Christian Marriage, Complementarianism, Desiring God, Gender Roles, Marriage

The Problem with Greg Morse’s View of Women and Wives

Greg Morse Bio at Desiring God

Who is the Fairest in the Land? Lessons for Young Men on Attraction is Greg Morse’s latest attempt to tell men they’re missing out on what godly women have to offer. I give him credit for telling men that they will not find the fantasy woman they see in pornography. I also give him credit for challenging men to love their wives with all their heart during all of life’s moments together.

The problem is that instead of telling young Christian men to not view women as sex objects, but as actual human beings, he tells them they’re missing out on the loveliness of possession.

They pass, like I once did, on the three-course meal of possessing, belonging, and enjoying a creature fit for them within the safety of commitment.

Greg Morse views a wife as a possession. “My wife.” “She belongs to me.” A wife is not seen as a partner with different values and strengths that make the relationship together better and unique.

He then goes on to view a wife as an enjoyable creature for the pleasure of a husband. A creature – not even a person. How is this any different than sexually objectifying a woman through the use of pornography? It’s not; Morse’s view objectifies the wife in the context of marriage with “God-ordained gender roles.”

This one sentence speaks volumes of Greg Morse’s view of wives from a complementarian perspective. Is this the direction that John Piper’s website, Desiring God, wants their readers to adhere to as well? It’s really not all that surprising considering they still have content from Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll available. Desiring God may want to rethink their position on this content as I would hope this isn’t very appealing to women. Which, come to think of it, may be the real reason these single men are having trouble finding the “right woman.”

28 thoughts on “The Problem with Greg Morse’s View of Women and Wives”

  1. the three-course meal of possessing, belonging, and enjoying a creature fit for them


    I wrote before on the possibility that the woman some men hold out for does not actually exist. Some responded, wanting to lay aside their search for the full-time Christian, part-time model — who is nothing less than exotic, enchanting, ethereal — and come to appreciate the imperishable beauty of the existent, born-again daughters of God around them. These men wanted to know how. How do you begin to change the eye’s definition of beauty or shape the heart’s attractions?

    This is sort of fascinating. I guess ‘you’re not that much of a catch buddy’ didn’t really play?

    (from the ‘who is the fairest’ article referenced) If a man has no vision for his life, why would he invite a woman to sit idly next to him on a bus traveling nowhere?

    This is typical patriarchal view right here…to think she’s gonna site ‘idly’ next to him instead of living her own life. The linked article is such a trip.


  2. Tim Keller writes, “Wedding vows are not a declaration of present love but a mutually binding promise of future love” (Meaning of Marriage, 79).

    BTW, has anyone read this? Cause I have questions…


  3. “Has anyone read this?”
    (Chuckle) Oh My! I have now. And along with young Mr Morse, I say “ I admit this is baffling”…
    This is why the puritans were known for being such joyful folks, I guess. A young Christian dude is supposed to find a godly Christian woman/prospective possession who he doesn’t love and just propose to her.
    Then Mr Morse says “Solomon addresses his bride…” and I ask “Which one?” Who made this schmuck Solomon an expert on marriage? All the wives were possessions just like the gold and horses he also multiplied for himself. As I was going to St Ives, I met a man with 700 wives, and every wife had 7 gods, and every god had 7 kits… seriously, some scholars think the Song of Songs is ABOUT Solomon, not by him, and he’s the villain trying to steal the poor man’s beloved just like dear ol’ Dad stole Mum. And this robbery idea fits in with Mr Morse’s idea of “loveliness in possession”. As an aside, I’ve always been a bit bothered that the Bible writers were very concerned about all the gods but not so much all the wives, if they just hadn’t been foreign ones.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Then Mr Morse says “Solomon addresses his bride…”

    Oh i forgot to mention that. Um…that poem wasn’t actually about Solomon really? He knows that, right? Even SparkNotes knows that.

    (and if it were Solomon, why would it be surprising that one of the kings 700 wives, who probably had little to no choice in the matter, might be super gorgeous?)


  5. I give him credit for telling men that they will not find the fantasy woman they see in pornography.

    But neither will they find the fantasy woman they see in Christianese, i.e. the Perfect 10+ CHRISTIAN(TM) Wife.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. the three-course meal of possessing, belonging, and enjoying a creature fit for them within the safety of commitment.

    Note the imagery of “three-course meal”.
    The imagery of Eating.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. This is just as damaging to men and husbands, IMO.

    The “both…and” man. “If a man has no vision for his life, why would he invite a woman to sit idly next to him on a bus traveling nowhere?” and “Godly men, however, invite women into a mission bigger than the relationship itself; they seek a helpmate to adventure with in service of Christ.”

    Plan and adventure are often at odds. The man who has his day planned down to the minute does not have time to step out of his comfort zone. So, as many good Reformed guys, he sets both walls (planned and adventurous) up as male requirements to then bash his readers against. How can you… if you aren’t planned, but then how can you… if you aren’t adventurous.

    The ideal and the acceptable bride. Again, men are fed a picture of the ideal bride. The bride in SoS whose “breasts are towers” and the practical woman of Proverbs 31. But, when men set their standards high based on what they are told exists, they are ridiculed for being in “the pit of unrealistic expectations” This is not subtle in the article. ‘Ask Instead “Can I Love Her?”’ Ummm if we are Christians, then aren’t we going to be told that there is no one who is ‘unlovable’ if we simply ‘choose’ to love?

    Part 2. “They do not eat from the table of marital love. Perpetual daters…” and “Godly men, however, invite women into a mission bigger than the relationship itself; they seek a helpmate to adventure with in service of Christ.” This is again the sort of mentally ill dichotomy. On one hand, a wife is a platonic participate in the all-important mission that God has given us. On the other hand, when we don’t have a wife, we are giving up God-intended pleasure… ????

    I guess I just get frustrated with the authoritarian pastor-types who make themselves look intelligent and wise simply by beating you with equivocation and equally-weighted, mutually exclusive positions.

    What I liked about some of the commentary is that people look to so-called experts when seeking understanding, and psychologically, it is more important for experts to APPEAR confident and knowledgeable, than for them to actually BE knowledgeable. The pastor who says, “There are Biblical principles about marriage, but barring that, no ones experience is authoritative about how to do it right” is considered stupid and foolish compared to the likes of Morse here who speaks authoritatively in a way that is harmful and dismissive.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. The imagery of Eating.

    I….want to make an inappropriate joke so bad right now HUG.

    This is just as damaging to men and husbands, IMO.

    Wrong headed for sure. ‘just as’? At least men aren’t considered objects. Eh.

    But, when men set their standards high based on what they are told exists, they are ridiculed for being in “the pit of unrealistic expectations”

    Curious, are you taking those two things (youth and beauty, vs wisdom of proverbs 31 lady) as things that ‘exist’ so should be expected united?

    I will say, I think there is a constant push pull between advice being dolled out on having high standards vs. ‘unrealistic’ standards and it seems to be used as a club against single people regardless of what their standards are: whatever needs to be used at a particular time is used. Doubtless there are people who should raise their standards, i’m never going to be against that really, but they should about more important things like honesty and the way someone treats you, compatibility, etc. Rarely is the problem that someone needs to raise their physical standards. That said, lowering your physical standards is not some magic key to getting a good person. [The biggest red flag city date I ever went on was with someone I was not at all attracted to but decided to give the date a chance.]

    Completely agree with you, however, that there is no one perfect answer.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. There was so much in this article. I couldn’t get my mind off that one sentence, so I appreciate everyone reading it and adding to the discussion.

    It’s 2020 – why are Christian men still talking about “eating from the table” of prospective eligible Christian (the “right” kind of Christian) women and turning them into a possession? He focuses on the possessive pronoun in SOS failing to understand that when referring to someone as “my wife” you’re indicating a relationship, not an ownership. And is he viewing these words through the original text or through the ESV translation?


  10. Lea, yes, “just as” was an inappropriate choice of words. What I meant was that this article is all around damaging.

    Another thing that hit me about that quote: “They pass, like I once did, on the three-course meal of possessing, belonging, and enjoying a creature fit for them within the safety of commitment.”

    If he only knew his wife for nine months before marriage… isn’t he saying that he should have married someone else earlier? The practical and theological flaws in this line of thinking are pretty staggering.

    Sooo… waiting for the “right” woman is a failure, and instead, the goal for single men should be to get married ASAP? What does his wife think about this?

    Think about it… this is even more degrading to women. If I’m going to hire a worker, I may look through hundreds or thousands of resumes looking for someone whose interests and experience match the job, and even after that I’m going to bring that someone in for an interview to see if they are a fit for the company culture, to see if their expectations are in line with the job description. And that is for someone I could fire after the first month if things didn’t work out. So, the idea that I can pick any given Christian single woman off the street and be guaranteed a true companion and fellow traveler and a good lifetime fit is ridiculous. Instead it seems that the purpose of marriage in his mind is back to HUG’s premise – the man’s desire for possessions, his appetite and consumption.


  11. @Kathi, re: “my wife”

    When Thomas believes Jesus, he says, “my Lord and my God”. I would submit that the word “my” does not always signify possession. In fact, SoS itself says “My beloved is mine, and I am his.” (2:16) If possessive pronouns suggests ownership/subjugation, how can this be explained?


  12. If he only knew his wife for nine months before marriage… isn’t he saying that he should have married someone else earlier?

    Yeah, he’s basically saying women are interchangable here…


  13. Isn’t this such a modern phenomenon? I have my ancestry traced back to 1717. Now all those ancestors got married and had children, or I wouldn’t be here. They would not have had any books on roles in marriage. In a reasonably Christianised country, they would have known about church teaching on marriage from sermons, the customs of the country, the wedding service which spells this out, and may be from reading the bible for themselves if literate – moderately likely.

    I am descended from the working poor rather than the idle rich. Back in the 18th century and for centuries before that where life changed relatively little husbands would have done the heavy manual work, and wives the less heavy work, and cared more for the children. Life was generally too hard to discuss who did what. You mucked in or went under.

    If a man had a trade, his wife would learn it too, so that if he were ill or called off to fight in a war she could carry on the business. This included being a blacksmith and even making armour for knights (e.g. Agincourt in 1415)!

    For the relatively few wealthy, things were a bit different.

    Now to be fair to Morse he lives in a society where words like man and woman are losing their meaning, and it is reasonable for him to discuss this in the light of biblical teaching. But overall this is a very new thing when taken in a historical context. It’s a problem caused by the eclipse of Christianity and the insanity of much modern thinking – if you could call it that. We also have more time and wealth to discuss things that might be sorted by a healthy dose of common sense.


  14. @KAS

    My neighbors here on the farm were a gem of a married couple, farmers….disciplined, hard-working, reasonable, logical, friendly, kind, encouraging and uplifting, and genuinely real human beings who lived life and told it like it was.

    My neighbors wife passed before him due to a stroke and this elderly man became a surrogate grandparent to my children and a huge blessing to us in that he drove his “big car” out into our fields like a pick-up truck, a rural chauffeur so to speak, in order to assist me in bringing our tractors and trucks home once I was done using them, so I could get on with the next farming task.

    He once said to me in one of our valuable conversations (as he was a wise old man), that his beloved wife, did all of the planting with their horses way back when, because she had a way with the horses and could get them to cooperate in getting the fields (checked) planted. He admitted that the horses did not like him at all and would rebel……making seed planning very difficult, so his wife labored and toiled in their fields…….just like a man.

    In this day and age, I, personally am surrounded by equally amazing women, who, like myself, have toiled and labored in our fields, just like a “man,” thus finding it difficult to establish the “weaker sex” syndrome as promoted by many a human being who desires a power over position, lordship over his wife and home, and ultimately, worship.

    In my family ancestry, my relatives lived in a sod home on the dry plains. During the depression, droughts prevailed and the husband went off to work on building the railroad which was to stretch from coast to coast here in America, meanwhile, the wife stayed back to farm the land by herself as well as tending to their family. Life was hard, but faith in Jesus Christ was alive and well on the parched prairies, in their homes and in their family life as they worshiped Jesus in spirit and truth…….no clergy needed and no big buildings complete with elaborate accessories were given the time of day… money was short and families needed every penny to survive those depressive times. And women were required to know how to defend their family and homesteads just as much as a man……women knew how to shoot a gun for protection, plan escape routes, and do everything possible to protect their children. Survival was the law of the brutal land, and women and men were equals, the same as when Adam and Eve were created……equals.

    While I have never heard of Greg Morse and am thankful that his teachings and belief system do not affect this “creature……oy vey!!!”……I have to wonder, if folks such as these, would enjoy watching their own daughters get caught up in being treated as animals, machinery, vehicles, etc., to be used and abused as an “accessory” to their own lives? Would he be “proud” if the husbands to his daughters constantly referred to them as “creatures”…….saying “oh Greg, I love this creature that I married (Greg’s daughter)?” Or perhaps, “Oh, that creature has a mind of her own and I have a hard time “breaking” her into the animal/object she is supposed to be.” (In accordance with what is regarded as complementarian theology…….although it is written that Jesus NEVER spoke of complementarian vain philosophies.)

    When, with regards to the false c’hurch system, did it become so important to define precisely “who” men and women were, and their objective and subjective “roles” within the family, c’hurch, and business world? And precisely “who” is benefitting from these lies within these harlot religious systems created by, and for “man?”

    For comps……when serious questions are asked by sheep women who honor Jesus as their “Head,” they bolt at lightening speed to their personal paper files (old school), or race to the internet for those oppressive “jezebel sermons” (new school), to justify the superiority of their gender in hopes to convince the masses of their “relationship” with a lord of sorts.

    Many of us born again Christian woman are wedded to comps who wield their authority like a sword. The comp husband can freely visit the dentist (as an every day living example of comp theology), twice a year, complete with a teeth cleaning session (extra billing.) Meanwhile, the victim of comp theology (this wife), was yelled at, corrected and criticized for spending the extra money to have her teeth cleaned (once a year, not twice)……guess her teeth are not as important as the comp. man. As the comp. wife lived in fear for decades due to the angry comp.’s view of women, she decided to keep the peace and not visit her dentist for eight years so she would not experience his extreme anger (which includes being treated like dung for weeks on end)………as she began to believe that her health was not as important as her “comp husband.” When she decided to exhibit her right to be a human being, she dared to revisit the dentist, and he asked, “Have you been seeing someone else?” The wife wanted to tell him the truth about her evil and wicked comp. husband, but chose not too because she did not want to be pitied, but instead took control of her own life/health with the same passion Jesus regarded to women.

    I have watched/observed comp. individuals, including my own marriage as well as in my last abusive baptist church, and what I find extremely baffling, are how possessions…..the things of this world…..are regarded more highly, and taken better care of, than human beings, especially the victims of a comp. belief system.

    e another’s burdens and encouraging one another in faith, home life, and work.


  15. I’m kind of amazed that someone might think wives (or rather women, because not all women were/are wives) were not doing serious manual labor 200+ years ago. Poor women have always done hard labor, whether it was farming, textiles, washing or other things.


  16. The comp husband can freely visit the dentist (as an every day living example of comp theology), twice a year, complete with a teeth cleaning session (extra billing.) Meanwhile, the victim of comp theology (this wife), was yelled at, corrected and criticized for spending the extra money to have her teeth cleaned (once a year, not twice)

    Yikes Katy. This is just abuse? (denying medical treatment)


  17. @KAS, you might be interested in “Total Truth” by Nancy Pearcey. She makes the same claim that you do – that 200+ years ago, men and women worked alongside each other in whatever trade. The wife would tend the shop just like the husband, or work on the farm just like the husband. This was all centered around the home, where both wife and husband took care of the children.

    But… then something happened. The Industrial Revolution required people to leave their homes to work in factories. The church had to deal with this theologically, and the conclusion that it was not only okay for the husband and wife to separate duties, but, in fact, Biblical, for the husband to be the breadwinner, and the wife to be a stay-at-home mom. At some point, the reasoning was lost and now it is somehow unholy for husband and wife to work side-by-side, or, God-forbid, the wife to be the breadwinner and the husband to be a stay-at-home dad.

    Pearcey uses this as just one example of how the church has had to make snap judgments based on culture rather than think through things – when church science disagreed with cultural science, the church became anti-science. When the husbands had to leave the house to work in the factories, the church embraced this. The church has embraced secular fundraising methodologies.

    The point being that we have to be very very careful not to baptize secular culture, or to stand against secular culture simply because that’s what the religious leaders find most comfortable. I’ve read an interesting article on the rise of the “Religious Right” here in the United States. Apparently, racist southern religious leaders were losing funding on the basis of their belief in Christianity-sanctioned segregation, so they had to find another hot-button issue to rally the troops. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision gave them that. Initially, Evangelicals like Billy Graham lauded the decision, but soon, Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones led the charge to make abortion the rallying cry of all true(TM) Evangelicals, then used it as a means to deliver votes to increasingly detestable candidates to gain power and prestige.


  18. @Lea,
    “Yikes Katy. This is just abuse? (denying medical treatment)

    Denying medical treatment is one of the hallmarks of complementarian theology, as the m’an considers himself more important, above and beyond the humanity of the wife. 501c. 3 c’hurch organizations and institutions have aided and embedded this false worldview that man is superior to women, and the non-discerning have paid dearly through their “tithes and loving offerings” (through guilting, shaming, and every other demonic manipulative tactic used by p’astor individuals), in supporting this authoritarian/hierarchal paradigm.

    Our c’hurch system promotes the idolatry of man over woman, pastor over lower laity pew sitters, government power over individual rights, the environment over basic human survival, every “right” for non-human entities and yet, for human beings, the “rights” are redefined… in killing children through abortion is a “basic human right,” labeling a baby in the womb according to science (a fetus…thus dehumanizing that individual created in the image of the LORD).

    Abuse, in its raw and Biblical interpretation, is nothing new, since the beginning of time, and Jesus, in His LORDSHIP and in His humanity, did not distinguish nor teach the importance and power over structure of the man over the woman. How can this be? Meanwhile, comp. individuals point to the hyper holiness given unto individuals who were not Jesus Christ in the flesh, nor had a direct relationship with the Father of all Creation, GOD, as the Son did while walking on this earth……twisting the Scriptures to mold into an authoritarian form of religion, c’hurch, that worships and adores one gender over another. This is troubling to me, for it kills the power of GOD, the Holy Spirit, living and working His Wonders in the individual believer who genuinely and consciously chooses to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, rather than obey the precepts of man.

    For some reason, Lea, my LORD Jesus sustained me during that time of neglected dental care. Meanwhile, back at the farm, it was still my responsibility to ensure adequate dental care for my children, taking them to their dental appointments as prescribed. While I chose to “keep the peace in the “complementarian-male lord it overship marriage), I chose to fight for my children in receiving the proper medical care necessary to ensure their health and well being. I lack no shame nor guilt for spending our money to ensure their health care needs.

    I would like to know, within the c’hurch systems I experience in this day, precisely “who” decided that man was the “head” and more important than the woman……and the mistranslation of the Holy Scriptures in designating the “man” as lord? Note: I have read, studied, and researched the original meanings of Greek interpretations as they are difficult to transcribe into “English.”

    Many a wife could write a book designating “complementarianism” as a wicked tool for husband
    to abuse the wife……and call it “christian…YIKES.” The term “spiritual leader of our home” pertaining to the man, is used and abused quite frequently by the baptist and assembly of god women I encounter within the public arena. My question is, “who” designated a particular gender to be the “spiritual leader” of any home? And in doing so, do c’hurch folk neglect and abuse the power of God, the Holy Spirit, to live, work, and experience the LORDSHIP of JESUS CHRIST to work in the life of a woman as well?

    Is complementarianism the “lord” of this world………or is JESUS, the LORD and Savior of this world?

    One ponders this in light of His Teachings and His Way. I find strength and courage in trusting my LORD and Savior, rather than any comp instruction or any “m’an” for that matter. When Christ speaks of wisdom, Solomon does not come to mind nor the “book” that bears his name, but only Jesus, and the Words emanating from His mouth within the proper context of translations.

    Pure and true Hope, rests only in Jesus, not in any human being……..the LORD Jesus has taught me well. Praise HIS HOLY NAME.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. @Mark
    Wow! Thank-YOU for your insightful comment thread. Very educational and being a critical and curious thinker, I have often asked this question to myself, “When Adam and Eve, or Eve and Adam were created by our LORD, after the sinful fall that rests on both Adam and Eve, did they “toil” together in their survival…..planting seeds for food and caring for their gardens/fields/and livestock, killing animals to use their skins for clothing, birthing children and taking care of them together (rather than the woman only caring for their needs), and having a personal relationship still, regardless of their “sin”, with their Master Who Created and Loved them in the first place?

    Were there designated “gender roles” in the beginning of all Creation? Or, perhaps what I have always believed since I was a child…….that Adam and Eve, after their departure from the Garden of Eden, had to work their butts off in order to survive, strive, and thrive in every area of life…..and regardless of their sinful/fallen nature……that Jesus Christ still loved them, blessed them, and cared for them throughout their lives because they were still created in His Image in the first place.

    The visible fallen c’hurch systems put in place by mankind throughout the ages, have ultimately defined exactly “who” are the “essentials” verses the “non-essentials.”

    For those who have attended their local “c’hurch” board meetings (ahem…the p’astor man is also a member and lord of sorts over love feasts/meetings), listening to the gossip, lies, slander, and the judgement of “who is saved and who is going to hell within their communities,” according to their own legalistic and worldly religious paradigm, it is deeply embarrassing for our modern day c’hurch folk, who spend vast amounts of money on brick and mortar making sure the outside and inside the building is shiny and clean, meanwhile, back at the ranch……..the widow is lonely and strugginling, the fatherless do not have anyone who gives a damn, and the weak and weary have no one who will listen to their burdens and come along side of them to help…… and as Jesus spoke of the “least of these”…… this modern day of the “technologically advanced industrial revolution,”……..the “least” still remains “the least of these” by c’hurch folk as they pass on the baton in that “relay” race, onto the government, rather than spending their “tithes and offerings” to help individual souls, families, and communities.

    When a “needy” individual humbles themselves and walks into any c’hurch system, expecting empathy, compassion, a listening ear, and help in the form of sweatful labor or monetary needs to assist in paying bills…….the “pastor m’an or c’hurch board l’eader” will gladly drive them down to the local governmental office to assist with their needs. The “religious man or woman” will walk out of that governmental institution, dust of their feet on the expensive rug outside the door, and walk proudly with their nose in the air, down the pristine sidewalk, patting themselves as servants of a god of their own understanding.

    Rare……oh, so “rare” is that c’hurch who will bravely and courageously dare to care for those who are the “least of these” with their own finances, their own folks who exhibit the gifts of the Holy Spirit to aid and encourage these sheep in building them up in the Living Presence of our LORD Jesus Christ. C’hurch organizations are too busy and too vain building up their own form of religion, to dare to care for the least of these and at the end of the day….do not want to get involved with the messiness of this life because if the individual is not “healthy, wealthy, or prosperous,” well then, that person won’t be an “asset” in making that particular denomination “look good” in the sight of the secular humanistic/worldly c’hurches that claim to know a jesus of their own imagination.

    At the end of the day, Mark, I personally, am thankful to my LORD Jesus Christ, for the “industrial revolution,” the “spiritual revolution,” and any other “revolution” that has taken place which has contributed in making my life here on the farm, much easier as opposed to “farming with a literal horse (I couldn’t do that as I don’t like horses…..ATV’S are much more inviting and sport worthy…and easier to get along with! :)” And while the industrial revolution has blessed many folks/families throughout the ages, many a c’lergy folk have taken upon themselves to condemn it, using it as an excuse for the “breakdown” of the family unit……..a unit many a c’lergy m’an has used and abused for their own glorification and gratification…..meanwhile, their own r’eligious h’ands are softer than a baby’s butt!

    Did not our Master Jesus engage in a trade with His own two Hands? And sweat? Or did He lead a life of r’eligious privilege?

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Great post. Greg Morse seems to not know much about women, but has no problem telling them what their role is.
    Off topic, but disappointed that a site like Desiring God seems to not care about the killing of George Floyd/racial issues but can give air time to a guy(Marty Machowski) talking about stacking firewood as a trait uniquely suited to men.
    And people wonder why people are becoming disconnected from Christianity.


  21. Kate – I just went over and read that article. Oh.My.Word.


    Author’s words to son: “But men were created by God and called by God to rule and subdue the earth, to labor to provide for their households, to work for the glory of God. God made men strong for this task, and when you decided to give up your time to stack this wood to bless me, you were doing the labor of a man. ”

    “It’s not that women can’t stack firewood, but men are uniquely called to such labor to provide for our families, and God has gifted us with strength to do so.”

    “My wife looks for the same opportunities to encourage our children, both boys and girls. Whenever our girls help with caring for their younger siblings, or gladly serve around the home, she says things like, ‘Well done, sweetheart. When you helped feed your little sister, you were doing what a woman does. I’m so glad God made you a girl, and you are going to make a great mom!’”

    “It’s not that men can’t feed a baby or help with domestic tasks, but God gave women the calling to be helpers and mothers and to manage the home.”

    To cap it up, four paths to “God’s design:”
    1. Affirm your child’s sex from a young age.
    2. Avoid unhelpful stereotypes.
    3. Teach and model biblical roles in your home.
    4. Encourage your spouse in their biblical calling before your children.

    How exhausting! Why not live a life loving God and loving others as Jesus said was the “greatest commandment?” DG continues to perpetuate this nonsense that I hope new generations will walk away from and help make it disappear.


  22. Whenever our girls help with caring for their younger siblings, or gladly serve around the home, she says things like, ‘Well done, sweetheart. When you helped feed your little sister, you were doing what a woman does. I’m so glad God made you a girl, and you are going to make a great mom!’”

    This makes me want to scream really. Well done sweetheart! you’re only good for being a backup mom even though you’re a child. That’s what being a girl means.

    Yikes. Also a good way to raise kids who don’t want kids, I heard. Especially if your family was large.


  23. I find it curious that Greg Morse criticizes men for seeking a non-existent “perfect woman”, and yet is content to use non-existent words — like “helpmeet”.


  24. SKIJ – helpmeet (n.)
    a ghost word from the 1611 translation of the Bible, where it originally was a two-word noun-adjective phrase translating Latin adjutorium simile sibi [Genesis ii.18] as “an help meet for him,” and meaning literally “a helper like himself.” See help (n.) + meet (adj. “suitable”). By 1670s it was hyphenated help-meet and mistaken as a modified noun.

    I still remember it being used like this in the late 17th Century …


  25. A “ghost word”. Namely, a non-existent word that somehow found its way into the dictionary, due to a mistranslation or misreading by some doofus.

    Thanks for proving my point, KAS. 😉


  26. “But men were created by God and called by God to rule and subdue the earth, to labor to provide for their households, to work for the glory of God.”

    “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let THEM rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created THEM. God blessed THEM; and God said to THEM, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”” (with emphasis on plural)

    If DG can’t even get through the first chapter of the Bible without changing the language to support patriarchy, what should we expect from their view of the rest?

    Even in comp churches, the argument of patriarchy generally starts in the more detailed account in Ch. 2 where Adam is created first and then names Eve.


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

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s