masculinity.”

    (The phrase “toxic masculinity” by the way, does not mean what most Christians and conservatives think it means. (I’m a conservative myself).
    (I wrote a post about it here:
    _Toxic Masculinity – What It Is and What It Is Not – How Most Conservatives Misunderstand What It Is_))

    Secondly, while yes, the nation/people of Israel are God’s chosen, doesn’t Paul say in the New Testament that God chose to graft the Gentiles into the Nation of Israel branch, so, in a way, Gentiles who believe in Jesus are also “chosen”?

    Doesn’t the Bible say that believers in Jesus were chosen from before the foundation of the world, or something to that effect? (Not that I want to start a Calvinism debate on that.)

    But I find his analogy there just very weird. Seems like a little bit of a non sequitur.

    Rejecting complementarian interpretations of the Bible, or concerning “male headship” is not the same thing as “rebellion against God.”

    But to reiterate, I find complementarianism to be sexism papered over with biblical rhetoric, so you’re a sexist, Video Guy. How do you like getting labels slapped on you?

    Also, much of complementarian interpretation regarding biological sex is the much the same as how white Americans in the 19th century used the Bible to defend white ownership of black people. So I could also say you’re a racist, Video Guy.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. (part 2)
    -where I’m responding to this by Video Guy:

    <

    blockquote>And I’ll tell you what happens: people who are feminists have the same problem that’s found in antisemitism.
    You say, “How do you equate those? Don’t call me names.”

    It is a revolt against the sovereignty of God. God says, “I picked the Jews and no one else. These are my people – my covenant people.” And everybody freaks out.

    And then God says, “In marriage, here’s how it works: husbands are the leaders; wives are the followers. Wives are their submitters.”
    And so the rebellion isn’t really against masculinity, it’s a rebellion against God, himself.     Egalitarians (and other non-complementarians) have already written many stacks of papers and blog posts responding to, and refuting, complementarian interpretations, including the biblical passages about wives and the complementarian interpretation of submission.

    God did not pick men “over” women, which is what Video Guy seems to be asserting.

    Even given the comp understanding of the Bible, it would be false to make such a blanket assertion that God chose men, and not women.
    At most this guy could only argue within limits that God (supposedly) chose men to lead as pastors or within a marriage.

    As Paul taught in the New Testament, the biological sexes are supposed to be interdependent (_1 Corinthians 11:11-12_).

    Gal 3.28 says there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus – it says nothing about God “choosing” men.

    God chooses who he will chose because he is God. God often chose those in society who were considered lesser-than. Doesn’t the Bible say God sometimes chooses the lesser to confound the wise?

    God does not like the proud and the braggarts, so in the Bible, I believe there are examples where God bestowed favor on the lowly. Video Guy sounds like a proud braggart – I don’t think God would endorse a theology that produces this kind of power hungry haughtiness.

    Jesus taught that if you follow him are you not to seek to lord authority over others, and this guy has made an entire video arguing about why he thinks men should have authority over women. And Video Guy doesn’t see the contradiction?

    God sometimes did not (usually did not) follow the ANE practice of primogeniture. Instead of choosing the first born, he’d pick the youngest.
    So, this guy assumes men are somehow better or more adept at leading and women are bungling, ineffective buffoons – that is exactly the kind of arrogant, presumptuous attitude God would topple, by choosing women over men!

    As egalitarians and other non-complementarians have pointed out before, the Holy Spirit (who is God) grants spiritual gifts to whom He pleases, not based on biological sex.

    So. Is Video Guy anti-Holy Spirit?
    Leadership in the church is supposed to be based on giftings and the like (ie, moral qualifications), not biological sex – why is Video Guy trying to stunt the Holy Spirit? Why are you in rebellion against the Holy Spirit, Video Guy?

    Video Guy’s sexism is pretty much right out front there, he’s and he’s being very insulting about the whole thing.
    As much as complementarians love to repeat their motto about “women are equal in worth just not in role,” I think snotty videos like this show what complementarians (especially the comp men) really, truly think about women, and it’s not fair, loving, or compassionate.

    Like

  19. (part 1)
    So, Video Guy is totally obsessed with convincing women to submit to men and scolding them and accusing them of being feminists or anti-Semites if they do not.

    I don’t know if I care to visit Video Guy’s ‘You Tube’ channel to see what other videos he has listed, but let me take a guess at what he might have:

    He does not have any videos extorting Christian men to treat women with dignity and respect, or encouraging churches to make sure they do not marginalize women, but put their talents and skills to use?

    As I said on my Daisy blog, complementarians, concerning women, are usually more interested in espousing _what they are against_ than they are in stating what they are for, and they’re not interested in supporting women.

    Comps are fixated in railing against feminism, and in constantly reminding women that they are second class citizens who God supposedly does not want to teach, lead, or to be equals in a marriage. It’s a depressing, negative theology.

    There is something deeply, deeply wrong when so many men who belong to a religion who are so devoted to a particular gender doctrine, are forever obsessed with lecturing us women on what they think God says we women can and cannot do, or should or should not do.

    As Christianity Hurts has reminded us ten times over on previous threads, complementarian Christianity is just like Sharia / extremist Islam.

    Extremist Islam is also fixated on constantly reminding women what they may not do. How not to dress. That women cannot hold positions of influence or power. That they should not go out in public, unless escorted by a male relative, etc etc.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. (part 2)
    The Bible says for older women to instruct younger women in matters such as these, so why is Video Guy violating the Bible?

    It’s not Video Guy’s place to teach women, young or old – not about submission and so on. The Bible says leave this stuff up to older women.

    Should Video Guy have any videos offering words of encouragement to Christian women on his video channel, let me guess:

    His other videos most likely are there only to shame and pressure women to be submissive little doormats to men, and,

    He may have one token one where he gives advice to Christian husbands, chock full of insulting, gender stereotyped, patronizing tips, such as,
    “Remember, Christian husbands, your wife is a weak, irrational, little emotional thing! So, be a nice guy this week, and run her a hot bubble bath!”

    It’s stuff like this (Video Guy’s video) that played a small role of driving me away from complementarianism and Christianity itself – being told God some-how favors men more than me, that God “chooses” men, just because my anatomy is different.

    It’s not “feminism” that has soured me on Christianity but stuff such as complementarianism itself.

    Stuff like this video – and I heard similar things while growing up in sermons, in Christian magazine articles, books, etc – that led me to believe that the Bible says God does not love me, because I am not a man.

    I mean, you are straight up telling me in the video that God did not choose me, Video Guy. God chooses men. Not me, and I’m a woman. I don’t count. I have no value.

    (And the, “but you’re just different in role to men not lesser value” complementarian rhetoric _does not work_)

    Teachings like what this guy is spouting off are very spiritually and emotionally damaging, especially to younger women. It dented my already very low self esteem when I was growing up. This is more rotten fruit of complementarianism.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. I’m sorry video guy and other things soured you to Christianity. God does not favor men. Women were more prominent in some of the most important and critical moments in Jesus’ life. Jesus Himself honored women greatly and warned the male establishment. Please come back. We need balance. Video guy is off.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. Thank you, andresetyon, that’s very sweet. The complementarianism stuff is just one of a few things that’s put me in a faith crisis the last few years.
    But thank you for your concern and kindness. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  23. So we no longer need to study the whole Word of God, or look at context, or study the meanings of words in the original language, or find all the passages that deal with a certain subject, or pray for the Holy Spirit to give us understanding. We can just pick out a verse or a piece of a verse and say “Case Closed”???

    Okay. Let’s try it. The Bible says, “The soul that sins will die.” Ez.18:10
    If you (the speaker) have ever sinned you are doomed.
    Case closed.
    Don’t say… BUT that was written in different context. Don’t say… BUT Jesus died for my sin! The case is CLOSED.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. ~Complementarianism is Killing Marriage~
    (it’s not exactly helping!)

    On those few occasions complementarians come out of their “Marriage Idolatry fog” and realize that more people are staying single today than ever before –

    These “wives submit” videos and teachings are, I think, going to drive more Christian woman away from marriage, or to at least avoid marrying self-professing complementarian men. (Unless the comp man lives in a functionally egalitarian manner, perhaps).

    To quote Video Guy again on this point:

    You say, “Well I’m more spiritual, I’ve got a higher IQ, you don’t know about my husband.” “Wives submit to your own husbands,” that’s exactly what the text says, “as to the Lord.”

    This is one reason so many devout Christian women never marry, or don’t marry til they get to age 35 or older, even though they want to marry by their mid or late 20s:
    Complementarians erect too many obstacles, requirements, that hinder a single, complementarian Christian woman who wants to marry.

    Complementarians tell single women, “The man you marry must have the following traits…” – then they rattle off a list 568,675 pages long with so many picky requirements that no woman will ever meet a man that satisfies all the requirements.

    Christian single women in America already out-number the Christian single men.
    If you are a marriage-minded single Christian woman, you’re not going to find many single men in your age group in many churches (especially Baptist, evangelical) to start with.
    If you factor in other mate criteria, that complementarians insist that you insist upon, such as, “the man must ALSO be a great and wise spiritual head to the wife…” you have further reduced your chances of getting married even more.

    I’m no longer a complementarian, but even when I was one, I’d see these sorts of teachings, and they made marriage to a complementarian man look very unappealing or horrible.

    These days, there is no way I’d marry a complementarian guy (not unless maybe, as I said above, he acts in an egalitarian fashion – but if he insists on this comp stuff, a hard pass, a big nope from me).

    I’d rather marry a kind, loving atheist who doesn’t expect me to adhere to sexist and fuddy- duddy gender roles.

    Like

  25. Christian husband are called to lovingly serve their wives. We all are called to have the same attitude as Jesus;

    Philippians 2
    “3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
    5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
    6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
        did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
    7 rather, he made himself nothing
        by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
        being made in human likeness.
    8 And being found in appearance as a man,
        he humbled himself
        by becoming obedient to death—
            even death on a cross!
    9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
        and gave him the name that is above every name,
    10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
        in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
        to the glory of God the Father.

    THE GOSPELS: THE PROMINENCE OF WOMEN IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

    https://www.gci.org/articles/the-prominence-of-women-in-the-gospel-of-luke/

    Influential New Testament Women

    “So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, ‘Greetings!’ And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him” (vv. 8–9).
    – Matthew 28:1–10

    https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/influential-new-testament-women/

    Like

  26. At one time cousins were married. Einstein showed up and then the rest is over……

    The Ghost of Einstein will haunt people who are unaware of the reality that human’s actually came from the existence of Adam and Eve who had…….such and such generation of people and the cousins married each other off and this particular pattern kept going well into the post WW2 era. In fact, in 10% of the marriages in the world, patriarchy includes…….ahem…..cousin marriage. Don’t believe me…..start with You Tube (The Young Turks – subject cousin marriage)

    Like

  27. RE maybe Υποτασσεστε means “support”: (a) Even if so, how does that change the overall meaning? Ephesians goes on to say that the husband is the “head of the wife as Christ is head of the church”. It says that a wife should Υποτασσεστε her husband as the church does to Christ. I don’t think that the church is an equal partner in decision-making with Christ.

    (b) The same word is used in Luke 10:17, “The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons SUBMIT to us in your name.” I sincerely doubt that Jesus’s followers meant that demons provided loving support and are equal partners with his disciples in carrying out the mission of the church.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Interesting that somehow what Jesus does in flesh and bone is somehow less than what he does though the Spirit.

    The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”

    And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. Then Jesus *said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

    Jesus sent the women to proclaim a message to the disciples. the apostles. He probably had to send ALL of them, because otherwise, the disciples would not have believed them. Even so, Peter did not believe.

    Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them. But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he *saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at what had happened.

    Like

  30. I neither a hardcore feminist nor an anti-feminist. When I think of feminism, I think of the origins of the definition being an ideology women having basic equal political, economical, social and individual rights as men. I understand somewhere after the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s, the more radical militant form of feminism emerged that took some things a bit too extreme with the anti-marriage, anti-man, anti-traditional gender roles. For example, sometimes women who preferred to stay home and manage the house and childcare rather than go out and find a career were frowned upon and insult to the feminist cause. Even today, while plenty of things are improving to break down barriers between the sexes, other things are still going too far all in the name of gender equality. I won’t make a list but it’s happening and it is not benefiting neither sexes.

    I will say that I accept we should all have the same rights and opportunities, protection under the law, held to equal regard and respect regardless as race, gender, religion etc but these are basic human rights as citizens. Under God, men and women are equal as both bear His image but we’re are not identical. We have some differences not just biologically but also psychologically although I don’t want to make any generalizations of all those differences because it’s not so clear cut and dry. As for wives submit to their husbands, many Christians who use those verses to justify male authority in marriage seem to forget about the part where all believers are called to submit to one another out of reverence for God which is mentioned in Ephesians just before the wives submit part. Plus despite what many believe, the word submit in the bible has a different meaning the the normal English word as does the word head.

    I wrote two different posts about headship and submission in my first blog “Discovering Biblical Truth” which anyone can check out if they wish to. It’s listed under links section of my current blog. God Bless.

    Like

  31. Ah, 1 Peter 3, the prooftext that offers the flmsiest disguise for the voraciously controlling man. Once you’ve seen through one of them you recognize them so easily. He’s trolling for victims. Don’t be one of them.

    Like

  33. I think this guy is trying to convince me I am a feminist? If so good job, guy!

    I resisted the label for a time because I don’t like labels and because the image of feminists was maligned really, but some of the nuttier stuff way out left. But most feminists are simply cognizant that men and women are equal and should be treated so. Women should not be abused or mistreated because of their sex, and I’m totally on board with that. Ergo, feminist.

    Like

  34. And then God says, “In marriage, here’s how it works: husbands are the leaders

    Stuff God Never Said for 400 please!

    Like

  35. “But most feminists are simply cognizant that men and women are equal and should be treated so. Women should not be abused or mistreated because of their sex, and I’m totally on board with that. Ergo, feminist”

    Bingo!
    Thank you for that, Lea. I have tried – unsuccessfully on this forum for several years to get that point across but to no avail. Thank you.

    Now. . .wait for several people to come on here to say, “But. . . (and insert their individual understanding of what feminism is, based on the actions of women they didn’t deem appropriate . . .”) 3 , 2 , 1 . . ..

    Like

  36. I mean, you are straight up telling me in the video that God did not choose me, Video Guy. God chooses men.

    Daisy, It was an interesting choice to draw that analogy to god choosing israel/god choosing men. I mean, God expanded things to gentiles in the new testament and many people who were not jews were accepted into their line over the course of the OT. What is he really saying here?

    We can just pick out a verse or a piece of a verse and say “Case Closed”???

    Right Mary27?? But they never want to hear ‘There is no male or female CASE CLOSED’ do they? That one doesn’t count. There are probably a ridiculous number of verses about love and pride and just not being a rude person that would apply to this guy. He’s long passed Case Closed for me!

    Like

  37. Now. . .wait for several people to come on here to say, “But. . . (and insert their individual understanding of what feminism is, based on the actions of women they didn’t deem appropriate . . .”) 3 , 2 , 1 . . ..

    Ah, Carmen. I once was there. It still feels funny to call myself one, but apparently I am lol. I’m just leaning in.

    I’d rather marry a kind, loving atheist who doesn’t expect me to adhere to sexist and fuddy- duddy gender roles.

    I’m finding lapsed catholic a reasonably good category of man as these things go, Daisy. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Thanks for posting this video of Mike Abendroth, Julie Anne! Appreciate it for the simple fact that I used to listen to him every now and then, after leaving an abusive Baptist church. After a period of time, I consciously chose to step away from all religious authority figures, and read, study, and meditate upon the Gospels, for meself, and allow them to minister to me. No human voices were added to His precepts, which I found quite refreshing to my faith in Christ alone.

    I’m still not sure as to the correct meaning of the term feminist due to the fact that when male religious leaders cannot place their “mark” of influence upon the woman’s soul, using selective Scriptures transcribed improperly as their “truths,” they will throw the word “feminist” at women as a means of insulting, demeaning and degrading, control and manipulation, and brainwashing, to put that “rebelling woman in her place.” And then on top of that, these authority figures will elude to your state of your salvation as “being backslidden or worse, unsaved/a sinner,” because you don’t align yourself with their religious party.

    I once sat in a group where devotions were held. The man led the devotional group and after reading from the Holy Scriptures, he asked the group “What does that Scripture mean.” At first I did not notice what was happening, but in time, the scales from me eyes fell off. What I began to see was this, every time a woman offered her impression of the Scriptures, she was immediately “corrected,” however, when a man offered his interpretation of the verses, rarely was there a “sidebar” of correction. Eventually, people began to offer no input into the conversation because of the constant criticizing and correction done by the hierarchy, because they were the only ones to “have all of the answers correct.” So eventually the group shut down and ceased to exist because the “lording it over” concept Jesus spoke of, were starving His sheep.

    I find it fascinating how when a woman disagrees with a man concerning spiritual issues, the conversation resorts to male mockery, label, insults, punishment in some form as a means of “discipling/discipline,” and just plain meanness/wickedness. Psalm 1 then comes to mind when dealing with those who love their “feminist” label planting schemes. 🙂

    I often think of this woman with regards to “feminism,” concerning those who wish a woman “not to speak.” Conversation between Jesus, the Messiah, and that lowly woman at the well…..John 4: 27-30 “Just then his disciples came. They marveled that He was talking with a woman, but none said, “What do you wish?” or, “Why are you talking with her?” So the woman left her water jar, and went away into the city, and said to the people, “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?” They went out of the city and were coming to Him.”

    These Scriptures are so revealing as to the cultural nature of genders in Jesus’ day. So was that “woman” a feminist for speaking directly to Christ, for going back to the city to inform “the people – both men and women” that she met the living Messiah, and for being bold enough to announce to the people her LORD of all?

    Or, should that woman at the well, have shut her mouth and not witness to anyone, the fact that she met her LORD and Savior, her One and only true Shepherd/Teacher? I must say, it does get a bit confusing when women are told to shut their mouths, and it seems as though men are the only ones who should be able to speak the Name of our LORD Jesus Christ, and to teach and preach the Good News/Gospel Message.

    If I am to err, I will always err on the side of my Savior, Jesus Christ, and lovingly embrace His Words concerning the woman at that well……and to relish the responses of those disciples who encountered Jesus visiting with her as a human being that He created. Oh, how the words/actions/life of Jesus can bring such life and hope to His sheep!

    Liked by 2 people

  39. Hi Andre and Jay,

    Well, If you really want to know the answer to those questions, then you will have to do some reading. Did you read the full article? That’s a great place to start.
    Then there’s a great book called Discovering Biblical Equality that provides the info that you are asking for.

    That is if you were actually wanting answers to those questions. If you just want to always have your way, then stop using the Bible to justify selfishness.

    Bible says “How can two walk together unless they be agreed?”

    Comp theology says “How can two walk together unless one gets to always have their way?”

    Is man’s will always at all times equal to God’s will? Nope. There’s a way that seems right to a man but the end is death. (Prov 16:25) Now since man’s will is different than God’s will, there’s no way that God could have required women to follow man’s will. That’s a direct violation of God’s command for women to be led by the Holy Spirit.

    NOT ONE VERSE IN THE BIBLE TELLS MEN TO LEAD WOMEN!

    Bible tells women to be led by the Holy Spirit!!!

    Comps need to stop trying to usurp the Holy Spirit’s authority!!!

    Liked by 2 people

  41. Avid Reader: Bible says “How can two walk together unless they be agreed?”
    Comp theology says “How can two walk together unless one gets to always have their way?”

    This is so true. Comp theology says that every relationship must have a power differential. Because, I guess, one needs to know it’s okay to domineer and the other needs to know to be codependent.

    Liked by 2 people

  42. And. “Comps need to stop trying to usurp the Holy Spirit’s authority!!!”

    I don’t think comps believe the Holy Spirit in any real sense. He’s just a person who rubber stamps the leaders they’ve already chosen. When it comes to the congregation choosing a leader, it’s okay for the current leaders to do everything they can to manipulate the vote, then, when the vote happens and they get the outcome they want, “God has spoken!” Same with church discipline. There is no room for the Holy Spirit to work. He has been replaced with a constant barrage of pressure and escalation from the church leadership. There is just an assumption that whatever the leaders want is going to be blessed by the Holy Spirit, with no desire to listen or wait.

    Like

  43. Mark,

    That’s so true. Reading Comp books, it amazes me how they run roughshod over the Holy Spirit. John MacArthur basically tells the Holy Spirit to be quiet. He believes that there’s no such thing as guidance from God.

    I’m not suggesting that we seek after signs and wonders. Just that God is not an absent father. He’s right there providing guidance to help us with everyday decisions like which job to choose or apartment to rent.

    One of my friends was driving on the freeway when he heard the Holy Spirit telling him to change lanes. He did. Just a few minutes later, there was an accident in the previous lane. Some heavy equipment came untied on a truck and flew across the freeway. It would have gone right through his windshield if he hadn’t changed lanes.

    Liked by 2 people

  44. By the way, if anyone wants to read a great book on getting guidance from the
    Holy Spirit—check out Corrie Ten Boom’s book Tramp for the Lord. It’s great reading.

    Like

  45. Feminism is not rebellion against God.
    It’s simply being pro woman because many of us have been under the thumbs of men like video guy far too long.( btw, my husband is not one of those men. He’s more like a feminist male than patriarchal or comp). Perhaps ‘maleism’ is rebellion against Jesus since he came to set us ALL free – not just men. A few years ago I read Jesus Feminist by Sarah Bessey and highly recommend it.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. “If you question what I say to you
    YOU REBEL AGAINST THE FATHER, TOO!”
    — Steve Taylor, “I Manipulate”

    Like

  48. Carmen said,

    Bingo!
    Thank you for that, Lea. I have tried – unsuccessfully on this forum for several years to get that point across but to no avail. Thank you.

    Now. . .wait for several people to come on here to say, “But. . . (and insert their individual understanding of what feminism is, based on the actions of women they didn’t deem appropriate . . .”) 3 , 2 , 1 . . ..

    I personally do not use the label in regards to myself because the word “feminist” comes with a lot of baggage and doesn’t always mean the same thing to people.

    In the minds of most conservatives (I am a conservative), the word “feminist” doesn’t just mean equal rights or equal opportunity for women, but it becomes conflated with things like…
    Being a man-hating, bra-burning person; being pro-abortion, being liberal, voting Democrat, dong things such as wearing female genitalia costumes in women’s rights marches, etc., all of which turns off your average conservative.

    I think the majority of conservatives would agree with the base-line definition of the word “feminism” and say yes, it is right and good that women should be treated fairly and equally in society and under the law.

    But the term can mean so many other things.

    Some feminists these days think that sex work should be legalized, while other feminists say no, that the sex trades exploit women and children. Ditto on pr0n. Some feminists support transgenderism, some do not.
    Pro-life feminists were prohibited by the Pro-choice feminists at some women’s march about a year ago.

    Feminists are not a monolith.

    When I’ve posted on politically conservative forums and blogs, I would get no traction by calling myself a feminist, though I do agree with some of the feminists arguments at times, depending on the topic.

    Because I don’t apply the label to myself, other conservatives, I’ve found, are more willing to hear out my arguments (which may at times be similar to the ones self professing feminists are making).

    The minute you call yourself a feminist, or allow them to give you that label, it’s a conversation-stopper.
    Like what Katy was saying above:

    I’m still not sure as to the correct meaning of the term feminist due to the fact that when male religious leaders cannot place their “mark” of influence upon the woman’s soul, using selective Scriptures transcribed improperly as their “truths,” they will throw the word “feminist” at women as a means of insulting, demeaning and degrading, control and manipulation, and brainwashing, to put that “rebelling woman in her place.”

    It’s like people who will call you or your preferred politician a “Hitler” in a disagreement over politics.
    It’s a way of stopping you in your tracks, to poison the well, shut down the conversation and present themselves as being on the moral high ground.

    See _Godwin’s Law of Hitler Analogies on Wiki_

    Conservatives throw out the word “feminist” at anyone who doesn’t share their complementarian interpretation in the same way.

    This is one thing that keeps so many trapped in comp, even though they sense comp is false and they want to reject it.

    You’re given a false dichotomy by comps that usually looks like this:
    Either you are a complementarian – which means you are God-loving, family supporting, “nice” woman who respects the Bible, or, you are a horrible, evil, man-hating, Democrat-voting, abortion supporting, Bible-doubting heretical FEMINIST.

    Because, they teach or suggest, you obviously cannot remain a conservative who is not anti-men or anti-family and also reject complementarianism. Your only choices are be a comp or be a feminist.

    Well, there is a third way (where I am residing) – reject complementarianism but not be a feminist, or not “buy into” absolutely anything and everything all feminists teach on every subject.

    Like

  49. Another thing about the term “feminist.”
    I find arguing about its use or its meaning(s) almost always side-tracks from the very concerns feminists are trying to raise and correct under that label.

    At times (on other sites) I’ve seen Christian women (some who identify as liberal, conservative, or moderate), who also identify as “feminist,” expend much time and energy into writing long blog posts, or getting into long-winded debates, or write entire books, defending the word “feminist” to respond to (usually male) critics of the word “feminist” or “feminism.”

    I’ve been able to immediately shut down guys like ‘Video Guy’ in discussions on other sites by informing them I don’t use the label – the feminist label becomes a red herring they will have you defending.
    When I tell them I don’t use the label for myself, that shuts up most of them on the spot, and they are then forced to confront the substance of my points, which is what is of import, not what label I’m using or not using.

    I’m not here to argue anyone else from whatever label they wish to use (if another person wants to call him or herself a feminist, I don’t mind), but for me personally, I find I don’t want to invest energy into defending a label (and having to explain I am not aligned with all its accompanying baggage), but rather, the concerns those under the label are usually trying to correct.

    Like

  50. Mark said,

    Avid Reader: Bible says “How can two walk together unless they be agreed?”

    Comp theology says “How can two walk together unless one gets to always have their way?”

    (Mark Replied),
    This is so true. Comp theology says that every relationship must have a power differential. Because, I guess, one needs to know it’s okay to domineer and the other needs to know to be codependent.

    And don’t forget the silly and stupid hypotheticals complementarianss love to toss out, as we saw on the last two comp-related posts, “What can men do to stop sexism in churches,” and, “Are Comps tough on abuse.”

    We saw one comp on one or both threads toss out the moldy-oldy complementarian card (you can always count on a comp to dredge this up if the topic is male headship in marriage):

    “But mercy, what do you do in a marriage where the couple has a disagreement? If one doesn’t get to pull rank on the other, no final decision will ever be reached, oh me oh my! There is no other way of solving such an issue!!”

    I replied to that complementarian conundrum (propaganda) here:

    _How to Resolve a Dispute Without Investing One Person with Automatic Final Decision Making_

    Complementarians excel at inventing problems where none truly exist, and all to prop up their Male Hierachy Dogma.

    Like

  51. As for me, I decided a few years ago to avoid marrying a guy who believes in complementarian Male Headship.

    I’d rather marry a Non-Christian man, or a Christian egalitarian guy.

    So I don’t have to deal with any of this sexist nonsense. Problem solved, problem avoided.

    I don’t share the complementarian interpretation of Bible verses and passages and words, so I wouldn’t go along with comp male headship even if I were to marry a complementarian guy (which I really want to avoid).

    (Nice job on discouraging single women from marrying complementarian men, complementarians! It’s not “feminism” that drove me to these conclusions and views, but complementarianism itself.)

    Like

  52. Carmen,
    You also brought up a very good point, the use of the word

    “but”

    when speaking to those who desire to “lord” it over. Jesus condemned the lording it over as the Gentiles do, and then we have the Abendroths telling us that our lord is our husbands/male authority. Gets rather confusing to those of us who love to think and ask thought provoking questions.

    “but, but, but……if I only had a brain.” Now where did I hear that one come from?

    Liked by 1 person

  54. Daisy, Avid, Carmen, Lea, and Mark,

    Thank-you for making my day! Great points indeed. I am actually encouraged and built up by the thought provoking points you are making.

    Keep encouraging!

    Liked by 1 person

  56. Andre asked what a Bible believing woman does with I Peter 3. Presumably that means I Peter 3:1-7, since the rest of the chapter is addressed to believers in general, regardless of sex.

    The first thing to do is to actually read it. The passage starts off by telling Christian women to submit to/support (hypotasso) their own husbands. Leaving aside for now just how hypotasso should be interpreted, it is clear women are not supposed to submit to/support men in general, only their own husbands. Therefore, feminism, as a movement seeking equality for women in general society, is in no way opposed to I Peter 3, whether or not hypotasso means submit. The passage then goes on to talk about how a woman showing submission/support to her unbelieving husband can be a good witness, even without speaking. So, in other words, a Christian woman married to a man who doesn’t believe in Christianity is not obligated to get into theological debates with him and preach at him until he converts. She can live with him peaceably and quietly and her very ability to get along with him will be a witness.

    Then Peter says that outward adornment isn’t necessary. I understand the significance of this passage better having lived in a developing country where there were onerous expectations of women dressing well for events, to the point they would go into debt rather than fail to dress appropriately – not having good enough clothing could be grounds for a marriage being delayed or even cancelled. Roman society was one that had such high expectations of women’s dress, and Peter is telling Christian women that they are free from the weight of those expectations.

    Then Peter uses the example of Sarah. Here, my KJV Cambridge edition has a cross reference to the story of Abraham giving hospitality to the three strangers, one of whom was God and the other two were angels. In the story, Abraham tells Sarah to bake three cakes for the strangers, which she does; and when God tells Abraham that Sarah will have a child, Sarah overhears and laughs, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?” (Genesis 18:12) Peter is referencing a specific example from Sarah’s life.

    There is a despicable teaching circulating that this passage about Sarah in I Peter 3 refers to Sarah’s willingness to lie for Abraham about being his wife and therefore, so its proponents say, Christian women are obligated to sin if their husbands request them to and must just trust the Lord to understand that they had to submit. I have encountered such an interpretation by men with a patriarchal bent more than once. The case, however, of Ananias and Sapphira shows that if a woman cooperates with her husband in a lie, she is held equally responsible, and, indeed, both Abraham and Sarah were reproved for lying (Genesis 20:9, 16).

    Sarah’s example is an illustration by Peter in his letter. She obeyed her husband’s request that she make the cakes to welcome the strangers, and both she and Abraham received the reward of their faith in their long awaited son Isaac. Sarah’s example of obedience is not an instruction to Christian women to obey their husbands in whatever they ask. In fact, there isn’t an instruction to wives to obey their husbands anywhere in the New Testament, because whatever hypotasso is, it is not a command to obedience. There is a New Testament command for children to obey their parents and servants to obey their masters, and the Greek word for obey in those passages (Ephesians 6:1,5; Colossians 3:20, 22) is hupakuo, meaning to listen responsively or, in archaic English, to harken. Wives do not have the same relationship to their husbands as children do to parents or servants to masters.

    Finally, verse seven address husbands. These would be Christian husbands, since non-Christians wouldn’t be listening to the letter being read:
    Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
    The word likewise means, in both English and the Greek, means in the same way or equally. So Peter is saying that the instructions to Christian husbands and wives are equivalent. The instructions are worded a bit differently, but they are essentially the same. Christians are generally commanded in general to treat others with the same consideration that they would like to be treated (Matthew 7:12) and to love their neighbour as themselves (Mark 12:31), and in the intimacy of their marriages, Christians have an even greater obligation to obey those general commands. In a healthy marriage, each spouse seeks the good of the other spouse. It is a serious sin for a Christian man to dishonour his wife, and his prayers will be hindered by so doing.

    That is what a Bible believing woman does with I Peter 3.

    Liked by 1 person

  57. You might like this story, Katy. The other day a bag of clothes (hand-me-downs) appeared at my daughter’s house. Our granddaughter (7) found a pair of child size high heels in the bag. There was a bit of back-and-forth – our daughter not thinking them appropriate and our granddaughter, of course, thinking they were the coolest thing ever – until finally our daughter said, “Feminists don’t wear heels!”. Into the garbage they went. 🙂

    Like

  58. Avid reader, of course I want answers to this question and many others. I also want to be a berean to see if the things I hear and read are true. That being said, by God’s I have grown significantly over the past year. I was in an abusive, authoritarian “church” for 31 years. It has significantly impacted my almost 35 year marriage. My primary goals in life are: whatever I do, do it to the glory of God. And two; to love my wife as Christ loves the Church. And to give my wife servant love not so I can get something in return. Thank you.

    Like

  60. Carmen said,
    “I knew it wouldn’t take long. Daisy gets the prize!”

    All I can tell you, as a conservative, that other conservatives associate the word “feminist” with all sorts of things, and they automatically shut their minds to anything you have to say once you identify yourself as one.

    If you’re interested in reaching complementarians or (secular) political conservatives, and trying to change their minds, you really have to talk in their lingo, and avoid words that trigger them, such as…. “feminist.”

    They won’t leave complementarianism so long as they assume their ONLY option is to become a FEMINIST
    (which in their mind set typically means, “become an atheist, vote Democrat, support LGBT marriages, support higher taxes, support abortion” etc).

    You’re not going to win converts using the word “feminist.” Is your goal to win converts, change minds? I would hope so.

    Like

  61. Andre,

    Did you do the reading? If you really want answers to those questions, then you will do the reading.

    The truth is that Jesus gave women the power of saying “yes” and “no” over their own lives in Matt 5:37. If you want to disagree with that, then argue about it with Jesus. Those are His words not ours.

    Comp theology doesn’t get to take the words of Christ from us no matter how hard they try.

    Like

  63. My goal – and the goal of feminism, for those who actually know the definition and live by it – is to be an advocate of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. Feminism is an ideology. I’ll be damned if I’ll ” talk in their lingo, and avoid words that trigger them, such as…. “feminist.” “. It just isn’t a feminist thing to do. But you go ahead, don’t let me stop you. After all, you seem to be making great headway with KAS.

    Like

  64. Carmen said,

    My goal – and the goal of feminism, for those who actually know the definition and live by it – is to be an advocate of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. Feminism is an ideology. I’ll be damned if I’ll ” talk in their lingo, and avoid words that trigger them, such as…. “feminist.” “. It just isn’t a feminist thing to do. But you go ahead, don’t let me stop you. After all, you seem to be making great headway with KAS.

    Did I touch a nerve or something? That sounds like a catty reply. I said above, I’m not here to convince other people from using the word to describe themselves if they like.

    I’d be making even less lee-way with a guy like KAS if I did use the word “feminist.”

    Have you won him over?
    What happens if you try to engage him and tell him you use the word “feminist” to describe yourself, he will totally shut down and /or he will have you going down a rabbit trail to defend the word “feminism” and to define it.

    Like

  65. All I can tell you, as a conservative, that other conservatives associate the word “feminist” with all sorts of things, and they automatically shut their minds to anything you have to say once you identify yourself as one.

    If you’re interested in reaching complementarians or (secular) political conservatives, and trying to change their minds, you really have to talk in their lingo, and avoid words that trigger them, such as…. “feminist.”

    Maybe we should instead fight against this effort to shut out ears at a simple word and to fight against those who do? I have become much more suspicious of people who take the word feminist in such a way at this point. Anyone with knowledge of the history of the movement would know that it has had different waves, and before the word existed, women advocated for their own rights and argued for them. Perhaps education is a better method than going along with those who have become too closeminded.

    Like

  66. The point, Daisy, is this. I should not have to do anything to win KAS over. That’s not what any woman should have to do. If a man cannot view me as his equal – and treat me as such – then he isn’t worth my time. Most men get it and those are the ones I want to interact with. Thankfully, in my off-line life, those are the men I do interact with.

    Liked by 1 person

  67. If a man cannot view me as his equal – and treat me as such – then he isn’t worth my time.

    I do agree, Carmen. In real life, it’s generally not an issue. The only reason I make comments online is that I know too many women have been subjected to this type of thinking and they should know that there is something else.

    Also, it amazes me that there are men who really think this way – which is the same reason I have been reading up on the darker aspects of the incel community. It’s all just misogyny really, and a belief that women are inferior and something to be used, rather than real, fully human adults with varying knowledge, talents and wants.

    Like

  68. Lea, post of,
    Re: AUGUST 1, 2018 @ 12:08 PM

    You can certainly try to educate the conservatives you meet online who automatically associate the word “feminist” with many things they find objectionable, but I personally don’t want to invest my time in doing that.

    I myself don’t agree with all of feminism.
    Many feminists are politically liberal, so I don’t share all their values or political views. I don’t care to sit about defending a lot of values or political opinions I don’t happen to hold myself.
    I don’t want to be confused with values or views I don’t hold.

    Conservatives who hate the word “feminist” will play a straw man game with me, attributing views to me I do not hold, if I disagree with them on some topic pertaining to gender, and they see I am not rubber- stamping the standard conservative talking points, but disagreeing with them. I’ve had this happen a lot.

    -Conservatives react that way because they assume I am a man-hating, Democrat-voting, abortion supporting, (etc etc), Feminist.

    I find it exhausting and a waste of my time. It cuts through a lot of garbage when I explain to them I don’t call myself a feminist, nor do I agree with all feminists on everything.

    Carmen said above,

    My goal – and the goal of feminism, for those who actually know the definition and live by it – is to be an advocate of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. Feminism is an ideology.

    I don’t know how Carmen understands or defines feminism.

    She may be defining it like this:

    … [being a feminist] is to be an advocate of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

    But I’m not sure what that looks like to her, especially in specific contexts.

    Most conservatives, when they find out she calls herself a feminist, if she talks to them about this stuff, will jump to all sorts of conclusions about her or her view points – conclusions which may or may not be true.

    Is she a pro-life or pro-choice feminist?
    Does she support the legalization of the sex trade, or is she opposed?

    Does she support Transgenderism, or is she a “feminist TERF” (anti Trans)?

    Does she think pr0N (dirty photos, movies, etc) is a “girl-power,” empowering thing that is good for women, or is she anti- pr0n and sees it as harmful?

    Regarding abortion, if she is a pro-choicer, and she held a women’s rights parade, would she allow a contingent of pro-life feminists march in her parade?

    I have not seen full agreement on these issues (and others) from people who identify as feminist.

    The Video Guy is basically setting up a false dichotomy, where he’s scaring Christian women from even considering comp may be wrong by telling them either you choose complementarianism, which is godly, pro-family and biblical ….or you must be an evil, godless, secular feminism.

    This is a pretty common strategy with complementarians, and it keeps many trapped in complementarianism for years – it did with me, and I’ve seen this with others.

    If you’re not a socially or politically liberal person (if you are moderate to a conservative), you feel very trapped in that position.

    Lea said,

    Anyone with knowledge of the history of the movement would know that it has had different waves,

    It would depend on what type of conservatives you are talking to.

    Some of them are aware of the different waves, and many don’t take issue with first wave feminism, from what I’ve seen.

    Some of them object to second wave, and many detest third wave feminism.

    Like

  69. Carmen said,

    The point, Daisy, is this. I should not have to do anything to win KAS over. That’s not what any woman should have to do. If a man cannot view me as his equal – and treat me as such – then he isn’t worth my time. Most men get it and those are the ones I want to interact with. Thankfully, in my off-line life, those are the men I do interact with.

    Okay.

    Like

  70. You seem to be attacking me. I have not said anything that should be deemed objective. Where’s the moderated? Julie? Lol. Avid reader, I have much bigger problems than having the luxury of this debate. I’ve been in a one way marriage for over three decades. The fact of the matter is that I’ve the man who has been emotionally abused and continue to be by my wife. It’s heartbreaking.

    Like

  71. Carmen said,

    The point, Daisy, is this. I should not have to do anything to win KAS over.

    I wanted to add one reason of several I respond to KAS is that he sometimes says insulting or untrue things about me in the comments section, and I suppose I could ignore them or let them slide, but I’ve been replying anyhow.

    A few days ago, KAS only gave a partial quote of what I said in a post about me in a previous thread, which distorted my words or the meaning of my post.

    I wanted to correct him on that.

    He also makes veiled digs at my age in another thread on here (I think maybe in a post to Lea that was referencing me at points), etc etc.

    And yet, this same guy lectures other people here, quite condescendingly, that we don’t talk “nice” enough when discussing abusive pastors, or abuse we’ve endured.

    Up until about last month, I had been ignoring KAS on this blog for a few months in a row. But he keeps posting here, antagonizing anyone who doesn’t share his complementarian views, or who doesn’t handle spiritual abuse the way he thinks they ought.

    Like

  72. andresetyon said

    Avid reader, I have much bigger problems than having the luxury of this debate.
    I’ve been in a one way marriage for over three decades. The fact of the matter is that I’ve the man who has been emotionally abused and continue to be by my wife. It’s heartbreaking.

    I’m sorry that your marriage is troubled and that you are being abused.

    I really wish Christians would see and realize they do not have to remain in an abusive marriage if they no longer wish to stay in such a marriage – and that includes you!

    I’ve not been married, but I have an older sister who is verbally and emotionally abusive, andresetyon.
    (I was engaged to a guy but had mostly a different set of problems with him than I did with my sister.)

    I didn’t even realize my sister’s treatment of me was abusive until a few years ago, especially after I did a bunch of research online about verbal and emotional abuse.

    Years before, I had some internet friends warn me and tell me that my sister’s behavior towards me was emotional abuse, but it didn’t sink in, or I was in denial at the time.

    I also read the book _The Verbally Abusive Relationship_ by Patricia Evans.

    That book helped me, it may help you as well.
    For one thing, I finally recognized (from that book and the online papers I read by psychiatrists and counselors) that the name-calling, put-downs, etc, was a form of abuse. (Abuse is not just about being physically hit.)

    I also learned (sad I had to learn this and didn’t just know it), that I deserve to be treated with respect and kindness from my sister. I also learned I didn’t have to put up with the behavior.

    In my own situation, as my sister does not live in the same state as me, I simply limited contact with her (not as many e-mails or phone calls with her anymore), which has helped considerably.

    Like

  73. I myself don’t agree with all of feminism.

    I don’t agree with all of anybody or anything. Do you agree with all conservatives? Cause I sure don’t. And yet…

    I have come to believe many who attack feminism are disingenuous. I am tired of people deflecting from whatever issue is at hand by throwing up some side thing, or unrelated thing. There are some people who are persuadable, but they are the ones who are actually willing to have a conversation with people and I think generally people who shut down at a single word maybe aren’t. You have people like the guy the post is about and people at Katy’s church (iirc?) who use this term as a weapon against women who disagree with them or are secure in themselves. I’m not going to let them dictate what a term means I think.

    Like

  74. Lea said,

    I’m not going to let them dictate what a term means I think.

    OK, but as someone who doesn’t agree with some of feminism (on abortion, for example, many feminists are pro-choice), or with third wave views (e.g., ‘pr0n is empowering for women,’ etc),
    I don’t care to defend the term, or nuance the crud out of it and define it out the ying-yang in every online conversation, so that conservative I am chatting with won’t misunderstand my views.

    I’ll leave that to women and men who do want to defend the word or reclaim it.

    And if that’s what you want to do, hey, great, knock yourself out! I don’t mind. It’s just not for me.

    (I don’t know what you do otherwise – run around stating on blogs, “I’m a First Wave Feminist only!” – which I guess you can do if you want?)

    I said above, at least twice, I am not here to dissuade anyone from using the term who wants to use it, and I mean that.

    Yet, I’m being pummeled or criticized for not wanting to use it on myself, or for explaining why it’s a problematic term for conservatives who don’t agree with complementarianism (which it very much is – I’m not making this up).

    If you normally only post to blogs such as this one, and seldom- to- never on secular politically conservative forums on blogs (as I sometimes do), this won’t be an issue for you – but it is for me at times.

    Lea said,

    I don’t agree with all of anybody or anything. Do you agree with all conservatives? Cause I sure don’t. …

    No, I don’t – which I’ve said many times in my years on posting here and at the other blog you and I sometimes visit.

    I especially don’t agree with conservatives on some gender issues on conservative sites and blogs, which then results in fellow conservatives assuming (wrongly) I am a feminist, which in turn causes them to think, I must also support abortion, I must always vote Democrat, I must also support liberal causes X, Y, Z, and Q, etc.

    The average conservative hears or sees the word “feminist” and thinks,
    “Ah, she supports LGBT marriage, abortion, voting Democrat, possibly the legalization of the sex trade…” etc

    Now, if that supports your views, if you do indeed tend to vote Democrat, be pro-choice, support LGBT marriage, etc, that is handy and okay for you, but I don’t support most to all of that stuff…
    So I don’t want to be lumped in with those who do, especially when speaking with other conservatives, and especially on conservative blogs or forums. It becomes an impediment, and it can confuse the conservatives I am talking with.

    It’s not my baggage to carry, so I don’t want to carry it.

    Again, I am not opposed to other women (or men) who want to use the term to describe themselves, but it’s my choice and my right not to use it in regards to myself.

    I think at this point, this is becoming a broken record conversation.
    I’ve already communicated the gist of my views on this in about three posts above. I cannot be any more clear on it than I am, I don’t think.

    Like

  75. correction, above I wrote,
    Yet, I’m being pummeled or criticized for not wanting to use it on myself, or for explaining why it’s a problematic term for conservatives who don’t agree with complementarianism (which it very much is – I’m not making this up).

    Correction:
    I meant, it’s problematic for conservatives who don’t agree with some portions (or all of) feminism.

    Like

  76. Yet, I’m being pummeled or criticized for not wanting to use it on myself, or for explaining why it’s a problematic term for conservatives who don’t agree with complementarianism (which it very much is – I’m not making this up).

    I am certainly not pummeling you, merely explaining how my train of thought has evolved over time. You may not realize as I generally don’t get into it here, but I’m generally more conservative politically on a number of issues.

    And I think you’re missing my point which is that guys like this? They label everyone who doesn’t think women should be barefoot, pregnant and under the thumb of a man as ‘feminist’. And I’m happy to own that.

    Like

  77. However, generally speaking, I don’t feel the need to define myself as anything. If someone is going to yell ‘jezebel’ and ‘feminist’ at me though? it’s fine. They already didn’t care what I think.

    Like

  78. Daisy,

    You’re very kind. Thank you for you considerate reply. Thing is my wife doesn’t “verbally” abuse me. She just doesn’t talk to me. I’m basically invisible. She has no interest in me whatsoever. The problem for me lies in what does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? Jesus and Paul seem pretty clear. There’s too much at stake to be wrong. Thanks again.

    Liked by 1 person

  79. Lea, “I don’t agree with all of anybody or anything. Do you agree with all conservatives? Cause I sure don’t. …”

    Yes, and I finally disagreed enough with conservatives that I decided I’m no longer a conservative.

    I pretty much agree with Daisy, I used to preface theological debates by pretty much listing all my labels. I also tried to label the other person’s position. I’ve discovered that it’s pretty dehumanizing to get stuck behind a label (even KAS to a certain extent suffers from this). For example, I wanted to debate a nuance of a position that I agreed with, and as soon as I talked to someone, they assumed that I was debating against it and all the stupid prooftexts and well-worn arguments came out – that didn’t deal with the nuance.

    So, for example, I greatly appreciate Calvin, but when I say I’m a Calvinist, I get slammed with all the hatred of his misogynistic and authoritarian theology – which is exactly where I strongly disagree with him.

    In the same way, my definition of feminism is along the lines of “Mona Lisa Smile” – although much of the movie’s message is great, I did not like how the main character dealt with one of the women who wanted to be a stay-at-home mom. She couldn’t handle that and essentially argued that a talented and gifted woman should never want to be a stay-at-home mom.

    Like

  81. You seem to be attacking me. I have not said anything that should be deemed objective. Where’s the moderated? Julie? Lol.

    I didn’t see any attack. I’m not sure if Avid Reader understands your situation, either. But now that you have explained it twice, Avid Reader will have better understanding (which sounds very painful, I might add).

    Like

  82. @ andresetyon

    Why would a loving God want someone to live in so much pain? I have a huge family that I love very much. How could I tell them God is good when he would want them to live the pain you are having?

    Much LOVE. I hope you get a happier situation;)

    Like

  83. The beginning of the bible starts out with Eve. She SAW something that she thought was good and it was deceptive food.

    The beginning of the New Testament starts with two women, Mary and Elizabeth. They weren’t so “feminist” in their nature, and chose life for their miracle children (one a teenage unwed mother and the other an elderly women with a man who couldn’t speak)

    Then the end of the bible.

    Rev 22:14  Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 
    Rev 22:15  For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 

    (According to the book of Revelation, I simply wouldn’t want to go to a feminist wedding because the bridegroom isn’t adored by the bride)

    I’ve read through the bible several times. It doesn’t say that “feminism” (as so many love to embrace) is a cool-thing to do (mocking scorning whormongering and the like)….and it also doesn’t say that it is right to ignore the commandments (this included being merciful, showing justice etc.).

    Humans still are a work in progress, feminism or no feminism. Humanism or no humanism. Nazism or no nazism. Marxism or no marxism. Fascism or no fascism……. etc etc. (aka. there is NOTHING good in humanity, there is ONLY good in “the lamb”)

    Like

  84. Andreseyton: “The problem for me lies in what does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? Jesus and Paul seem pretty clear. There’s too much at stake to be wrong.”

    I was trying to find a quote from (I think Boundaries). The basic gist of it is that typical Evangelical Christians assume that God is honored by a marriage that is a lie. In other words, we think that we can violate the marriage covenant, or we can allow our spouse to violate the marriage covenant, and if we ignore the reality that our marriage is a sham, somehow God is pleased. You’ll see that countered quite a bit here – if one person in the marriage has forsaken the marriage, it is not a marriage. However, God is a God of restoration, and he is pleased when marriages are restored, but he is not pleased when one spouse suffers to preserve the appearance of a sham marriage.

    Boundaries is a great book, and it is possible that your wife is emotionally manipulating you (playing on your lack of boundaries) because she is getting what she wants out of it. Maintaining boundaries is not a “tit-for-tat” form of escalation, but allowing the other persons’ actions to fall on them, rather than you.

    For example, we were perpetually late to church and it upset me a lot, and it upset my wife a lot because I was trying to emotionally manipulate her into being on time and being angry with her for being late. Finally, I said, in order to get to church on time, I need to pull out of the garage at 9:45. If you want to go with me you need to be in the car by then. I think she may have missed church once. She does that to the kids in the evening. She leaves for church at 5PM. If the kids want to go (especially if there is a dinner), they need to be in the car then, or she drives off. I’ve had kids in tears watching her drive down the street, but their lack of action caused problems for them, not for the rest of the family. That’s how boundaries work.

    Jesus and Paul were responding to specific questions and specific issues. As I’ve said before, if Jesus is speaking absolutely (no divorce except for sexual immorality), then Paul cannot add an exception (divorce allowed for desertion). Comps like KAS try to argue that this isn’t the case, but they don’t have a logical case to stand on. If Jesus says, “You can only pet brown dogs” and Paul says, “It’s okay to pet white dogs if they’re cute”, then the statements on their face are contradictory. But, if you understand that both statements are given within a context, then they may be a general rule, but not absolute.

    And, this is the case. Female slaves (i.e. quasi-wives without all the rights of wives) are to be set free (i.e. quasi-divorce) on account of domestic violence. Who would then argue that foreign slaves are free to walk away from their masters on account of domestic violence, but true Israelite women who are married with all the legal protections are given less rights in this way (i.e. that they must submit to abuse).

    This passage in Ezekiel applies also, I think: “Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will demand My sheep from them and make them cease from feeding sheep. So the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore, but I will deliver My flock from their mouth, so that they will not be food for them.”’

    God does not require his people to submit to abuse. Instead, we see that God will deliver his sheep from abuse – this is specifically the abuse of spiritual leaders, but I think God today provides many mechanisms for his sheep to be delivered from abuse in other situations… including divorce.

    Like

  85. Lea said,

    And I think you’re missing my point which is that guys like this? They label everyone who doesn’t think women should be barefoot, pregnant and under the thumb of a man as ‘feminist’. And I’m happy to own that.

    No I get it. What do you think I’ve been saying over and over on this blog and on my own and the other one for years now?

    The fact remains a person can reject complementarianism and not turn into a feminist (or a liberal), which is one tactic guys like this use to keep people stuck in comp – if you are a conservative, you don’t want to be a liberal and support all liberal beliefs.

    So you’re like, “Oh dear, I guess my only alternative is to remain in complementarianism, because I sure don’t want to be a liberal and support LGBT wedding cakes and all the rest of it.”

    -That was me for many years. I probably could’ve exited complementarianism much sooner if not for that. Maybe there’s another person like me out there reading this blog, and I’d like for them to know rejecting comp does not mean having to become liberal / feminist or champion every liberal feminist cause out there if you do not want to.

    Maybe you are fine with being grouped in with a group you don’t agree with all the way, but I do mind very much, so I don’t go by that label.

    And if this guy refers to me as a feminist, I’ll correct him on that.

    And yes, it did feel to me as though you and the Carmen were pummeling me. For what, not wanting to be called a feminist? That’s my choice and my right.

    Like

  86. andresetyon said,

    Daisy,

    You’re very kind. Thank you for you considerate reply. Thing is my wife doesn’t “verbally” abuse me. She just doesn’t talk to me. I’m basically invisible. She has no interest in me whatsoever. The problem for me lies in what does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? Jesus and Paul seem pretty clear. There’s too much at stake to be wrong. Thanks again.

    I am so sorry to hear that.

    What you’re describing is actually considered a form of verbal or emotional abuse, as outlined in books such as “The Verbally Abusive Relationship” and “Boundaries.”

    I believe one of those books describes your wife’s behavior as “with-holding,” if I am not mistaken.

    It may not seem abusive because the person is not hitting you – but it still causes pain and damage.

    Like

  87. Lea said,

    However, generally speaking, I don’t feel the need to define myself as anything

    Different strokes for different folks. I am not you. You are not me. We roll differently, which is fine.

    I don’t like having other people define me…

    Hence, when some dude assumes or tells me in his complementarian clown video (or in a forum post or where ever) that I am a feminist when I am not in complete agreement at all things feminist, I bristle and call him out on it.

    My conceding feminists may be right on topics X and Q doesn’t mean I am a whole-scale, sold out feminist who wears the label.

    Like

  88. Also for Andreseyton, if you are still reading here.

    You may try reading the resources at
    _A Cry For Justice Blog_.
    They have links and articles about divorce and remarriage.

    There’s also the work of David Instone-Brewer – he’s written a book or two, had been interviewed, and he’s done some videos on You Tube about the Bible’s views on marriage and divorce. He has said that many Christians have greatly misunderstood what the Bible teaches about marriage and divorce.

    Here’s one thing he’s written:
    _What God Has Joined – what does the Bible really teach about divorce?_

    Like

  90. Hi Andre,

    I’m sorry to hear that you are unhappy in your marriage right now. Feeling alone is a very difficult place to be.

    Please understand that no one here is attacking you. We were simply responding to the challenging questions that you had asked.

    We do sympathize with the difficulties that you are facing and would encourage you to seek help. There are good counselors out there who could help you process those uncomfortable feelings.

    Like

  92. I may have made some conflicting comments. Regardless, thank you for the encouraging words. I am in the process. I have seen several counselors and many say different things. I can find someone to tell me what I want to hear. But I want someone who can tell me what I need to hear.

    Liked by 1 person

  93. Andresetyon,

    The reality is that you can find Biblical scholars on both sides of the fence on your issue. It’s not very clear. So you have to decide for yourself: what would God have you do? Is He a loving, just God who is okay with you suffering for the rest of your marriage because your wife abandoned you emotionally? Do you think God is wanting you to suffer to build your character, and that is more important than having a good marriage? Are your wedding vows you made of more importance to God than you as an individual and your well-being? How is your marriage representing Christ and the church? These are the kinds of questions I would ask myself if I were in your shoes.

    Like

  94. Julie Anne, there’s wisdom in what you say. I ask myself those questions all the time. I don’t think being happy is the most important thing in a marriage. And further I believe a main component of marriage is to make you holy. So, I think I’m called to suffer these “momentary” afflictions. My go to verse has been Hebrews 11;

    “24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible.

    With that said, I feel like I’m in a prison. My wife doesn’t respond to my love. But I know I should still love her. But I also think she broke her vows. And lastly, I am facing a great temptation now but I want to want what God wants for me. Perhaps more later. Thank you Julie Anne.

    Like

  95. andresetyon,

    Yet if you were beaten physically, would you leave? Keep in mind that emotional abuse IS physical abuse. It manifests itself in all kinds of chronic physical medical problems.

    Like

  96. To the video guy:

    Yes I’m a feminist and proud of it…
    And what’s more?
    When I read the Bible I use reason, common sense, and Jiminy Cricket (my conscience).

    Like

  97. Jay said, “RE maybe Υποτασσεστε means “support”: (a) Even if so, how does that change the overall meaning? Ephesians goes on to say that the husband is the “head of the wife as Christ is head of the church”. It says that a wife should Υποτασσεστε her husband as the church does to Christ. I don’t think that the church is an equal partner in decision-making with Christ.”

    Jay, it seems like from what you said here that you see men as standing in the place of Christ here on earth. Do you believe there are limits to this analogy and, if so, what are they? How is it different than, for instance, the pope, who is said to be the vicar of Christ here on earth? Is a woman to see her husband as God?

    Liked by 1 person

  98. Andresetyon,

    “You’re very kind. Thank you for you considerate reply. Thing is my wife doesn’t “verbally” abuse me. She just doesn’t talk to me. I’m basically invisible. She has no interest in me whatsoever. The problem for me lies in what does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? Jesus and Paul seem pretty clear. There’s too much at stake to be wrong. Thanks again.”

    Andre, your wife is treating you as if you did not exist. The psychologist John Gottman found in his research that this is more damaging than verbal abuse. My question is, do you both want to be in this marriage that is obviously causing you both a great deal of pain, or are you only there because you think God demands it? Have you sought counseling from a qualified counselor (not a so-called “biblical counselor” but a real counselor with credentials, training and research to draw on) to see if your problems can be worked out?

    Like

  99. “Julie Anne, there’s wisdom in what you say. I ask myself those questions all the time. I don’t think being happy is the most important thing in a marriage. And further I believe a main component of marriage is to make you holy. So, I think I’m called to suffer these “momentary” afflictions. My go to verse has been Hebrews 11;

    “24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible.

    Andre, you (and all of us) will suffer many ‘momentary’ afflictions whether you stay in an unhappy marriage or not. Life will hold enough grief, disappointment and pain without our having to do it to ourselves. In what way was Moses’ choice like the choice you are making? I have heard it said before that the purpose of marriage is to make us holy but I do not see this idea in the scriptures and I do not believe it is correct. I believe that it is Christ who died to make us holy. We do not earn holiness, it is bestowed through faith in Christ. If marriage -or any other activity- could make us holy then Christ died in vain. I think the purpose of marriage is to have a companion in this life to share our sorrows and joys. It is not a way to God. I suggest reading the book of Galatians as you contemplate the meaning of these issues and I wish you and your wife well as you sort through this.

    Like

  100. Shy1 said,

    “Is a woman to see her husband as God?”

    This is exactly what comp men want from their wives and children; to be treated like gods. They are too drunk in self-worship to comprehend that many of their wives and children see them as silly, childish, obnoxious, know-nothing, bratty-thugs.

    I wish I had never known my comp father. The man was a joke and so was his puffed up, desperate, insecure, needy church buddies.

    Comp men have the spirit of the Antichrist.

    Look at this self-worshiping child destroying slop John Piper is peddling. I grew up in the conservative Christian homeschooling movement and many of us saw our fathers as dumb evil thugs. We could not wait to get away from them. They were consistently embarrassing themselves; all the while they were head over heels in love with themselves.

    https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-present-effects-of-trembling-at-the-wrath-of-god/excerpts/kids-delight-to-fear-good-dads

    Like

  101. Christian men out to ask themselves these questions.

    First, am I loving myself or loving her? Or maybe a better way to put it: Am I being sinfully selfish, or admirably self-interested, in serving my wife?

    Three times Ephesians 5:28–33 says husbands should love their wives as they love themselves — an understated application of Jesus’s affirmation of Leviticus 19:18: “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31). If such with every neighbor, how much more with my wife?

    In the course of marriage, we make hundreds of small, intuitive decisions on a daily basis that affect our wives. We don’t stop to ponder and reflect on all these. But when we do, perhaps even multiple times a day, we come to moments of decision, emotional forks in the road. What is the loving choice and action here? Before taking action, I find it helpful to ask myself, Am I loving her or self? Is this selfish or self-interested?

    Selfishness seeks my own private good at her expense. Self-interest finds my good in hers. Giving in is a lazy, selfish kind of “sacrifice.” Giving of myself is typically demanding and depleting, but it is gloriously rewarding to find my good in hers.

    Dutifully or Joyfully?

    Second, am I serving my wife dutifully or joyfully?

    Begrudging service, perhaps surprisingly, is often a form of giving in. Something is not right when we grit our teeth and just get it done. We may indeed be doing what we sense is required externally in that moment, but if we’re not doing it gladly, we may be just giving in instead of truly giving of ourselves.

    True masculinity is “the glad assumption of sacrificial responsibility.” Jesus gives himself up for his bride not dutifully but “for the joy that was set before him” (Hebrews 12:2). God calls heads to serve “with joy and not with groaning” (Hebrews 13:17), “not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you” (1 Peter 5:2). He expects no less of husbands. And his Spirit stands ready to help to those who ask.

    Her Sin or Her Sanctity?

    Third, am I catering to sin or pursuing holiness? First, it’s a question for me. In undertaking this “sacrifice,” am I giving in to my own sinful proclivities, or am I pursuing real holiness (which is typically the harder, not easier, option)? Then, turning to consider my wife, will this sacrifice cater to her sin, or contribute to her holiness?

    Ephesians 5:25–27 addresses the motivation that drives true husbandly sacrifice: her sanctity. “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” Our sacrifices and service will not prove neutral. They will contribute, in the end, to sin or sanctity. Which leads to a final question — and the one I’ve found most helpful.

    Convenient or Costly?

    Lastly, is my supposed sacrifice for my wife convenient for me or costly? Is it the easy action to take or the tough one? Is it a form of laziness in disguise, or does it require physical or emotional energy? Will this be personally convenient, or have some real, personal cost?

    Jesus’s giving himself up for his church was not convenient. It was not accomplished by his choosing the easiest, laziest path. And not just at the cross, but throughout his life. So also today as he works by his Spirit in the church. And in marriage, this is a vital way in which our unions point to his gospel. Not just by our being Christians, but by the husband in particular caring for his wife in such a surprising way that the world sees the surprising care of Christ for his church. The world expects husbands to serve when it’s convenient. What catches eyes, and reveals genuine love, is serving when it’s costly.

    When to Make Momma Happy

    It may indeed be true that when momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. But true husbandly sacrifice doesn’t just seek to make momma happy now, but for endless ages to come.

    Such a husband knows that simply giving in to wifely whims is not just easy, convenient, and weak, but will destroy both her joy and his in the long run. And such a husband knows that gladly giving himself up for her is not only costly, and the heart of real sacrificial service, but what builds her joy, and his, forever.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)