Reframing Christian marriage part 2: rebelling wives aren’t to blame for their own rebellion.

I’ll do several posts this week following up on my Reframing Christian marriage post, offering examples.  Today I’ll share two different examples where Christian men and women are taught that husbands are responsible for making their wives want to follow the biblical command to submit.  Both of the examples are high profile pages and came up prominently when I was searching for information on the Christian definition of marriage.

Example #1.  What Every Husband Needs to Know from bible.org* (emphasis mine):

Headship involves the husband’s solemn obligation to establish an atmosphere of love in which the basic needs of his wife are fulfilled—an environment in which she is free to grow and develop into all that God wants her to be. Her submission will then be the voluntary response to his loving leadership.

He goes on to explain that women are natural responders:

If she receives irritability, criticism, disapproval, unkindness, indifference, lack of appreciation, or lack of affection, she will respond with a defense mechanism, such as bitterness, coolness, defiance, or nagging. Some women turn to drinking or submerge themselves in social activities.

However, he explains that if she receives love from her husband, she will respond in kind and “will blossom into the most beautiful creature under God’s heaven.”  He offers no biblical backing for this bit of nonsense, nor for this even worse bit (emphasis mine):

When a man claims that his wife doesn’t love him anymore he is unwittingly admitting that he hasn’t loved her as he should have.

He closes the paragraph with:

Thus the responsibility for a successful marriage rests initially with the husband. He makes the first move—that of loving his wife with the totally unselfish love of Jesus Christ.

A bit further down he starts on a new branch of insanity, accusing Christian husbands of seeing themselves as pampered kings:

Sometimes a husband develops the strange notion that his home is a castle and he is the king. His wife’s task is to provide for his comfort and to protect him from all unpleasant circumstances.

He then proceeds to cut husbands off at the knees, instructing husbands to be their wives’ helpmeets:

Most wives work hard, maybe even harder than their husbands, and no husband ought to be above helping with the housework and the children. If the wife is really the weaker vessel, then wiping the dishes, sweeping the floor, supervising the children, cleaning the windows, or dozens of other little helpful acts are just other ways of saying, “I love you.”

I don’t have any objection to doing anything which needs to be done around the house.  No work is beneath me, as I wrote in my very first (somewhat rambling) post on the blog.  But what he is doing here is preemptively denying husbands the opportunity to decide how their household will divide labor, and he is doing so in perfect harmony with feminist instead of biblical sensibilities.  There is no room left for husbands to lead on the question after this.  If he doesn’t do what the wife thinks he should do (follow her leadership), he accuses the husband of not loving his wife sufficiently.  At the same time, he is also playing into the tired feminist trope that wives work harder than husbands.

He continues on with this theme, accusing husbands of being unwilling to help around the house, fix things which are broken, or have a date night with their wives.  He tells us this is like spraying herbicide on a flower:

But when the wife begins to wilt and reflect the same attitude toward her husband, he is usually quick to complain about it. Problems like this will be solved when the husband begins to show the love of Christ.

All of this is laden with encouragement to wives to see their own emotional state as the sole arbiter of whether her husband is loving her as he should.  It formally invites all of the pop relationship psychobabble into biblical marriage.

Interestingly the corresponding piece for wives by the same author (Richard Strauss) What Every Wife Needs to Know stresses that they must submit even if their husband isn’t showing Christ’s love, indeed even if he isn’t a Christian.  But by having the issue both ways in a time of outright rebellion by the vast majority of Christian wives he has planted the seeds for marital discord.

Example #2.  About.com, What Does the Bible Say About Marriage?

After some statistics from our good friend Mr. Stanton on cherry picked Christian divorce rates, on page two she quotes Eph. 5:23-32.  This is a promising turn, but she quickly rationalizes the scripture away:

Husbands are urged to lay down their lives in sacrificial love and protection. And in this safe and cherished embrace of a loving husband, what wife would not be willing to submit to his leadership?

As Mr. Strauss explains in his piece on the role of wives (but contrary to what he wrote to husbands), this simply isn’t the case.  Wives are commanded to submit to and obey their husbands, and this isn’t predicated on the husband showing Christ’s love.  In fact, 1 Peter 3:1 states that wives must submit to their husbands even if the husband isn’t a believer.  What she writes has no more validity than if one were to say:

Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands.  And given this submission, what husband wouldn’t be willing to love and sacrifice his life for his wife?

*The original link is now broken, but I found the same article at a different location.  Update:  I found the archived Bible.org version here.

See Also:

This entry was posted in Feminists, Marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

199 Responses to Reframing Christian marriage part 2: rebelling wives aren’t to blame for their own rebellion.

  1. P Ray says:

    Why would a man marry, if this is the kind of treatment he can look forward to getting?
    Having responsibility but no authority, and when things go wrong it is always his fault?

  2. Chaz345 says:

    By itself, the idea that it’s easy for a woman to submit to a husband who is loving her as he should is fine. Where they “go sideways” is when they start saying that if he’s not loving her as he should, that she then doesn’t need to submit. God very clearly calls men to love and women to submit with no conditions, least of all any conditions related to how the other is doing their part. A HUGE part of the jumbled mess that is gender relations within the church would go away if each gender would simply take what God tells them to do, and does it and pays little to no attention to what He tells the other gender to do.

    Having said that, by and large it is my opinion that it’s primarily feminist women who are the ones that are most pre-occupied with how men(or their man) is following God’s command to love her. I rarely, if ever, see men saying “well I could love her if she’d just submit’. OTOH “I can’t submit to him until he loves me exactly the right way.” is VERY common.

  3. RICanuck says:

    RE: “Problems like this will be solved when the husband begins to show the love of Christ.”

    I agree. But if a husband wishes to show “the love of Christ”, he would be better off to read Roissy or Athol Kay (both atheists) to learn how.

    I tried for years to serve my wife’s pleasure which has since earned me only contempt. Thanks to Roissy, I’ve started moving back to the white boy from the ghetto persona that attracted her to me in the first place. I still have a long way to go to regain her respect. (Love may come later.)

    I am not sure what this does for my salvation. I notice more respect since she confronted me about going to strip joints. (I didn’t apologize.) As a Catholic I accept intellectually the role the Virgin Mary plays in interceding for us sinners. But help me God, I cannot pray the Hail Mary, because I do not see how I can trust a woman, even the Mother of God.

  4. greyghost says:

    Chaz345
    This like everything else is the avoidance at all cost of placing misogynist responsibility on women. And seppressing their right and gods command to be true to herself. Eat, pray,and love after being resingled and freed from that loyal boring dude. Amen
    Its feminism

  5. Feminist Hater says:

    Husbands are urged to lay down their lives in sacrificial love and protection. And in this safe and cherished embrace of a loving husband, what wife would not be willing to submit to his leadership?

    This sort of rambling shit basically boils down to, be perfect like Jesus and then a woman will be happy to submit to you.

    They can go jump in a lake!

  6. Master Po says:

    “I will be Lord of my own house.” Thankfully, I only have to remind my wife occasionally of this fact. The corollary: “My great love for you enables me to put you through any amount of suffering to make sure it is so.”

  7. Jacquie says:

    This post takes me back to quite a few meeings in a couple of pastors’ offices to discuss our problems. Repeatedly my husband was berated and told he needed to fix himself and our marriage. I was never addressed as to my role, nor what I needed to do on my end. I shake my head at it today.

    “But if a husband wishes to show “the love of Christ”, he would be better off to read Roissy or Athol Kay (both atheists) to learn how.”

    The problem is that Athol’s book would not be on the list of recommended reading approved by the church.

    It wasn’t until we stepped away from the last church we attended and didn’t seek another that we opened to wisdom that was out there, just out of our reach. For more than two decades we sought healing from the church. Changes didn’t begin in either of us or our marriage until we moved ourselves away from the church.

  8. Ariane says:

    @RICanuck “But help me God, I cannot pray the Hail Mary, because I do not see how I can trust a woman, even the Mother of God.” — Her, you can trust. She submitted completely: “Let it be done to me according to His will.” Then gave God all the credit.

  9. RICanuck says:

    @Ariane,

    I appreciate what you are trying to say. That you are reading Dalrock indicates that you actually have some of the empathy that so many women, Christian and non-Christian claim. But, I have heard so much preaching from ‘good Catholic women’, it took a few seconds to overcome my defensiveness about what you are saying. May God bless you. It took many months of struggle to not hate the ‘boyfriend Jesus’ that my own wife and the wives of many of my friends chose to be unfaithful with. Do you know any Catholic women who have had to struggle with feelings of hatred loathing and revulsion towards Jesus, when the priest says the words of consecration at the Mass? I am not the only Catholic man who has had this struggle. As I said in my first comment, I have my doubts about my salvation.

    I think the command for women to keep silence in the church is based on the fact that women seem to have limited culpability for their committed sins. Men are culpable for their sins. Please see Jacquie’s comment above. It seems that she did not start to develop a conscience regarding her own role in her marriage until she and her husband left their church community.

  10. unger says:

    That sort of crap is rather easily debunked by the fact of our own rebellion. Christ loves us with…well…’the totally unselfish love of Jesus Christ’ – and yet we seldom find it breathlessly easy to follow Him. Obviously love doesn’t magically produce the correct response in the beloved.

  11. Chaz345 says:

    If you want to see this sort of crap thinking taken to it’s extreme check out http://www.godsavemymarriage.com.

    WARNING: If you get annoyed at the current state of things, particularly the whole if you fix the man you’ll fix everything mentality, that place will likely push you over the edge. They go so far as to say that even if the wife has an affair, it’s her husband’s fault for not loving her as he should have.

  12. Dalrock says:

    @RICanuck

    I think the command for women to keep silence in the church is based on the fact that women seem to have limited culpability for their committed sins. Men are culpable for their sins. Please see Jacquie’s comment above. It seems that she did not start to develop a conscience regarding her own role in her marriage until she and her husband left their church community.

    I don’t see her dodging her own culpability at all. I see her pointing out that the church is being cruel to men and women by encouraging women to deny their own culpability. She is saying when she needed to be convicted they pandered to her instead.

  13. Broken record me points you to GodSaveMyMarriage.com, Joel and Kathy Davisson and their bizarre woman as responder ministry.
    I have said and will keep saying, the end game of evangelical feminism (for Christian women that REALLY are Christians but badly wrong on marriage….key distinction here) Joel and Kathy represent where it all gets to if allowed to drift unhindered.
    The Christian-ists…well their end game is all over the map. There’s is a larger group, actually, and they could be headed for at least the same vicinity as secular feminists ideological outcome wise.
    J&K is a mother lode of woman as responder rot, even to the point where a woman could have actual affairs and it can be tied directly back to the mans fault. Maybe in part 3 you can pull stuff from their blog/forum
    http://joelandkathy.invisionzone.com/

    For some more general stuff look at the home page

    http://joelandkathy.com/

    Have FUN!

  14. Dalrock….if I may, he wanst accusing Jacquie, he was pointing out in her example that her church was doing that

  15. Jacquie says:

    @ RICanuck
    I might be missing something, but I don’t understand why it is you question your salvation. That is between you and God. I stepped away from churches, manmade buildings full of fallacies; I didn’t step away from God. If anything, I feel closer to God. I feel freedom. He gives me salvation, not the church. Any negative feelings I struggled with came from what someone was teaching me conflicting with what was inside me, what made sense. We found healing after we left the church because the conflict dissipated. The Bible tells us to seek wisdom. The changes in our marriage and in ourselves as individuals came after we sought wisdom from sources not recognized for one reason or another, but wisdom is found in many places, from many people.

  16. Miserman says:

    But when the wife begins to wilt and reflect the same attitude toward her husband, he is usually quick to complain about it. Problems like this will be solved when the husband begins to show the love of Christ.

    Most Christian women I have talked to act as if wives are entitled to their husband’s unconditional love while husbands must earn probationary respect and submission. This unconditional blank check of “that loving feeling” is what I hear when writers urge husbands to have the “love of Christ.”
    However, in a more traditional understanding the “love of Christ” is a definitive act of kindness towards an undeserving humanity. When Paul writes, Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord (Ephesians 5:22 ESV) there is an understanding that submission to the Lord is due to His showing her undeserved kindness (as opposed to unconditional sentimental love).

    Like husbands, wives have no right to the “love of Christ” and they need to translate that sober thinking toward their husbands.

  17. RICanuck says:

    @Jacquie
    I apologize if I caused any offence. I have encountered very many ‘good Christian women’ who seem to have no conscience. It seems from your first comment that you didn’t develop what I have referred to as a conscience until you and your husband left your church community.

    My impression from your first comment was that you have replaced ‘happy/unhappy feeeeeeelinggs’ for your husband with love. If I am correct you deserve my respect. I will try to overcome my unbiblical feelings of envy for your fortunate husband.

  18. greyghost says:

    Outstanding Jacquie, Husband is lucky. The spearhead has someone like you posting today Dalrock keep working on em. This women needs to be the definition of the female herd.

  19. lgrobins says:

    Shouldn’t the order of Ephesians 5 be telling. The instructions for the wife to submit comes before the husband’s instructions to love.

    “If she receives irritability, criticism, disapproval, unkindness, indifference, lack of appreciation, or lack of affection, she will respond with a defense mechanism, such as bitterness, coolness, defiance, or nagging. Some women turn to drinking or submerge themselves in social activities.”

    God’s love is sometimes in the form of tough love and can be similar to “unkindness, indifference”, etc., so are we also to have a defense mechanism back to God of bitterness or take take up drinking when God doesn’t love us in the way we think we should be loved.

  20. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    Since my wife blew up our marriage seven months ago, I look back on the books and movies I turned to and I can’t help but feel angry. True, the books (Sacred Marriage, e.g.) hammered in the husband-as-servant/submissive role, but I’m still angry at myself. I’ve read the Bible. I’ve done studies. Why was I more interested in following advice of folks who interpretted the Word and not just go to the source?

    Bah. It remains. I may be angry at myself for not trusting the Word more, but I didn’t blow up the marriage. My sons still hold out hope that we’re getting back together, because the “reasons” she filed for dovorce are sooo trivial (no infidelity, abuse, late-nights, substance abuse). They’re looking at it rationally (ages 11 and 9), not like my future ex. I’ve just avoided the topic, because I can’t come up with a way to say, “Your mom’s happiness is more important to her than you coming from an intact family” without spitting out any remaining taste of her from my mouth.

  21. Chaz345 says:

    “Most Christian women I have talked to act as if wives are entitled to their husband’s unconditional love while husbands must earn probationary respect and submission.”

    Yup. No one has any problem with the idea of unconditional love, but even the concept of unconditional respect/submission is one that seemingly can’t even be grasped by many let alone be put into actual practice.

  22. theeimac says:

    @P Ray

    “Why would a man marry, if this is the kind of treatment he can look forward to getting?
    Having responsibility but no authority, and when things go wrong it is always his fault?”

    Well, when your choices are presented as eternal celibacy or eternal hellfire, then total emasculation doesn’t sound so bad. The push for evangelical feminism reaches into the lives of even single men since to have men become Aware before marriage greatly reduces the likelihood they will accept female leadership within marriage.

    Ever notice why men are so painfully nice at church? That’s why.

  23. Jacquie says:

    @RICanuck

    I was not offended at all by anything you said. My inquiry above was sincere; I really would like to know.
    As far as a conscience and finding love for my husband as I should, things happened within several months of one another. We began reading books that would not have been considered unacceptable before we left. Other events transpired causing us to leave the church; we could no longer trust the leadership. We were seeing our relationship very differently by then and things in our marriage took off.
    Please do not have feelings of envy; I should let you know that for many years I made my husband’s life miserable. I am ashamed when I recall some of my actions, when we talk and he shares with me how I made him feel at times. I know he is not completely innocent either; it takes two people in a marriage, but for more than two decades we bought what we were taught in church.
    I’m thankful that we opened our eyes, our minds, asked questions. We are still learning, still a work in progress. But I feel the need to talk openly, hoping that someone else will understand and avoid having to look back realizing how many years were thrown away. Oh, and when some of the ‘good Christian women’ ask about what’s so different about me and why my husband and I seem so happy together I can’t tell them. They really don’t want to know. (reactions have been mixed; from disbelief to pity for me.)

    @ Dalrock
    Keep writing, keep educating. Thank you.

  24. Professor Ashur says:

    God’s people are usually the last to get it right.
    But when they do, they get it best.

    Right now, the thieves and harlots are entering the kingdom ahead of them.

    The manosphere, much of non-religious, has stepped in to provide truth where the church refuses to.

  25. TheMan says:

    Two things (really the same):

    (1) Heads, she wins; tails, he loses.
    (2) Always blame the man. Women are, after all, innately good.

  26. okrahead says:

    What Peter commands is that wives are to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord. The argument that if the husband loves his wife with the same love as Christ loves then she will submit is spurious. Why? Because the woman who disrespects her husband has also rebelled against and disrespected Christ. She has received the love of Christ and STILL chooses to violate his word. Eve received the perfect love of God in the garden and still rebelled. The argument that a woman rebels only because her husband does not love her perfectly removes free will (and hence responsibility) from women, while simultaneously setting a bar men will fail at. It is a sure fire recipe for more and more spurious divorces by “Christian” (as if) wives.

  27. FFY says:

    O boy, that first one is especially bad.

    I can’t help but notice the appeal in all of this to the beta-man’s instinct to romanticize, white knight, and self-flagellate.

    If only I could love her more…
    If only I could have a more loving atmosphere…
    If only I didn’t do ______
    If only I did______
    If she is feeling “unloved”, what can I do to fix this???? Where did I go wrong???

    No mention whatsoever of the wife’s agency. If she is feeling bad, it’s his fault. If she feels good, well he’s just not fucking up. All stick, no carrot. Men of unschooled ways, when told this, can’t help but blame themselves as they romantically try harder and harder to please and supplicate. When you accept this frame and these rules, you can never win.

  28. I’ve just avoided the topic, because I can’t come up with a way to say, “Your mom’s happiness is more important to her than you coming from an intact family” without spitting out any remaining taste of her from my mouth.
    ———————————————
    rock thrower
    Man I feel you and it stinks. When I went through that I towed the party line that my wife set forth, which was “we had both done things to hurt each other and this was best for everyone” In the end, we reconciled, but I remember those days, 1.5 years worth, of having my kids around and they were like 13 , 11, and 8. They had to see what was happening and what we were telling them was utterly not fitting the reality they saw.

    Anyway, add yourself to the growing eternal list of men who had scales ripped off their eyes, but at least can now see clearly. There is SOME good in that, it changed the dynamic under which I was willing to reconcile. I went from desperate begging loser to red pill based, “these are my conditions” reconciliation. You can too

  29. FFY,
    Win?
    Oh but its not about winning!There should be no winners and losers as each give 100/100%
    (just parroting evangelical fem tripe)

  30. Dalrock says:

    @Jacquie

    I’m thankful that we opened our eyes, our minds, asked questions. We are still learning, still a work in progress. But I feel the need to talk openly, hoping that someone else will understand and avoid having to look back realizing how many years were thrown away. Oh, and when some of the ‘good Christian women’ ask about what’s so different about me and why my husband and I seem so happy together I can’t tell them. They really don’t want to know. (reactions have been mixed; from disbelief to pity for me.)

    While I don’t doubt that they express pity, I would wager they are actually feeling envy. On your larger story, while our circumstances are different it still reminded my of what my wife and I experienced. It makes me furious that Christians as a whole are doing such unspeakable violence to marriage, something which can and should be something very beautiful.

  31. RICanuck says:

    @Jacquie
    OK I understand that you are curious. I have no wish to throw this comment thread off course by engaging in theological discussions of salvation and ecclesiology. This is best taken off line, so if you wish to continue ask Dalrock for my contact information and shoot me an email. I am a Catholic, just not a good one. I have many respectful discussions with Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, and several varieties of Muslims. I am not offended by disagreement.

    @Dalrock
    Consider this permission to give Jacquie my email address, but only if she so requests.

  32. FFY says:

    @Empath

    “There should be no winners and losers as *the husband* gives 100% and the wife is free to judge his effort as worthy or unworthy on a day to day basis”

    Fixed that for ya

  33. Suz says:

    Jacquie,
    I didn’t truly “find God” until I left the church. I even explored atheism with an open mind, but found I couldn’t “not believe.” I think there are a lot of us out there.

  34. Dalrock says:

    @lgrobins

    Shouldn’t the order of Ephesians 5 be telling. The instructions for the wife to submit comes before the husband’s instructions to love.

    I’m not sure how much we should pay attention to the order either way, but one thing I noticed only after I hit “publish” is that she started the Ephesians quote in a very unlikely place. She starts at 5:23 where the logical starting place is 5:21 or 5:22. I think she did this to make it seem as if the order was different than it actually was. Anyone who wants to see what I mean can check out the whole section here. There is no logical reason to start where she did except to confuse the reader as to the order of the commands and to make submission seem like a less prominent command than it actually is. If she started in the logical starting place, readers would have seen that the statement that the husband is the head of the wife is actually sandwiched on both sides by commands to wives to submit to their husbands. It would have been harder for her to twist the meaning had she not done this.

  35. Brendan says:

    They go so far as to say that even if the wife has an affair, it’s her husband’s fault for not loving her as he should have.

    Oh that’s normal, both in and outside the church. Heck it’s even commonplace in the manosphere to say that a woman’s affair is the husband’s fault because he wasn’t “leading properly” or “wasn’t alpha enough” or “let his sex rank deteriorate”. Everyone just loves removing moral agency from women, women and men alike do it, liberal and conservative alike.

  36. Miserman says:

    okrahead writes:

    The argument that if the husband loves his wife with the same love as Christ loves then she will submit is spurious. Why? Because the woman who disrespects her husband has also rebelled against and disrespected Christ.

    I’ve found that women tend to disconnect the husband’s authority from the authority of Christ. Christ as king is softened into the safe and fuzzy realm of “Jesus as boyfriend” and any authority a man might attempt to exercise does not come from Christ, but from the sin nature. The husband’s authority comes from sin while the husband’s role of servent-leader (under the wife’s authority) is in line with the love of Christ.

  37. Jason says:

    Thanks for the post Dalrock,

    What I find so frustrating about so much of this advice, and understanding it better now that I can see it for the feminist corruption it is, is that like the most destructive of lies it contains grains of truth in it. I guess it wouldn’t be powerful or persuasive like it is were it not for the small pieces of truth smeared through the whole steaming pile of crap.

    After all, it is true that it will be easier for a wife to submit willingly to a husband when the husband does love his wife as Christ loved the Church. OF course they leave out what that love looks like and instead substitute a lot of saccharine drivel about feelings and the like.

    Likewise i’m sure if you do greet your wife constantly with hostility and indifference that this will upset her and push her away. But then they insert lies about what you should do about this.

    And that all pervading lie about “how much you love your wife being measured by how loved she feels” even contains tiny nuggets of truth even though you can smell the reek of brimstone in it. Heck, the book “The 5 Love Languages” was written addressing this very topic of how people communicate love and why it is good to know how you and your spouse express and receive affection so you can make an effort to express appreciation and affection in ways the spouse will perceive. But that doesn’t mean that “feeling loved” is a measure of how much you love someone. Of course this does get into the whole concept of “love” itself and how English has a poverty of words for describing the different sorts of love. We were definitely better off with Koine Greek and its 4 or 5 different words for love.

    Thanks for continuing to expose these false teachings in the church and calling people to account for it.

    Jason

  38. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    @empathologicalism,
    There’s no reconciliation. Here’s a snapshot:
    Sexually abused as a child (by a neighbor)
    Abusive, drunken, gambling-addict father (constantly compared to him)
    Mother is colder than a Popsicle
    Hid an abortion from her family at 18 and still won’t clear the air
    Twice diagnosed with depression, on meds, and twice took herself off the meds w/o doctor’s knowledge
    Two harpies that are her “friends” that were also sexually abused as kids and help her punch at 30 year old demons, even if it means taking it out on their husbands
    And all the issues she has, she projected on to me. I was the one with mental issues, I was the emotionally detached person, I was mentally abusive.

    She simply wants to be her mother and desperately wants me to be her father. She rationalized the divorce by making me into her father, even though I never gamble, drink moderately, and am an easy-temepered guy. She’s so invested in the divorce that to turn back, she would have to admit her entire world is a lie.

    What are the odds that someone with clear mental health issues can have a moment of clarity like that and have the strength to admit all her past statements were fabrications?

  39. Jennifer says:

    This man is fair about telling both spouses their roles, but assuming that if a husband isn’t loved, he must not have been loving his wife?? Outragous. Hazard a guess as to how many wronged husbands have become downright supplicaing under this advice? I’ve seen Christian teachers presume on both spouses’ roles by telling one that if they’re mistreated, they must have sinned first, and assuming that one spouse’s role is more important than the other is unBiblical and unfair.

  40. Interested says:

    @rockthrowingpeasant

    I would say that there is only a small chance that she would all of the sudden renounce all the accusations. But I would certainly ask you this. How long ago were you happily married? If you can say that all seemed okay six months ago, but six months later you are a monster you can certainly say that she can change. She is projecting. She needs to make you the loser. And she can wake up and rationalize all sorts of positive change if she chooses to do so. Not that her two friends will support it though.

    I take empath’s comments as just a recommendation to act with more red pill behavior. Behavior that defines terms and limits and doesn’t supplicate, bow or beg. Either way you end up going you will likely be better off for it. Not recommending that you become a complete asshole but the supplicating and begging will never work. I know from experience.

    Now we I am divorced I don’t beg or supplicate. Too bad I didn’t find these sites when I was married. She was pissed at first as she expected me to continue that behavior even after our divorce. But she got over it and now is very respectful and compliant. And frankly as I have the kids most of the time I am better off without her.

    Good luck.

  41. Good post, Dalrock.

    I have done a fair bit of helping out around the house. But I don’t do the bulk of the housework, which I have always considered to be my wife’s job. I have tied children’s shoelaces, done dishes, brought in washing, and so on. But running the house is my wife’s job, not mine. And, as I have said before, there are some jobs I choose not to do, and my wife knows and accepts this.

    (By the way, if you want to set up for a really bad argument, go grocery shopping with your wife. Nine times out of ten, it will lead to a nasty fight. I used to wonder why, but I now suspect it is because she really doesn’t want you there in the first place, trotting along behind her like a child.)

    And I have news for the male author of that piece. Christian men are indeed the “kings” in their households. That is one of the great attractions of the faith to men. St Peter suggests the word “master”. Does the male author prefer that?

    Christian men are not supposed to be parlourmaids or kitchenmaids. If you become your wife’s maid, you might as well give up altogether.

    I am tempted to call the male author of the target piece some choice names, but I shall restrain myself on this occasion.

    Dalrock, I think your tone on this is “spot on” and I admire your patience in dealing with these people.

  42. Iowa Jim says:

    Excellent post, as was its predecessor. One of the pastors (the other is his wife) at my church gave a great deal of praise to mothers yesterday, since it was Mothers’ Day. The church has a men’s group that meets on the first and third Tuesdays of the month. He attends. Tomorrow is the third Tuesday of the month. I’m going to ask him whether he (or whoever performs the services) will be offering a similar paean to fathers on Fathers’ Day.

  43. Buck says:

    So, here goes…Mrs and I had a rough patch a few years back. We decided she could be an at-home mom for the kinder…cool, right.
    Well, I was a batch for years and frankly I’m pretty good at domestic chores; cooking, cleaning, fixing, maintaining, money management, etc…fact is the only thing I really need her for is…well you know.
    Mrs simply had child care when I was at work, and leisure. The biggest decision of her day was Starbucks or Caribou for coffee.
    Mrs had a close relative who she confided in often, and when the storm clouds were upon us this go-between told me Mrs big beef was…get this, I was too independent…I didn’t “need” her enough!
    Moral of the story…they can not EVER be happy, they will find something to bitch about, it’s their nature.
    Post Script;
    She went back to work, is frantic with things to do, never has time for anything, I quit house help, and she is a better wife now than ever. Chicks dig jerks…sad but true!

  44. Country lawyer says:

    Never, Iowa Jim, never have I heard a paean to father’s on fathers day at any church I have ever attended on that day, protestant or catholic.

    And I would be willing to bet you won’t either.

    You will hear how you don’t measure up. Guaranteed.

  45. Buck, yes, chicks dig jerks. Putting it more positively, women like a challenge. And they like something to feel oppressed about. I am a naturally fairly nice bloke, but every time I behave like a dick, my wife moves a bit closer to me in every way. It is like clockwork. Very peculiar and paradoxical.

  46. will says:

    After some statistics from our good friend Mr. Stanton on cherry picked Christian divorce rates, on page two she quotes Eph. 5:23-32. This is a promising turn, but she quickly rationalizes the scripture away:

    Husbands are urged to lay down their lives in sacrificial love and protection. And in this safe and cherished embrace of a loving husband, what wife would not be willing to submit to his leadership?

    I will offer a rebuttal from scripture:

    Peter 1:35-6
    5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

  47. will, the husband is the master of the house. The suggestion that he should trot around after his wife, helping her like a housemaid, is ludicrous.

  48. Höllenhund says:

    @Brendan 5:12 pm

    Funnily enough the idiots with this mentality never ask themselves the question why women should have any civil rights at all if they cannot be held responsible for anything, adultery included. It no longer surprises me, though. That’s how gynocentrism functions.

    Equally comical are the regular complaints of PUAs, traditionalists (men and women alike) plus women in general that ’rugged masculinity is sadly disappearing’, ’men forgot how to be men’, ’men no longer know how to lead properly’ etc.. They speak of this phenomenon as if it were some kind of natural disaster, like a tornado striking out of nowhere, something that just happened. As if one day men, for some inexplicable reason, simply forgot how to behave like rugged men.

    Outside of the Manosphere it goes completely unmentioned that this was the long-term, completely predictable and in some circles, desired consequence of women demanding economic independence. As we know well, female economic independence necessitates certain social ’reforms’. The education system had to be turned female-friendly i.e. anti-male. Workplaces also had to be turned female-friendly, which meant sexual harassment laws and AA. Female economic independence (coupled with safe contraception) in turn enables female sexual indepencence, which then means rape shield laws, Marriage 2.0 and other similar rubbish. Voilá! The current mess is already in place. But no, PUAs, tradcons and other idiots simply cannot admit this obvious truth. Instead everybody is expected to believe that women can have their cake and eat it too.

    The simple fact, of course, is that women cannot have it both ways. Either they live in a safe, civilized, advanced and stable society, in which case they’ll be surrounded by men they don’t want i.e. beta working drones, or they’ll be surrounded by men they want, in which case society turns into a matriarchal shithole like West Africa. There is no third route and never will be. Either we waste our time trying to hammer this into women’s heads or we go our own way.

  49. Franz says:

    Husbands are urged to lay down their lives in sacrificial love and protection. And in this safe and cherished embrace of a loving husband, what wife would not be willing to submit to his leadership?

    A sinful one. One bit of Scripture I particularly like to cite is Isaiah 53.

    Who has believed our message
    and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
    He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
    and like a root out of dry ground.
    He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
    nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
    He was despised and rejected by mankind,

    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
    Like one from whom people hide their faces
    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

    Not even Jesus Himself was universally respected by women. Many failed to even recognize His station, let alone respect it. The same holds true among many today and now that the power of sin is broken, there is absolutely no excuse for it, just as there was no excuse for it in the Garden of Eden. Another thing I like about Isaiah 53 is that it flies directly in the face of what I call the Tingle Defense: “Give him a chance? But he doesn’t turn me on!!!11” So what if he doesn’t? That’s not the point. Look for the qualities you know are important when you’re emotionally sober and learn to love him anyway. The feelings will follow the will. I have overcome my own lack of immediate attraction at the prompting of the evidence enough times to know that attraction can be a choice…and frankly, love given involuntarily is not really love at all. If you were lucky enough to be immediately blown away by Mr. Right, praise God for that but know that it is a privilege, not a right, and know also that even with the immediate buzz, the quality of your love will be tested sooner or later. Better to sober up immediately than to presume against logic that you will never fall out of euphoria.

  50. Interested and Rock Thrower
    I was a bit unclear but interested got it. There are a couple of months of bad misery, then you emerge from that and start going your own way, ideally, part of that for me was having time to obsessively read and research all this stuff and the painful change from blue pill to red ensued. Its funny because those painful months made me sickly and pale and all that so there is almost a physical comparison to Neo climbing out of that tank of muck and entering the real world, then finding his mission there. I bet many men who have gone through this and ended up red pill men, whether they reconciled or divorced, will agree with the comparison.

    You have to set YOUR terms, in fact its one of the core messages here for all men who will hear whats being said. Set your terms, use scripture as your guide, and take the HIGHEST road, the high road is a mess, corrupted with feminists and pastors who are their useful idiots

  51. When I read stories about intergender relation issues today I almost feel like I have to assume the role of a forensic historian – picking back through events that led to the problems we have now. I don’t think it’s a surprise that most of these chronologies usually trace back to the gender power and cultural shifts around the time of the sexual revolution.

    So, whenever I read the “biblical” advice from recognized authorities about marriage, sex, gender relations, “Godly dating”, gender expectations, etc. I always remember that the people proffering this wisdom are the manifest result of at least 3 generations of a culture steeped in feminization. The church, evangelical or otherwise, was no insulation against this. Even the fire breathing oblivious idiocy of Mark Driscoll is still the product of his being acculturated in a religious society so influenced by feminization that it’s raised the feminine up to godhood.

    This is the ultimate in pedestalization of the feminine. In fact feminization has placed woman on a stage above even God when you consider that salvation (via God’s love) cannot be earned through acts, but men must be kept in a perpetual state of qualifying for the love of “the most beautiful creature under God’s heaven” through nothing but acts of devotion.

    That must be one realllly magical pussy to engender that level of dedication.

  52. ukfred says:

    @Empathologicalism writes
    “I have said and will keep saying, the end game of evangelical feminism (for Christian women that REALLY are Christians but badly wrong on marriage….key distinction here) Joel and Kathy represent where it all gets to if allowed to drift unhindered.”
    I have been suggesting for a while that http://www.themarriagebed.com is a better place for Christian input into marriage problems than places like Christian Forums. TMB has had Joel & Kathy as posters. They didn’t get an easy ride and have not been on TMB for some time, according to at least one ‘old hand’ Coincidentally, they also got a mention on “The Generous Husband” recently, and that wasn’t terribly praising of them either.

    “I went from desperate begging loser to red pill based, “these are my conditions” reconciliation. You can too”
    Interestingly, David Schnarch, in Passionate marriage, suggests that it is only when we are totally honest and willing to give up a relationship that is unacceptable, that we have the opportunity to change that relationship into one that is much better. I suppose that it is looking at the situation from the opposite end to Mark Gungor, when he tells people that they are allowing the things they claim are unacceptable to continue to happen.

    @okrahead writes:
    “The argument that if the husband loves his wife with the same love as Christ loves then she will submit is spurious. Why? Because the woman who disrespects her husband has also rebelled against and disrespected Christ.”

    Am I reading too much into your thesis here to think that the logical conclusion is that if such a wife wishes to divorce, then we should let her, and treat her as an unbeliever?

  53. Firepower says:

    All this controversy over structural difficulties arising from an institution made of of two willing individuals predicts even more abandoning it.

  54. Southern Man says:

    All of the church-based counseling we received during my sixteen-year marriage was of this type: it was MY job to love my wife, and MY responsibility to keep her happy, and her unhappiness was MY FAULT. Too bad I found Eggeriches’ “Love and Respect” AFTER the divorce – it taught me more in two hours than ten years of “Christian” counseling. And there are now at least three couples that were going through the same BS as we did but ten minutes with me turned their marriages around. Why don’t Christians get this? Eggeriches is simply amplifying what Paul said and explaining why it works.

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    This is just the Churchian version of the same old game. “Strong”, “independent wimmenz” who are “doin’ it for themselves”, who just happen to not want to own their nasty mistakes but rather to blame it all on some man who’s handy. And men are supposed to go along with this, in the name of Churchianity? ‘Scuse me, I don’t think so.

    If women are truly co-equal in every way to men, then all that “weaker vessel” stuff has to go and married women must own their behavior, mistakes and all. On the other hand, if women are truly dainty, delicate creatures who are always somehow under their husband’s sway & therefore her behavior is his responsibility, then all that co-equal stuff has to go out the window & women need to do as they are told and shut up about it.

    The whole “I”m a strong, independent, tough woman who needs to be taken care of and anything bad I do is Not My Fault” jazz is old, stale and getting pretty stinky. Dressing up the pro-female double standard with Bible quotes is like spraying the contents of a trash can with gold paint – it may look a bit better but it is still the same stuff it was before.

  56. White Raven says:

    In Ephesians 6 the Bible says that even slaves should serve wholeheartedly as if they are serving the Lord and not people, because the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

    In other words, a wife’s order from God is to submit. If her husband is doing a great job at loving her like Christ loves the church then that is great and it sure makes it easier. But even if he is not loving her like he should her responsibility to submit remains unchanged. She is being graded on how well she submits, her husband is being graded on how well he loves her as Christ loved the church.

    The actions of your spouse really have nothing to do with your grade. If your spouse is worthless and has no redeeming qualities at all then do the job you were called to do as if you’re doing it for Christ himself. If that command is good enough for slaves it’s good enough for everyone.

  57. Firepower says:

    White Raven:
    If your spouse is worthless and has no redeeming qualities at all then do the job you were called to do as if you’re doing it for Christ himself.

    If god is around enough to ordain a marriage – what’s his purpose for having you marry Jezebel II?

  58. Ariane says:

    Very late to the response, but I wanted to thank RICanuck for his kind words. Yes, I’m a regular reader of Dalrock, Athol, and Roissy, plus a few others depending on the week. I have the good fortune to be married to a wonderful man, and I am DETERMINED not to mess this up. May God bless you as well, and bring you peace.

  59. White Raven says:

    @Firepower

    The point is that once you are married, Biblically you are in it for life and your job is to live up to God’s commands for your marriage whether man or woman regardless of how your spouse holds up their end of the agreement. If you can’t bring yourself to do your duty for your spouse then do it for Christ instead. Your spouse not doing their job does not give you the right to stop doing yours. You will be judged for your own actions, not those of your spouse.

  60. Firepower says:

    White Raven
    Your spouse not doing their job does not give you the right to stop doing yours.

    Why would God ordain your holy marriage union and Destiny as one of such irritation?

    Better to use your Free Will and be single.
    Take all that money you’d have wasted on a wedding
    and give it to charity.

  61. Firepower says:

    Or, better yet: give away all you have to follow Him – like the Rich Young Man.
    Become a missionary in India
    leave the internetz behind

  62. John Miller says:

    A friend who’s going through a difficult divorce filed by his “unhaaaaapy” wife pointed me to this blog and asked me to spend time here and give him my thoughts. I’ve done so, and thought I’d share some of them with the group.

    1. As to churches teaching that husbands are responsible for keeping their wives happy and if they don’t, they’re failures as husbands: I’ve been an active member of my denomination since my early teens (I’m mid-50s now). I’ve served as a deacon at three congregations and as an elder at my current church for the last 12 years. I have never (let me repeat that – never) heard a teacher or preacher emphasize husbands’ responsibilities to love their wives while largely giving wives a pass on their obligation to submit. Consistent with what White Raven noted above, the teaching I’ve personally witnessed has been of the “it’s each spouse’s obligation to love or respect the other, regardless of how they behave toward you.” Further, my wife and I have attended pastoral counseling training, and in not one of them has the responsibility scale been tilted toward wives and against husbands. We’ve sought to be equally forceful with men and women on their responsibilities to God and each other. Sometimes the man needed to make more changes than the woman. Other times, the opposite.

    2. As to frivolous divorces filed by unhaaaapy wives: I don’t doubt there are worldly women who do so, but I am compelled to take issue with what appears to be the consensus view here that professing Christian wives aren’t behaving much differently than their worldly sisters. At my current church, fewer than 10 divorces have happened during my 19 years there. Not one (let me repeat – not one) was frivolous. Biblical grounds existed for each one of them. The man was the “guilty” party sometimes, and sometimes it was the wife. I’ve seen no pattern in my church experience that one gender is responsible (in the sense of being guilty of sexual infidelity, genuine physical abuse, or abandonment) for more divorces than the other.

    While generalizations are a necessary evil in life, I hope that those who frequent this blog (and others like it) don’t lose heart because some posters have been badly burned by pastors/teachers/churches that have sold out to feminist society and browbeat husbands while largely giving wives a pass. There are Bible-believing churches where the whole counsel of God regarding marriage is forcefully taught and where the vast majority of women understand Biblical submission and are content to be submissive.

  63. slwerner says:

    John Miller – ”I am compelled to take issue with what appears to be the consensus view here that professing Christian wives aren’t behaving much differently than their worldly sisters.”

    Um, John, it’s not just here – it’s the entire western world. Dalrock has repeatedly published the numbers which show that so-called professing Christians divorce at a rate nearly the same as that seen for society at-large.

    I’d have to say that your church and denomination are NOT an example of what is typical, but rather the rare exception. There are simply too few like what you describe, and too many like what so many of the rest of us have experienced first-hand.

  64. Dalrock says:

    @John Miller

    As to churches teaching that husbands are responsible for keeping their wives happy and if they don’t, they’re failures as husbands: I’ve been an active member of my denomination since my early teens (I’m mid-50s now). I’ve served as a deacon at three congregations and as an elder at my current church for the last 12 years. I have never (let me repeat that – never) heard a teacher or preacher emphasize husbands’ responsibilities to love their wives while largely giving wives a pass on their obligation to submit.

    Your story would be more believable to me if you had experienced the issues we describe at some churches but not your current one. It leaves me wondering if you would be able to identify the problem if it were staring you in the face.

  65. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    @John Miller,
    If you don’t mind sharing, is your congregation Reformed or Arminian? Strict Calvinist? Curious.

    More to the meat of the matter. The relative lack of divorce in the congregation suggests that it is likely an outlier, given the statistics, wouldn’t you say? If that’s the case, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the reasons for the divorces are likely not as mainstream?

  66. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    Understanding that one of my favorite phrases is, “Data is not the plural of anecdote,” my boys go to a Christian school. The response to my wife’s divorce? Team Vagina rallied around her and I haven’t heard a peep from anyone associated with the church. We’re charging headlong into sin (divorce) and no one has reached out to see if there’s a chance to reconcile.

    My sincere belief that it is beyond human reconciliation efforts aside, the dog is not barking. All is normal or acceptable, according to a major church (congregation of thousands) in our area.

    I’ve left that church.

  67. TheMan says:

    John Miller:

    I certainly don’t doubt that. There ARE good people and good churches out there, and I’m sure most people here concur. Dalrock does call out “Christians” who don’t accept the Bible when it comes to these issues, however. Unfortunately, their views are quite common, even in churches.

  68. John Miller says:

    @ rockthrowingpeasant asked the following questions, to which I respond as noted below:

    If you don’t mind sharing, is your congregation Reformed or Arminian? Strict Calvinist? Curious. JM response: I am a member of the Churches of Christ. As such, we do not have a central denominational headquarters and each local congregation is responsible for selecting its own leadership (deacons, elders, evangelists). A consequence of this is that we don’t have a formal confession of faith or creed that one could easily identify us, such as “Reformed” or “Arminian.” However, I would say most members would consider themselves Arminian if asked.

    More to the meat of the matter. The relative lack of divorce in the congregation suggests that it is likely an outlier, given the statistics, wouldn’t you say? JM response: as I mentioned above, since Churches of Christ do not have a central headquarters, it is somewhat difficult to obtain statistics. Dr. Flavil Yeakley, Jr., a professor at Harding University, Searcy, Arkansas, has developed a reputation among “us” as the semi-official statistician of our religious fellowship. The most recent of Dr. Yeakley’s statistical analyses I was able to locate (from 2008) indicates that for those who claim active membership in Churches of Christ, the divorce rate is ~6%. Given the size of my current congregation, that statistic is accurate. That said, our divorce rate may be significantly lower than the rest of the religious world because those who are determined to divorce for reasons other than “cause” (sexual infidelity, repeated physical abuse, true abandonment) may very well drop out of religion entirely or go to a religious body that is more tolerant of divorce than we understand the Bible to be.

    If that’s the case, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the reasons for the divorces are likely not as mainstream? JM response: Members of our congregations who divorce for frivolous reasons (such as the “unhaaaapy wife syndrome”) are generally not welcomed with open arms. And, given our restrictive view of the reasons for divorce that permit re-marriage (virtually everyone would say sexual infidelity is such a reason, and perhaps most would say abandonment, while it’s likely that most would not permit remarriage solely for physical abuse), those who take their faith seriously tend to stick out difficult marriages rather than risk having fellowship withdrawn by the church and potentially spending eternity in Hell absent genuine repentance.

    Let me know if you’d like to explore any of these thoughts/themes in more detail.

  69. John Miller

    I can tell that you wouldnt recognize the problem if it was staring you in the face. Know how I can tell? Because the rest of your discourse is evangelical feminist rhetorical trickery writ large.

    You throw YOUR experience as if thats data
    You say generalizations are a “necessary evil”……..thats a big one, a generalization is no more evil than a sum, a difference, or a square root. Its a representation of a statistical fact.

    Those statements were more than enough for me to move along, nothing to see here

  70. John Miller says:

    @ slwerner

    Um, John, it’s not just here – it’s the entire western world. Dalrock has repeatedly published the numbers which show that so-called professing Christians divorce at a rate nearly the same as that seen for society at-large.

    JM response: I don’t dispute that the divorce rate in “Christendom” in general is not much better than among the rest of society. I sought to point out that there are “subsets” of the Christian community (mine included) that have substantially lower divorce rates (see my reply to rockthrowingpeasant).

    I’d have to say that your church and denomination are NOT an example of what is typical, but rather the rare exception. There are simply too few like what you describe, and too many like what so many of the rest of us have experienced first-hand.

    JM response: That may very well be true. All churches that claim to be Bible-believing should be teaching the same thing about the sanctity of marriage and the very few Biblically-justifiable bases for divorce. To the extent that isn’t happening, it’s a real shame, and the leaders of those churches will be called to account on Judgment Day (James 3:1).

    @Dalrock

    Your story would be more believable to me if you had experienced the issues we describe at some churches but not your current one. It leaves me wondering if you would be able to identify the problem if it were staring you in the face.

    JM response: Dalrock, maybe I don’t understand what you mean, but if I do, I’m troubled by two things:

    1. That the story of my experience (supplemented by the statistical analysis I mention in my response to rockthrowingpeasant) is not believable because I haven’t been involved in fellowships that teach what you describe. I do recognize my “tribe” is fairly small (slightly over 1.2 million, if I remember right) and that our experience is likely to be different than the broader Christian community. That said, I accept at face value that there are religious groups that have been co-opted by feminism on this topic. May I ask you to explain in more detail why you think my story isn’t believable?

    2. That my powers of observation are so lacking that I wouldn’t recognize the atmosphere you’re describing if it “hit me in the face.” I suppose that’s possible, but unlikely. I am an attorney, and was educated at a Christian university. Neither of these assure my perspicuity, but my sense of Biblical morality honed by training to not accept things at face value greatly diminish the likelihood that I’ve completely overlooked this problem in my fellowship.

  71. John Miller says:

    @empathologicalism

    I can tell that you wouldnt recognize the problem if it was staring you in the face. Know how I can tell? Because the rest of your discourse is evangelical feminist rhetorical trickery writ large.

    JM response: Ad hominem. Nothing to see here.

    You throw YOUR experience as if thats data – JM response – I did nothing of the sort.

  72. John
    You said :””At my current church, fewer than 10 divorces have happened during my 19 years there. Not one (let me repeat – not one) was frivolous. Biblical grounds existed for each one of them. ”

    And, you did nothing of the sort? Is that not YOUR experience in YOUR church? Was it not included amongst verbiage that was intended to refute claims about churches in general?

    Are you serious?

    You are really really sold out to the evangelical fem tactics, so much so its the instinct level, which is a higher level than the clever level.

  73. Dalrock says:

    JM,

    Thanks for the additional info. Your church is truly extraordinary. I don’t have time right now, but if you don’t mind I’ll add your church to the list (1st) of churches which have a measured low divorce rate.

  74. Some Guy says:

    While I’m skeptical of John Miller… I have to admit that, say, Old Order Amish/Mennonites have a culture in which divorce is unthinkable. If someone came in from outside that was married to someone that was divorced and whose former spouse was still alive… they would freak out. They also would not do anything to get cross ways with their ministers– the “ban” is a pretty serious deal. It’s possible other groups can get really low divorce rates.

    As far as the Churches of Christ goes… I’d like to hear some of their Mother’s Day and Father’s Day sermons side by side. Also… the statistic I would be curious to would be what percentage of the wives withhold sex from their hubands– and what sort of lame excuse would get her a pass for this in marital counseling. I know it’d be tacky to even ask, but as someone that’s been defrauded in a marriage covenant I am much less likely to assume everything’s okay.

    (I’ve already been thrown under the bus by Pastor Alpha one too many times….)

  75. Dalrock says:

    @JM

    That my powers of observation are so lacking that I wouldn’t recognize the atmosphere you’re describing if it “hit me in the face.” I suppose that’s possible, but unlikely. I am an attorney, and was educated at a Christian university. Neither of these assure my perspicuity, but my sense of Biblical morality honed by training to not accept things at face value greatly diminish the likelihood that I’ve completely overlooked this problem in my fellowship.

    I didn’t understand that you were part of such an isolated subculture. The way I’ve explained it before is a mainstream Christian claiming they don’t see the problem is very much like a Mexican border town police officer claiming there is no problem with police corruption. Either they don’t know what corruption is, or they are lying. But your situation is something different. Given that, I’m still puzzled why you answered in a more general sense. I’m guessing that you understand how different your church is than 99% of the Christians in the US. An honest Christian on the topic of marriage and divorce stands out as much as an honest cop in Juarez.

  76. John

    With due respect, it isn’t a lack of observational skill that makes men miss these things. Ive been through this dynamic with men of equal pedigree, and seen very intelligent perceptive men insist exactly what you are, I mean almost verbatim. I had a group of 5 friends I met with regularly when I lived in TX, we were involved in local politics, and all Christians. This evangelical feminist problem was germane to politics and to church, and I was alone in raising the alarm, and these men, to a man, insisted that THEY went to churches that held everyone to account and didnt coddle women nor overly decry the male nature.

    I asked them, lets talk about this over time, so we did, we went through several months of discussing sermons and my asking what they said, etc etc. Eventually 4 of the 5 were utterly convinced I was right and even they no longer believed the 5th guy.
    Now, I tell that story expressly as anecdote, it proves nothing, statistically. What it does do is show I have (as have most here) heard all of this before, and frankly most of us have SAID it all before. 8 years ago, I would be you, arguing that I had never seen such things in any churches I went to.

    The reason you do not see it is that its NORMAL. That, combined with the fact that they have managed to frame things differently than the way things are keeps you blind. They are not conspiracy mongers, they are just following the tide of feminism, and by keeping women happy, things are easily accepted since there are no upheavals.

    We can believe your acuity and question how badly conventional wisdom has clouded your vision.

    I question the 6% even and how its been measured, because for 7 years Ive been deeply read on this stuff and have not seen anything like that, it defies mathematical credibility, its highly improbable that a rate can deviate that far, the odds are in lotto land.

    The whole picture looks like a comfy chair, which is what it is. If the chair is comfy, why turn it over and see if there is anything wrong with it. Stay seated and comfy.

    (This post certified free of fallacy bearing Latin names)

  77. How is 1.2 million a small number that is isolated and not corrupted?

  78. Jacquie says:

    The discussion has turned to one of divorce rates while Dalrock’s post discusses the reframing of marriage. Statistics have been tossed around, comparisons between one church community and another and the non-Christian community.
    What is left out are the statistics that cannot be measured. The number of couples that continue to live as husband and wife because of the particular church community they are involved with. There are households where the husband defers to the wife and she stays with the marriage, haaaappy or not. For her it’s a pride issue. She doesn’t want to feel like a failure even if she could pull off blaming it all on her husband. For him, well, he’s seen what’s happened to one or two other men in the church who went the way of separation and he doesn’t really feel like he wants to head in that direction. His current living conditions, although rough, seem livable compared to being ostracized by the people he knows as friends.
    Or perhaps he follows a different path all together. I’m getting ready a post about this other alternative that doesn’t fit the statistics of separation and divorce even though the reasons are the same.
    What I’m saying is that just because the divorce rate in a particular community is low doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone is living the type of marriage as written in the Bible, or that everyone it content with their situation. There may be a lot of pew warmers just waiting for the till death do us part to happen. Dismal way to look at things, and I wouldn’t write it if I didn’t know a few couples close to this model, but it is reality and something that needs to be considered while data and statistics are getting thrown around. The numbers do not tell the whole story.

  79. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    JM,
    Thanks for the reply. I really wish more congregations were as successful as your congregation is in fortifying and safeguarding marriage. It is indeed a rarity, which is why many of us are lamenting the “mainstreaming” of divorce within Christianity and the tacit acceptance of the frivolous divorce, which is the experience of far, far, far more American Christian communities. Thus, our “consensus view here that … Christian wives aren’t behaving much differently than their worldly sisters.”

  80. John Miller says:

    @empathologicalism

    [JM] said :””At my current church, fewer than 10 divorces have happened during my 19 years there. Not one (let me repeat – not one) was frivolous. Biblical grounds existed for each one of them. ” To which empahologicalism responded: “And, you did nothing of the sort? Is that not YOUR experience in YOUR church? Was it not included amongst verbiage that was intended to refute claims about churches in general?”

    JM response: I am part of a religious fellowship where divorce is very rare. And, my individual experience is consistent with the (admittedly) sparse data available. Since I have no experience with other religious groups, I am not in a position to dispute the claims made by those who do have experience/data, nor do I intend to. The point I intended to make (and apparently inartfully) is that there are religious groups of some size (~1 million isn’t entirely chump change) that haven’t succumbed to secular – and evangelical – culture re divorce. I wanted to give some level of hope to any who might be discouraged about finding a good Christian wife who has a Biblical understanding of Ephesians 5:22.

    You are really really sold out to the evangelical fem tactics, so much so its the instinct level, which is a higher level than the clever level.

    JM response: Yet more ad hominem that is inaccurate in the extreme. I invite you to get to know me better before you start attacking my character.

  81. Firepower says:

    This is all such a large discussion
    about a massive, lingering issue
    allegedly blessed by God

    If marriage is willed and ordained by God it should not be so difficult.
    What would the result be if marriage were something He were against?

  82. Strong Man says:

    @lgrobbins got it above: “God’s love is sometimes in the form of tough love. . .”

    In the command, “Love your wife as Christ Loved the Church,” we have often thrown out an entire aspect of Christ’s Love: “Whom the Lord Loveth, He Chasteneth” (See Prov. 3:12, Heb. 12:6, and Revelation 3:19). Jesus showed anger, wrath, and corrected and criticized His disciples. He did not ask them what they wanted and just give it to them. Often, He didn’t seem to care much what they wanted or what else they were in the middle of doing–just interrupted them in the middle of their work day and said, “Come follow me.”

    When people talk ONLY of Jesus’ sacrificial, unconditional love, I wonder if they are even reading their Bibles anymore. Yes, he loved everyone, but sometimes that love included calling people “whited seplechres,” “ravening wolves,” “hypocrites,” and even making a whip and forcefully chasing people out of the temple.

    More about this in As Christ Loved the Church.

    If we actually love our wives “As Christ Loved,” The Bible gets actually quite close to many principles of Game.

  83. Anonymous Reader says:

    For what it is worth, it appears to me that John Miller is referring to this church denomination (although it appears that they reject the idea of denominations):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Christ

    and not to this church denomination (Pres. Obama’s one time pastor, Rev. Wright is part of this group)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ

    The former group apparently rejects the use of musical instruments in services on a Biblical basis.
    The latter group has run TV advertisements bragging about their inclusiveness.

    So of the two, the former is more likely to take a strict line on divorce.

  84. Anonymous Reader says:

    C’mon, Firepower, that’s on a par with “Can God make a rock so huge he can’t lift it?”, dorm-room level philosophizing.It’s Dalrock’s blog, take the Bible quotes as stipulated for threads with titles that include words like “Christian marriage”. There’ll be another more general thread in a while, I’m sure.

  85. John Miller says:

    @anonymous reader

    You are correct – my “tribe” is the group described in the first wiki article.

    FWIW, I live in a mid-size suburb of a large metro area in the Midwest, and the congregation of which I’m an elder has a membership in the low 300s. That may or may not be relevant to anyone’s view of me, but I’m not part of a small congregation made up mostly of biological relatives in a small town somewhere.

  86. Firepower says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    C’mon, Firepower, that’s on a par with “Can God make a rock so huge he can’t lift it?

    No. It’s not on par with a mythical rock. It IS on par with: Why would God ordain your holy marriage union and life destiny as a path of such irritation?

  87. Dalrock says:

    @Jacquie

    What I’m saying is that just because the divorce rate in a particular community is low doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone is living the type of marriage as written in the Bible, or that everyone it content with their situation. There may be a lot of pew warmers just waiting for the till death do us part to happen. Dismal way to look at things, and I wouldn’t write it if I didn’t know a few couples close to this model, but it is reality and something that needs to be considered while data and statistics are getting thrown around. The numbers do not tell the whole story.

    It isn’t perfect, but it is probably the best metric we can hope for. A church which imposes so much social pressure against divorce is by definition fighting feminism tooth and nail. So it is very likely that they aren’t ashamed of the biblical commands to wives the way almost all other churches are. As I think you would agree, following the biblical model will translate into less marital strife and more contentment. Also, even the topic of unhappy couples sticking it out because they have to isn’t as bad as it sounds on its face. The researchers who studied this have found that those couples tend to come through the other side happy. Sticking it out just because turns out to be the secret to happy marriages. You will of course find some chronic malcontents, but these will be the exception (although more visible).

  88. Jason says:

    Just a comment on low measured divorce rates and the like. Or low measure “frivolous” divorce rates. Since my wife asked for a divorce some years ago (we are working towards reconcilliation at this point, and Dalrock, Athol Kay, Mark Gungor and many others have been instrumental in making this happen I think and helping me to understand where I was going wrong, including being overly betaized), i’ve noticed many of the people in church I am with are divorced and sometimes remarried. But of all the cases I know the details of, the divorced party at the church either didn’t divorce frivolously or wasn’t the one who initiated the divorce. Part of this is based on their own reporting, so they could be lying but I don’t think so, and I am not familiar with the details of all cases, but assuming the cases I know of to be approximately normative, the number of frivolously divorced people in my congregation would be quite low. I’m not sure how much it is actually measured, and my observations are, I freely admit, anecdotal.

    However, the reason for the low instances of frivolously divorced people is that in all the cases I know, the party in the wrong is either no longer at the church or is no longer at any church.

    So what John Miller could be observing in part is simply a self selection effect based on a congregation that isn’t gung-ho about all divorce being acceptable. Given how many churches seem to be, combined with a culture keen to approve such actions (and even reward them), even moderate disapproval of it will quickly drive the guilty party elsewhere, so they wouldn’t turn up as statistics.

    Also, there is an assumption that John knows everyone who is divorced in the church. He probably doesn’t.

    Jason

  89. Jacquie says:

    Dalrock,

    Thank you so much for the links. Working through archives is so very time consuming, it’s great to know just where to look for information.

    “The researchers who studied this have found that those couples tend to come through the other side happy.”

    Since my husband and I fit the above demographic, I wholeheartedly agree, and I’m glad that we’re not the exception in finding happiness. It has been sad to watch as couples I know are going through the same paces. I am hopeful that circumstances will change for them sooner rather than later.

  90. The Antigrrrl says:

    @TFH

    Number 3 is not possible, no matter how biblically based a church is, because churches have no legal power. Many churches I am familier with will put out divorcing members, if things even get that far, but they cannot enforce custody or alimony. ***having visions of an Amish police force***

  91. Firepower says:

    @The Antigrrrl

    His main points are 1 & 2. The deal before the marriage.
    The requirements for women – which, today are nonexistent.

    You’re focusing on #3 – the one that so happens to be The Big Cash-out for girls.
    The church, at least could enforce those requirements.

  92. The Antigrrrl says:

    No they can’t, because if a woman is doing that she does not care what the church says. She is already apostate.

  93. Jason says:

    @TFH,

    Although others are right to point out that given existing “marriage laws” (I think scare quotes from now on because what is called marriage long since ceased to be that really) enforcing #3 is impossible, it might actually be possible to do a partial or even total end run around that.

    Although it would be a little difficult and th I suspect many churches would be reluctant to go that route, especialyl the uselessly feminized ones that wont dare offend tehwimmenz.

    But anyway, perhaps the solution is for the churches to require pre-nups for anybody getting married there that enforce more sane no-fault oriented conditions for marriage and more biblical grounds for fault, or perhaps even go one step further and marry people but have them enter into a private marriage contract instead that has more traditional and certainly more biblical grounds for ending the contract.

    I’m not sure how practical the private contract route would be in practice, and a court could decide to interfere with a pre-nup, but it would offer at least some protection.

    Given the states love of penalizing married people anyway, this opting out of state regulated marriage might be an excellent form of protest for the church as long as they don’t then go soft on “living together in sin”, assuming they aren’t already soft on that.

    Anyway, just a thought.

    Jason

  94. GKChesterton says:

    @rock,

    ’ve just avoided the topic, because I can’t come up with a way to say, “Your mom’s happiness is more important to her than you coming from an intact family” without spitting out any remaining taste of her from my mouth.

    While it is likely impossible I am one of those throw backs that thinks marriage is permanent in line with Jesus injunction. I dearly hope your wife turns around. If truly mentally ill as opposed to just mean then I would say that only increases your burden to try to reconcile.

    @Dalrock
    [on order]

    I’d be skeptical too but this isn’t the only place where primacy on first reaction is given to the woman. Consider 1 Cor 7:12-16. It is definitely a reminder to both spouses that responsibility starts with “me” but it seems to give the greater weight to women. I’m not sure why but that seems to be the case.

    St. Chrysostom _seems_ to agree:
    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220119.htm

    In fact his discussion on adulteresses in Homily 19 is very “red pill” and well worth reading. This also reminds me that he was acclaimed as the Golden Tongue. Women and men both will respond to this if you are ballsy enough to talk about it.

    That being said for the same reason I’m not as inclined to fault About.com’s article given that they try to treat this in a Pauline manner.

    @John Miller

    The rate in your Church is low and is close to what I had growing up (though my original group had a higher rate). A majority of the posters here (not myself) are from either mainline or evangelical groups and the divorce rate is considerably higher. I’ve had enough conversations with people on that side of the fence to know they aren’t overstating the case. It shouldn’t be assumed that the players involved (that is the Churches and the women in them) are trying to rebel, they just are. It is a “formal” type of rebellion just like I view you as a “formal” heretic (as I’m Orthodox that goes for most of the folks here).

    And the problem is the mainline/evangelical camp is falling on its sword in a bunch of places of which one if feminism. Feminism is also the de facto cultural position and as such it tends to infect our thinking. I’d argue that if you stay here for a bit you may begin to realize that’s effects can even be felt in your thought. Which is only normal. Given the promised nature of the “air of this world” we would expect to be affected by such thought. Anyways welcome aboard and I hope you stay around for a bit.

    And yes…the first couple of weeks is unnecessarily tough…its a movement that seems keen on stabbing new recruits.

  95. St John Chrysostom. Chrysostom meaning “golden mouthed”. Pretty blunt about women and their burden of the sin of Eve.

  96. ray says:

    if you tossed a dalrock into a calm lake, how long would it take for the ripples to start hitting shore?

    http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/2012/05/is-your-church-doing-courageous.html

  97. ray says:

    Dalrock — It isn’t perfect, but it is probably the best metric we can hope for. A church which imposes so much social pressure against divorce is by definition fighting feminism tooth and nail”

    by no means is that true — i’d suggest a re-read of empath’s mega-grok of John at 4:03

    feminism has many heads besides marriage/divorce issues, including in the “churches”

  98. ray says:

    GK — I’d argue that if you stay here for a bit you may begin to realize that’s effects can even be felt in your thought. Which is only normal. Given the promised nature of the “air of this world” we would expect to be affected by such thought

    yup in the very ‘air we breathe’ straight from air force one :O)

    . . . pervasive at an unconscious level, such that most of the lies and slanders are already accepted as normal and common sense by right-thinking folk . . . progressive improvements for Protection and Safety, to be sure . . . for our own good, really . . .

  99. GK
    “It is a movement keen on stabbing new recruits”

    Good observation…..made me pause, thank you

  100. But, on John, maybe Im wrong but I read more than “hey looky here all is not lost” in the posts. I read a quiet refutation of the validity of the claims of the vast majority-here.

  101. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    @GK,
    “If truly mentally ill as opposed to just mean then I would say that only increases your burden to try to reconcile.”
    She is and I know. She hasn’t alienated herself from her family, but she abjectly refuses to discuss it with them and will not accept their advice. She was diagnosed well before she met me and also during our marriage. It’s a case of a person trusting the enablers more than those who love her.

    That’s why I don’t think there’s a worldly way to reconcile. I’ve had to protect myself legally during the divorce. I still harbor an element of anger toward her, which I feel guilt because I know her actions have more to do with illness than malice. However, I haven’t completely given up and I’m going through another daily devotional, this time dealing with prayer (“Why Pray?” John Devries).

    I know that this is my last marriage.

  102. will says:

    @david collard
    I know, I just forgot to put the first 2 paragraph in quotation marks.

  103. John Miller says:

    @empathologicalism wrote: “But, on John, maybe Im wrong but I read more than “hey looky here all is not lost” in the posts. I read a quiet refutation of the validity of the claims of the vast majority-here.”

    JM response: emphologicalism, I intended my original post to be of the “all is not lost” variety. Based on comments made by you and others, I did not communicate that intent clearly enough. I will seek to do a better job next time.

  104. Hermit says:

    Dalrock, I am also a member of a Church of Christ. Since birth in Denver, and now attending one in the Portland area, with virtually all my extended family attending a CoC denomination. I can corroborate to some degree what John Miller is saying, that CoCs tend to be very conservative, and while not completely devoid of misandry they are better than most. I think it’s a bit of a stretch for him to say “I have never (let me repeat that – never) heard a teacher or preacher emphasize husbands’ responsibilities to love their wives while largely giving wives a pass on their obligation to submit.”. Naturally of course I can’t speak for him or his experiences, but compared to a person attending an Episcopalian or Assemblies of God denomination, it’s not nearly as bad or as overt, and I can see how if he’s not looking for it carefully he might miss it.

  105. will, sorry, I was just agreeing with you, as I recall. I can’t see the relevant comment now.

  106. John Miller says:

    @hermit

    You may be right that I’ve missed the “man up” teaching/preaching because it is (almost certainly, based on comments and statistics quoted on this blog) rarer in Churches of Christ than the broader Christian community. Or maybe I’ve been blessed to sit at the feet of teachers and preachers who have recognized the dangers of feminism and have used their bully pulpits to teach the whole counsel of God, even if outsiders (non-Christian and evangelical alike) look at us as peculiar – and not necessarily in the 1 Peter 2:9 sense of the word.

    Although this may appear to be a non-sequitur to others, perhaps our relative imperviousness to feminist doctrine is easier to understand given our historic imperviousness to use of instrumental music in worship and our unwillingness to permit it even though “everyone else is doing it.” Your thoughts?

  107. Hermit says:

    ‘and our unwillingness to permit it even though “everyone else is doing it.”’

    I definitely agree. I posted something to that effect on one of the earlier posts at AlphaGamePlan, and Vox immediately said “Gamma!”. I had to emphasize that it wasn’t as a desire to be different, but that it’s cultural to make our best effort to follow what the Bible says regardless of the larger culture’s influence or what other denominations do. Not every person or congregation succeeds, but in general the rot is being actively resisted.

  108. Ariane says:

    …Episcopalian here, and recently married (Jan ’12, ONLY time for both of us). We had 3-4 weeks of marriage-prep “classes” prior to the wedding, but did not get much on wifely submission. We didn’t get a lot on husbands’ responsibility to love their wives no matter what, but we did get the anecdote about the old gentleman who’d been married for 50-odd years who used to look at himself in the mirror every morning and say, “Walter, you ain’t no bargain,” so that probably qualifies for what you’re talking about.

    OTOH, in the 2 yrs I’ve been there (not long, I’ll admit), I have not heard any (other) condemnation of men, nor overly-sentimental rhapsodizing about women– not even when our female priest gave the sermon on Mother’s Day (she talked about how love is an action, and how it’s harder to love the people closest to you b/c you already know their faults). Not sure about divorce rates or how such is handled there– will have to ask our (male) rector.

  109. John Miller says:

    @hermit

    Well-stated. I agree.

  110. Here is the thing, most men can sit in the man up churches, and they will hear encouragement for men, and not really notice whether the women get admonition or not. Fathers Day is the best contextual example. Pastor starts with some glowing words, the title of the sermon “A Celebration of Fathers”….he may lift from scripture some good examples…..but then he starts hoding these examples up as action items and using the language “all to often men we fail to, we forget to __________”, and then what passes for encouragement is when he says Men I know you can do this God says so, He will give you the strength, and your reward for being good fathers will be the honor of your sons and daughters…..and look to your wives for *support* (code for follow her lead on familial relational matters) as she can keep your focus where it needs to be because we so often think, if I just work harder and earn more…and they want YOU and your TIME….and men end up crying and recommitting to do better and to a man, will walk out saying how ENCOURAGED they feel.
    They miss the reality of the cumulative effect of years of hearing this on Fathers Day or whenever the role of men comes up….as husbands….as workers….as friends….same story, different context. Juxtaposed to women being nearly praised and worshiped, being told tongue in cheek that they do a great job DESPITE the presence of the goofy man, and having their ridiculous but ubiquitous self esteem deficit addressed yet again.

    I dare say vast majority of men can hear that for their entire life, then come to a place like this and even after having it described and explained, say, not at my church they just dont do that.
    Ive seen it too many times, the rabid denial followed by my going on a churches website, downloading some sermon texts, and showing them in black and white where exactly what Im saying is happening.

    Dalrock borrowed a popular expression in saying that the Fish doesnt realize it is wet with water, thats the same with men in the church. When they hear what we say, they go looking for something that stands out….something outside the norm…..they listen, and they do not FEEL overtly put upon, and nothing new or out of sorts happening, so, must not be here but if you say so guys I believe you its out there, just not in my church

  111. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    NACALT?

  112. John Miller says:

    @empathologicalism wrote: “They miss the reality of the cumulative effect of years of hearing this on Fathers Day or whenever the role of men comes up….as husbands….as workers….as friends….same story, different context. Juxtaposed to women being nearly praised and worshiped, being told tongue in cheek that they do a great job DESPITE the presence of the goofy man, and having their ridiculous but ubiquitous self esteem deficit addressed yet again.”

    JM response: I have infrequently heard sermons where men are called to “up their game” before. What I have not heard are sermons of the “Justaposed” type you describe – where wives are made practically immaculate with no flaws. I stated it thus in my original post on 5/15 at 1:12 pm: “I have never (let me repeat that – never) heard a teacher or preacher emphasize husbands’ responsibilities to love their wives while largely giving wives a pass on their obligation to submit.” And I stand by those statements. They are my experiences; ymmv.

  113. John Miller says:

    @rockthrowingpeasant

    Spot on, from my perspective!

  114. Ariane says:

    Will be paying close attention to the Father’s Day sermon, checklist in hand! (Or at least in head)

  115. Jacquie says:

    “I have never (let me repeat that – never) heard a teacher or preacher emphasize husbands’ responsibilities to love their wives while largely giving wives a pass on their obligation to submit.” And I stand by those statements. They are my experiences; ymmv”

    Yes, they are your experiences, and I am so glad that you have found such a church. Just understand, that there are others who have had different experiences. Men who lead their families to church, were active in church and after so many years(sometimes decades) feel so beaten down by what they heard for so many years that they don’t get up quite so early on a Sunday morning to rush out the door in time for the first note of that first song or hymn. It can feel as if even in a place where you are supposed to feel the love of God, that you still don’t ever measure up, feeling like you don’t deserve any of it. And if you have a wife who is less than supportive, she will remind you at home what was preached Sunday morning, or at the men’s retreat, or in the accountability group.
    I don’t recall ever having the same kind of accountability teaching in the women’s groups or the Bible studies. I could never even find a group that had the older women teaching the younger women to love their husband’s as scripture tells us to do. I begged for such a group in the churches I attended. I even offered to set up such an accountability group. I eventually went to a couple of older women one on one wanting guidance. Everything turned into a social event. No teaching, no accountability.
    It is present even if you haven’t seen it in your corner of the church community.

  116. John Miller says:

    Better to light a candle than curse the darkness – Peter Benenson

    For those who are upset at how Christianity in general has responded to the feminist onslaught – largely by surrender – and I am among your number, you may want to explore membership in those Christian groups that have low divorce rates. Such as Churches of Christ.

    From my perspective reading the blogosphere (which I recognize isn’t data), the churches that have low divorce rates tend to be those that stick tenaciously to preaching the whole counsel of God to fallen humanity on all subjects; including wifely submission and male leadership of local churches.

    (The foregoing written only partially tongue in my cheek.)

  117. John Miller says:

    @jacquie wrote: “It is present even if you haven’t seen it in your corner of the church community.”

    I accept that as a sad reality. Shame on spineless pastors/teachers who browbeat hard-working husbands and fathers while giving wives and mothers a pass.

  118. John Miller says:

    @Ariane wrote: “Will be paying close attention to the Father’s Day sermon, checklist in hand! (Or at least in head)”

    I will too, just to confirm that I haven’t been self-deluded.

  119. Hermit says:

    “Christian groups that have low divorce rates. Such as Churches of Christ.”

    John Miller, are you familiar with Dalrock’s standing request for churches that measure divorce rate? I don’t have enough face time with my congregation’s leadership to have had the opportunity to ask. Also, my limited sphere isn’t really an accurate representation of our congregation as a whole. But since you are an elder I figured this would be right up your alley. Does any CoC congregation that you are familiar with measure divorce rate?

  120. John maybe you misunderstood about the juxtaposition….I am not suggesting the preacher makes that comparison, in fact the two concepts are keep totally apart from each other, and the listener must make the juxtaposition, based on the amalgam of sermons on Fathers Day and Mother Day and other topics that lend to gender specificity.
    I confess to having some OCD tendencies and when I got my first dose pak of red pills I was in the midst of a new miss divorce, and spent my foodless and sleepless nights researching and reading and writing about the church, and divorce.
    I sought church websites at random, across the country, and pretty much from the more seemingly conservative groups like baptists and confessional presbyterians and mega churches that are non denom and Assemblies of God…etc etc….I downloaded texts of sermons from over a hundred churches, Fathers day and Mothers Day, and “Marriage Series” where I could find them. In the 7 years since then I also have added to my still statistically not significant list, which has grown to be a VERY respectable anecdote, if lacking statistically valid heft.
    The other thing one can check in the ministry offerings. What is offered for men, what is offered for women, and what is the gist of what is offered for couples on marriage.
    If you know what you are looking for, and do not approach it from the ‘Ive never seen it hence I suspect its not there” frame…..suffice to say I could count on one hand those where I did not find what I’m talking about. Even on those, I expect if Id gone deeper, went back to prior years, whatever, Id have found these tendencies there.
    Given that, regardless if the divorce rate is zero somewhere, I am so convinced about the anti male sentiments being ubiquitous that I cannot imagine it not there and would have to see its absence for myself to believe it. SO, we can just agree to disagree on that, maybe over time you will see glimpses of it now that we’ve beaten it to death here

  121. Some Guy says:

    Here’s a clue about offerings for men: It’s at 6AM at the local coffee shop because that’s the only time the wife doesn’t care that he’s somewhere else. Women get the evenings and weekends for prayer groups and special retreats– after all, hubby would be *glad* to watch the kids while wife gets some “me” time. I mean… while the wife spends time getting puffed up so that she can put her husband down for being so much less spiritual.

    Note the tactic: insist on “A”, then punish the husband for not doing “B”. That’s your standing operating procedure for keeping your husband beat down. Then watch the pastor pile on.

  122. @empathologicalism: “I am so convinced about the anti male sentiments being ubiquitous that I cannot imagine it not there and would have to see its absence for myself to believe it.”

    I see no particular reason not to believe John Miller. Even though I cannot personally verify his claims (since I’ve never met him or been to his church), from a statistical standpoint one would expect churches like that to exist. According to a quick Google search there are something like 300,000 churches in the United States. It seems rather unlikely that every single last one of them has completely failed on this issue – especially given the number of people in the manosphere who are well-versed in the subject! Surely somewhere in the country there must be churches that have not sold out. Even if just one tenth of one percent of them were solid on marriage, that would mean that there are hundreds of churches out there that are not anti-male. Statistically, churches like John Miller’s must exist, somewhere. I find it highly unlikely that, given the size of the manosphere, there is not a single good church anywhere in the entire United States – a country that covers 3.8 million square miles. That is quite a lot of territory.

    On top of that, one would expect to find such churches well outside the mainstream, in isolated subgroups. (After all, if they were mainstream churches then they would have adopted mainstream thought, including feminism.) The way to find them would be to hunt down groups that have strong teachings in this area, and then find out where they go to church. That would be the key place to look.

    The denomination that I belong to has pretty much given up on marriage, so it is to be expected that the churches affiliated with it are pretty feminist. Perhaps what we should do is start searching for subgroups that have not surrendered, and then find out where those groups congregate. Then we could actually populate Dalrock’s church page with an actual list of churches. Such a list would be extremely useful – not just to prove there is some hope left, but as a resource for people who are looking for support but are not finding it.

  123. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    “Here’s a clue about offerings for men: It’s at 6AM at the local coffee shop because that’s the only time the wife doesn’t care that he’s somewhere else. Women get the evenings and weekends for prayer groups and special retreats– after all, hubby would be *glad* to watch the kids while wife gets some “me” time.”

    Whoa. Seriously, do you live in my area (central PA)? The group I was invited to recently meets at 6 am in a coffee shop and another (different church) meets earlier.

  124. Jon Cooper you embellished my points to the degree that it created straw men.

    Actually, statistically those churches are LESS likely to exist. Please understand what Im saying, if its true that the majority of churches are misandric to some degree, subtle or overt, then the odds of a given church being misandric are HIGHER then it not being……the exact opposite of what you suggest. With 300000 churches I suppose you could say there is “statistically” a chance one worships the magic tea cup. But the numbers bear out that the odds are not in favor of finding one.

    Church of Christ is not “well outside the mainstream” nor an “isolated subgroup”.

    I challenge all, find us a church that is not like this, and somehow substantiate that it is not like this by listing their ministry offerings (I just went to a random google search of CoC locations in my area (Memphis) and looked at ministry offerings, finding that those that have a mans and a womens ministry all fit the description I give for misandric churches) Link the website where we can read some sermons of something that helps show they are on the right track. Know this, a vision statement that claims they are for marriage being a lifetime commitment is not sufficient, most say that then offer Divorce Care, a reconciliation destroying social group for women filing divorces

  125. GKChesterton says:

    @Empath,

    He did indeed say something along the “no problem here”. But that might be because he _really doesn’t see it_. That has to be considered a possibility. We should even consider that we are half mad bitter reprobates. I don’t think we are, but in order to keep from being half mad we should consider the possibility.

    @rockthrowingpeasant,

    It doesn’t help much as I’m far less saintly than I should be but I’ve said a prayer. I understand the need for legal protection.

    @Miller

    Although this may appear to be a non-sequitur to others, perhaps our relative imperviousness to feminist doctrine is easier to understand given our historic imperviousness to use of instrumental music in worship and our unwillingness to permit it even though “everyone else is doing it.” Your thoughts?

    Yes. See also: Eastern Orthodoxy…and pre-Vat II Catholocism (how we miss you). The more you compromise the more the whole shooting match goes up in smoke.

    @All,

    There is something to be said about willfully subverting the “coffee shop” pattern and ensuring that informal groups of men are none to have a beer together and making it clear that there is no discussion about when, where, or how this will happen.

  126. Dalrock says:

    @GKC

    That being said for the same reason I’m not as inclined to fault About.com’s article given that they try to treat this in a Pauline manner.

    I’m not clear on why you say this. She skips the opening command for wives to submit (Eph 5:22), and instead starts her quote with the headship of the husband (5:23). She had to contort to make the order work. On top of that, 1 Peter 3:1 states that wives must submit even if their husband is a non believer. I don’t know how the Bible could make this more clear. Her submission isn’t dependent on him showing her the love of Christ. Just as important if not more so, there is no reason to believe that it will be automatic/easy for her to accept this command if only her husband loves her sufficiently and is willing to sacrifice his life to protect her. Wouldn’t you agree that the impulse to be disobedient to this command is explained in Gen 3:16?

  127. @empathologicalism: “But the numbers bear out that the odds are not in favor of finding one.”

    I’m afraid that I don’t understand your reasoning. If there were only 10 churches in the country then I could accept that all of them were feminist. But there are more than three hundred thousand of them! The chance that every last one of them believe and teach the same thing when it comes to marriage is surely extremely unlikely. Even in Catholicism, where all churches report to a central Pope, it is all-but-impossible to get every single last church to teach the same thing on a given subject – there will be local variances. Protestantism has no central person like the Pope, and the variances between churches are far greater. I could, perhaps, believe that a hundred churches were on the same page regarding marriage – but not three hundred thousand of them. That is far too large a number for there to be no outliers.

    From a statistical standpoint, if you have a rare event, you are unlikely to find it in a small sample group. However, if you broaden your sample then you are more likely to come across it. There are no cases where increasing your sample size makes you LESS likely to find one. For example, look at winning the lottery. Your odds of winning IMPROVE as you buy more tickets. They don’t get worse.

    I can believe that a local community, with just a handful of churches, may not have any good ones. But I cannot believe that is also true for the entire United States as a whole. Things are bad, but they are not THAT bad.

    @empathologicalism: Church of Christ is not “well outside the mainstream” nor an “isolated subgroup”.

    If the church does have 1.2 million members, as claimed, then that represents about 0.4% of the population of the United States. That sounds like an isolated subgroup to me. According to Wikipedia, they believe that musical instruments should not be used in worship. That is certainly well outside the mainstream. I am not here to argue for or against it; I just want to point out that mainstream Protestant thought disagrees with that stance. The Church of Christ in my area (and, from what I read on Wikipedia, apparently others do this as well) teaches that you must be baptized to be saved. That is also very much a minority opinion among Protestants. A small group that claims to be Protestant but which holds positions well outside mainstream Protestantism, must surely be well outside the mainstream and an isolated subgroup.

    On a more general note, one could argue that, to some extent, even the Southern Baptist denomination (the second largest one in the country, according to reports) is an isolated subgroup, if you compare it to the nation as a whole. With 16 million members, they make up about 5% of the general population. If only about half of those actually attend church regularly, then you are left with 2.5% – which sounds like a subgroup to me.

  128. an observer says:

    Some guy,

    Your comment made me wince.

    The last church i went to had no trouble with multiple womens groups, support lines, retreats.

    The mens meetings were just as you say. Over breakfast, once a month on a saturday, which was awkward timing for me, and doubtless for others.

  129. GKC

    I’ve always been mad, I know I’ve been mad, like the most of us are. It’s very hard to explain why you’re mad, even if you’re not mad.

  130. Anonymous Reader says:

    Some Guy, an observer:
    Off line I have asked a few men I know who are regular churchgoers about groups for men.
    One reply boiled down to “6 AM Saturday” the others were 6 AM or 6:30 AM on a weekday.
    None of the men were involved in these groups, no real reasons given (“uh, too busy” doesn’t count as a reason).

  131. bskillet81 says:

    One reply boiled down to “6 AM Saturday” the others were 6 AM or 6:30 AM on a weekday.

    I’ve often wondered why churches have their “men’s groups” meet so damn early in the morning. Why can’t they meet in the evenings like other groups?

    Then the reason occurred to me: By having them at a stupid hour of day, almost no men will attend. Then, the pastor and elders can shame men for not manning up and attending the men’s group. Just part of the whole manipulation.

  132. ballista74 says:

    Church of Christ is not “well outside the mainstream” nor an “isolated subgroup”.

    Actually I find in researching and studying Churchianity that some of the groups that are most prone to giving themselves over to false teachers are the groups that claim themselves to be “fully independent” and “wholly operating towards Scriptural guidelines”. This includes the “Church of Christ” among several other groups. This is because there are usually not discerning individuals with the knowledge of God necessary to see these things for what they are when they come along, and moreso not willing to fight against their introduction. The number of these that need influenced to make a group fall is miniscule most times (3-6 people). Most of these groups place all their authority in a Deified One anyway, who calls all the shots, does all the teaching, all the prayer, all the admonitions, and usually can introduce what he/she wants without challenge anyway. Then most of the others are out for the health of their organizations (building, staff, attendance, offering plate money) more than edifying the saints, so they grab onto any passing fad, no matter how Biblical or not, they believe will bring glory onto them and their organization. It is not a surprise, consequently, that I find most of these “independent” churches are the ones that cheerlead these fads and are their most ardent supporters.

    But they are good at talking the talk. It’s always a good rule to never believe what they say from the pulpit or otherwise, their literature they produce or even the testimonies of their members. Always check against Scripture. And always check actions – those speak more truly than words ever do. I’ve witnessed so many examples of churches that talk a great game but show themselves miserable and wretched when their actions are considered.

    We are indeed in the age of Laodicea.

  133. jrc says:

    I’d like to see a manosphere review of Mark Gungor. I haven’t read all of his stuff but did notice comments about men needing to show their wives attention without being uncontrollable sex maniacs. Sounds a little questionable from the alpha/beta perspective.

  134. an observer says:

    Some guy,

    I have often thought that mens busyness is not accepted as legitimate. Whereas, ‘everyone knows’ that working mothers with jobs and children are legitimately busy.

    Men are occupied with work, thinking rationally and oppressing women (apparently).

    Whereas women are viewed as crushed under the heel of the patriarchy and favoured accordingly.

    Must remember to do my full share of female oppression today from planet cubicle.

    Yee hah.

  135. John Miller says:

    @ballista74 wrote, in part: “Actually I find in researching and studying Churchianity that some of the groups that are most prone to giving themselves over to false teachers are the groups that claim themselves to be “fully independent” and “wholly operating towards Scriptural guidelines”. This includes the “Church of Christ” among several other groups. This is because there are usually not discerning individuals with the knowledge of God necessary to see these things for what they are when they come along, and moreso not willing to fight against their introduction.”

    JM response: I want to address your blanket condemnation of Churches of Christ as being among those groups “most prone to giving themselves over to false teachers.” While some in Churches of Christ can legitimately be criticized for various and sundry of their doctrinal interpretations, I want to say as politely as I can that you know not whereof you speak. Even without a national headquarters to impose some level of uniformity in belief and practice, you can go into almost any number of our churches almost anywhere in the country and you will likely be amazed by their similarities. In fact, most of our doctrinal positions are in the mainstream of the historic Christian faith (to paraphrase Hank Hanegraaf), and where we are not we tend to be to the right side of that stream.

    Please: Before you condemn an entire “denomination,” do some research.

  136. ray says:

    Ariane — “OTOH, in the 2 yrs I’ve been there (not long, I’ll admit), I have not heard any (other) condemnation of men, nor overly-sentimental rhapsodizing about women– not even when our female priest gave the sermon on Mother’s Day”

    theres no such thing as “female priests” with the exception of course of the “priests and priestesses of Jezebel” of which your “pastor” is one

    cease your rebellion and repent of satanic feminism — put your face in the dirt and ask the Lord’s forgiveness for shaming him, and for placing His beloved people under the fist of female oppression

    “He did indeed say something along the “no problem here”. But that might be because he _really doesn’t see it_. That has to be considered a possibility.”

    he’s not lying, possibly fudging a bit — but he doesnt see anything wrong

    the “conservative Church of Christ” is of course matriarchal — but not nearly as matriarchal as the A of G, Presbyterians etc

    as others pointed out following PD, the fish doesnt understand that he’s wet, and that what he is wet with is NOT the anointing of God, but the slime of this world, the covering of the be-liar of this world

  137. ballista74 says:

    Somehow, I thought this would cause an illogical, irrational reaction… where did I write that I was condemning denominations as a whole? I looked back and don’t see it. Perhaps it is you that need to do some research. Prove to me that all Churches of Christ are not corrupt, then I’ll recant what I wrote. I know you can’t, because I’ve already witnessed corrupt ones.

  138. John Miller says:

    @ballista

    I hit “submit” too soon. I also want to address the following assertion: “This is because there are usually not discerning individuals with the knowledge of God.” My anecdotal observations prompt me to posit that if someone where to come up with a test of general Bible knowledge and give it to representatives of the major denominations (and non-denominations) in the US, those representing Churches of Christ would likely get more answers right than the representatives of other religious groups. My anecdotes were gleaned from 3 or more decades of general discussions with dozens of folks who belong to some of the largest denominations in the US – including Lutherans, Methodists, and Baptists. Most of our grade school children know more Bible than most of the folks I’ve interacted with.

  139. John Miller says:

    @ballista74 wrote: “… where did I write that I was condemning denominations as a whole? I looked back and don’t see it.” I don’t know how else to interpret your inclusion of “Church of Christ” in your condemnation in other than a denomination-wide sense. I would appreciate clarification of what you really meant.

    @ballista74 also wrote: “Prove to me that all Churches of Christ are not corrupt, then I’ll recant what I wrote.” Two bones to pick here:

    1. It is a logical fallacy to expect anyone to prove a negative. The proponent of a position has the burden of proof.

    2. The immediately prior quote is yet another statement that I can see no other interpretation for other than blanket denominational criticism of Churches of Christ as “corrupt.”

    If you meant something else by this quote, I look forward to your explanation.

  140. John Miller says:

    @ray wrote in part: “the “conservative Church of Christ” is of course matriarchal — but not nearly as matriarchal as the A of G, Presbyterians etc”

    JM response: And the source of your allegation is ….? And the basis on which you are able to compare what leaders in the Churches of Christ teach when compared to A of G, Presbyterians etc” …?

  141. ballista74 says:

    My anecdotal observations prompt me to posit that if someone where to come up with a test of general Bible knowledge …

    I find this true of the Churches of Christ, but it is irrelevant. “knowledge of God” doesn’t equate to “Bible knowledge”. I’ve run across many Bible Bowl champions in my time with no evidence that they really know who God is or what He is, and that evidence comes through actions. The one I’m aware of with the most Bible knowledge in town that would pass the test you propose with flying colors also happens to be a liberal that is adamantly opposed to the practice of Christianity and is as anti-believer as you probably can get. Jesus said something about “hearing His words and doing them”, didn’t he? Wasn’t Satan able to tempt Jesus using Scripture? Satan and the demons know those things, don’t they? So ask yourself, what matters more? Knowing what Jesus said, or doing it? Does one really have “knowledge of God” if they know what the Word says yet do something else entirely?

  142. John Miller says:

    @ballista74

    I agree that Bible knowledge doesn’t automatically equate to knowledge of God (and relationship with him). Khruschev supposedly had all four gospels memorized, but he was almost as bloodthirsty as Stalin.

    Can anyone argue persuasively that knowledge of Scripture is not a necessary precondition for maximizing one’s ability to identify and avoid apostasy [Hosea 4:6] – (which you accused Churches of Christ of being particularly susceptible to)? On that point, you apparently chose to observe the Passover.

  143. John Miller says:

    @ballista74 also wrote: “So ask yourself, what matters more? Knowing what Jesus said, or doing it? Does one really have “knowledge of God” if they know what the Word says yet do something else entirely?”

    It seems to me you’ve offered a false dichotomy. How can anyone know how to imitate Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:1) without learning from Scripture what he did while on earth. Both knowledge and practice are essential. See James 2:24 and the “Faith Hall of Fame” in Hebrews 13 for clear teaching on this point.

  144. ballista74 says:

    Okay I’ll make what I wrote clearer, or at least try to be more diplomatic: By “groups”, I meant “individual churches”, individual things I can walk into anytime the church doors are open. Given the nature of individual rule, there will be corrupt churches and not-corrupt churches. I further stated that “Churches of Christ” are not a panacea answer – in other words, walking into one doesn’t guarantee you will witness marriage 1.0, that is marriage as God defined it. There are corrupt “Churches of Christ” and not-corrupt “Churches of Christ” (though I would argue in some way that all churches are corrupt because at some point the men involved choose to sin in some way by deviating from the Apostolic pattern via tradition or direct action). This was included in my original post because you were cheerleading the denomination as a whole so heavily in the course of this thread. In a way, you maybe still are, that you are grouping “your group” with the groups I’ve witnessed. Maybe your group is truly on the right track, maybe it is not, that is something I don’t know. As with all the other groups I had in mind, there are corrupt and not-corrupt versions of those, too.

    So here’s your question you are left with: Do corrupt Churches of Christ exist? Yes or no? Are you capable of turning the mirror inwards, if not on yourself and your group, on your brethren in the denomination as a whole?

  145. ballista74 says:

    Can anyone argue persuasively that knowledge of Scripture is not a necessary precondition for maximizing one’s ability to identify and avoid apostasy [Hosea 4:6] – (which you accused Churches of Christ of being particularly susceptible to)?

    I’ll answer with something I’ve said in various forms in the times that I’ve had the privilege to relate God’s word to others: “If you’re here just to learn trivia, you’re wasting your time. What you need to do is learn the concept involved and then put it into practice if you are really interested in getting something out of this.”

    That said, yes you need to know what to do in order to do it. The problem comes (and I do notice this in the global Church of Christ statement of beliefs as well as these ones I’ve observed, so this is a denominational-wide criticism), is where Bible knowledge is stressed over and above actually doing it. Is it better to know a little about the Bible and do that little out of the fear of God, or to be able to know the whole Bible, memorize several verses of it, and yet do none of it at all or agree with things that are anathema to what it says?

    I fear there are so many out there who falsely believe they are right with God because they choose to learn His words, yet refuse to do them. Another quick example for you that I know you’ll be able to relate to more: I ran across a person that organizes Bible Bowls. That’s right, they actually research and write the questions. But this person denies the necessity of baptism entirely. See the disconnect that I’m trying to relate, yet?

    There are more, however, who believe they are right with God simply by showing up to the church events, not knowing at all what they are professing to believe. Yet both are as equally wrong with God, are they not?

  146. Christina says:

    What Peter commands is that wives are to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord. The argument that if the husband loves his wife with the same love as Christ loves then she will submit is spurious. Why? Because the woman who disrespects her husband has also rebelled against and disrespected Christ. She has received the love of Christ and STILL chooses to violate his word. Eve received the perfect love of God in the garden and still rebelled. The argument that a woman rebels only because her husband does not love her perfectly removes free will (and hence responsibility) from women, while simultaneously setting a bar men will fail at. It is a sure fire recipe for more and more spurious divorces by “Christian” (as if) wives.

    Love love love love this comment. Like this blogpost to. Perhaps I’ll peruse a bit.
    On this subject, it all stems from sin and each person (I believe) will be held accountable for their own actions. Though I don’t think each one of us lives in a bubble where our actions don’t have some impact on the world around us, we are still responsible for our own obedience to God and trusting him with the outcome. The church will likely be held accountable for its “bearing false witness” and leading these women to believe that their refusal to submit is their husbands’ fault. However, these women should also be held accountable for not trusting God and refusing to obey his word (even if they do think their husband is unloving).
    Submission isn’t easy (far from it). Even those women who want to submit have a hard time doing so. I’m not entirely convinced its because of feminism, though. Unless you want to label original sin as feminism (I’m totally cool with that) – Eve’s curse seems to have a strong resemblance to feminism when it is accepted as right (because it just comes naturally).

  147. ray says:

    JM response: And the source of your allegation is ….? And the basis on which you are able to compare what leaders in the Churches of Christ teach when compared to A of G, Presbyterians etc” …?

    not refuting you personally, but i do know the american male, and he is as submissive to females in the churches (including your denomination) as he is everywhere else in his life

    if thats arrogant, well, ok

    i dont need to physically enter every church building to accept the evidence before my eyes these many decades past . . . there’s not going to be a Definitive Statistical Study that resolves the question, you know bro?

    perhaps there are a few small bible-study groups not already psychologically and spiritually overrun by collective female power . . . at the moment that’s the best we can hope for, in addition to witnessing in the real chuches, a la PD

  148. John Miller says:

    @ballista74 wrote: “So here’s your question you are left with: Do corrupt Churches of Christ exist? Yes or no?”

    JM response: Yes.

    You also wrote: ” The problem comes (and I do notice this in the global Church of Christ statement of beliefs as well as these ones I’ve observed, so this is a denominational-wide criticism), is where Bible knowledge is stressed over and above actually doing it.”

    JM response: I grant that teachers/preachers within Churches of Christ stress Biblical knowledge. And, members are “encouraged to love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24). In my experience, members of Churches of Christ tend to put their knowledge into practice and many are personally involved in supporting mission works, acts of benevolence to those in need, and the like. None would claim there is perfect congruence between their beliefs and their actions to be sure (1 John 1:8). As I’ve stated before, all I can refer to are anecdotes – which on these subjects is about all there is to go by to attempt a response to your broad-brush criticism of ~1,000,000 people.

    Also: “I fear there are so many out there who falsely believe they are right with God because they choose to learn His words, yet refuse to do them.” And, there are those ” who believe they are right with God simply by showing up to the church events, not knowing at all what they are professing to believe. Yet both are as equally wrong with God, are they not?”

    JM response: Those who have a “said faith” rather than a “real faith” are in the wrong and, without repentance, have only fiery judgment to look forward to.

  149. The love of Christ is conditional and reciprocal. Christ also said if love Him you will obey His commandments. Sacrificial love as Christ demonstrated “graciously and humbly” request obedience – this is seen in the OT/NT. To think otherwise invites disobedience which goes back to the garden of Eden for man and eons for the angelic realm.
    In addition ladies it is just as hard for the man to sacrificially love you as for you to obey him since both are a ” work in progress”. If both people are love Jesus and seeking Him then there should be minimal conflict ( Men – dont be demanding / demeaning and Women – listen to him unless it is illegal or immoral).

  150. ballista74 says:

    To bring the discussion of corrupted churches back to the issue of marriage and family and the pushing of Marriage 2.0, here is probably the simplest and easiest test, which would be interesting to chronicle: How many churches have publicly chosen to exhibit Courageous, or Fireproof? Other than the existence of a female ecclesiastical leader, or being listed on the list of gay-affirming churches, this is probably the easiest outward sign of a corrupt church.

    That there aren’t churches out there actively protesting these supposed pictures of Christian marriage, and furthermore are showcasing them as good examples is definitely an issue.

  151. Chaz345 says:

    “I’d like to see a manosphere review of Mark Gungor. I haven’t read all of his stuff but did notice comments about men needing to show their wives attention without being uncontrollable sex maniacs. Sounds a little questionable from the alpha/beta perspective.”

    Gungor writes/speaks from the standpoint of where he sees most of the problem. And since women tend to be more vocal about the problems in their marriages, with men, having been basically beaten down, more likely to suffer along in silence, Gungor tends to appear to have a “fix the man and you fix the problem” attitude. But he absolutely does not give women a free pass, especially in the area of sex. He doesn’t buy into the nonsense that it’s all on the man to make her feel loved so she’ll feel like sex. He correctly says that it’s a circle and that while the man doing it right in terms of showing love/emotional connection will help the woman to open up sexually, he doesn’t make it a pre-condition. He says that it’s just as much the woman’s responsibility to engage sexually in order to make it easier for the man to engage emotionally.

    He also is very much on point when it comes to the idea that the main purpose of marriage isn’t being haaaaapy. He’s also very much on point in terms of the overall feminization of the church.

  152. Ariane says:

    @Ray– I assure you that I am working out my own salvation with fear and trembling. May I ask which church/denomination you belong to?

  153. Some Guy says:

    @ballista74– “here is probably the simplest and easiest test”

    The 6AM coffee shop meeting is another test. If that’s when the guys are getting together then you know that (a) the guys have tacitly given up their seats and gone to the back of the bus with their tails between their legs and (b) the guys that do show up are effectively doing an elaborate display of submission towards “pastor Alpha” to gain brownie points with him. If you want to get guys to actually participate in church and have lots of conversations about the bible and its application at home here’s what you do:

    Have a quarterly men’s meeting on a Thursday night at 6PM or so. Have the women provide some really good eats, but otherwise stay quiet and out of sight. Then let the men make significant decisions about what the church will do and/or focus on for the next few months. The pastor needs to let them know what’s on the agenda in advance… and the men need to actually have input. (This can’t just be a sham where people outside of the pastor’s inner circle get flushed out when they want for internal shunning and/or the cold shoulder treatment.) If women want to have input then they can ask their husbands about it at home.

    This kind of scenario (or anything remotely like it) would establish the following status hierarchy: “husbands of one wife” in leadership positions, all other husbands, unmarried male church members, wives, unmarried female church members, children.

    Note that churches are for the most part pretty good at reversing that hierarchy. Under the current social climate, the average man that is serious about being “a husband of one wife” has sucker written all over him and will be thrown under the bus as soon as his wife makes the right noises.

  154. Jason says:

    @Someguy,

    Sounds like solid advice, I do have one question, what is “husband of one wife” in this context?

    I know what the words mean, I am guessing it means married and never divorced, but figured I would ask.

    Jason

  155. Some Guy says:

    @Jason

    My personal reading of the New Testament is that it means “married… and still married to the wife of your youth/covenant.” If you are divorced and remarried, then you are on the same level as, say, a polygamist. (You can still be a “good brother” and all, but you are disqualified from church leadership positions.If your first wife got git by a bus, I guess you’d suddenly qualify.)

    This is a highly contentious subject and I consider it off-topic in this current conversation. I am content to point out just that there is a status distinction within the church for “husbands of one wife” whatever it means. Individual churches will choose on their own how liberal or how conservative they want to be in their interpretation– but if there is no status distinction in any form then you know they have gone beyond Paul’s instructions.

  156. ballista74 says:

    Sounds like solid advice, I do have one question, what is “husband of one wife” in this context?

    FWIW, the phrase occurs typically in a Biblical context (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6). While people make a number of interpretations of the sections those exist in, the generally accepted Greek means “one woman man” more than it does what most take it for. In some interpretations, Paul wouldn’t pass the bar. In that sense, it reflects self-control, regardless of marriage status, relating to the affection towards a woman.

    The phrase limits this to one woman, anything outside of that is polygamy when defined against Scripture. Which means two marriages, first one dissolved by death is fine. Two marriages, the first one dissolved by divorce, the spouse still living is not fine and furthermore constitutes adultery against the first wife. But one marriage, and the man flirting and making googly-eyes at the widows is not fine either by this definition. Funny how we tend to twist these words as they appear to mean what we want them to mean.

    That said, I concur with Some Guy: Any man serious about partaking in Marriage 1.0 has sucker written all over him and will be thrown under the bus as soon as his wife makes the right noises.

  157. ballista

    Those movies are a good test, even a mention from the pulpit saying to go see it and support the “Christian endeavor into movies” makes me suspicious.

    To a certain extent there is jading in our views, but its earned and reasoned jading, not bitter emotion based jading….huge difference. I am a guilty till proven innocent guy when it comes to any church and evangelical feminism. If there are at least, oh, 30% women in the church, and we know that’s low for most which are 60%, there will be manipulation of nearly that percentage of the men, one to one in the marriages. I never forget my prison ministry friend, pastor of a rural TX Baptist church of 300 members or so, saying when I asked him questions to flush out feminism, his answer was “my wife is in the audience”. That is profound, and Im sorry to say, not unique at all. The women can even convince the men that they are being man honoring in the feminist blather, men , remember, want women to be happy…..I’d repeat that over and over as it is a tool that is on the top of the box

  158. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    What if you are divorced against your will?

  159. Some Guy says:

    @rockthrowingpeasant —

    The old school direction is either reconcile with your wife or else remain unmarried.

    Yeah, that sucks. But there have been times and places where “til death death do you part” really meant “til death do you part.”

    Next question: what if you are divorced and remarried and have kids with both women and *then* become a Christian? What if you are a Saudi with ten wives and eighty kids and then become a Christian? I personally *DO NOT* have an answer for that, but leave it to local congregations to figure it out. I expect, though, that such people were in the early church– it’s implied by Paul’s requirements for church leadership.

    As I said earlier… I think this particular topic is unnecessarily contentious. But yeah… I am the one that mentioned “husband of one wife.” As long as your church-going beta males all have a sword of Damocles (ie, frivolous divorce for cash and prizes with children being hostages) hanging over their heads, this point is moot. However… divorce and remarriage is the sanctified by the church pretty much across the board. That is the mechanism by which the church puts its blessing on rotating polyandry.

  160. rockthrowingpeasant says:

    Yeah, it’s a minefield.

    I’ve asked my pastor for some guidance, along with my mentor, and anyone else. Not fishing for answers, so much as trying to collect the most info I can.

    I’m not sure if I’ll rationalize a sin by re-marrying (Oh, I’ll tell myself, I was an atheist when we married and never said our vows before God as believers…and she forced the divorce…and she’s not really a believer…) or if it won’t be a sin.

    Need to pray. Strike up that conversation and be patient/still enough to hear what He has to say.

  161. ray says:

    @Ray– I assure you that I am working out my own salvation with fear and trembling. May I ask which church/denomination you belong to?

    my Father’s denomination

    if you knew him you wouldnt have had to ask

    and what church do you attend to, Ariane?

  162. Phil says:

    European peoples have been Christian for about 1% of their existence. European peoples were able to form families with the man as the leader without Christianity for tens of thousands of years.. For European-american men to claim they have to look at the writing of middle eastern desert people to understand how to be a man/husband/father is just so ridiculous. Have most of the posters of European descent ever studied their own European pre-christian ancestors?

    It is strange to read grown men having to quote verses from foreign desert people to understand how to behave. How about you men of European descent look at your own peoples long, rich history to understand family formation.

  163. Phil

    “the writings of middle eastern desert people”

    Well, sorry, we just do….maybe read and post elsewhere, I say sincerely, because there will not be much traction for that, regardless hoe far down your nose you had to look to write it….sir

  164. ray says:

    empath — I never forget my prison ministry friend, pastor of a rural TX Baptist church of 300 members or so, saying when I asked him questions to flush out feminism, his answer was “my wife is in the audience”.

    the Six Words of Shame, and boy are you spot-on that this is the trap-door to hell for the countless “pastors” and “ministers” whose “churches” are effectively run by their wives (and these guys are Legion)

    it’s the Number 1 problem in the false Western churches, far and away — you cant fix “marriage” and/or “relationships” while the wives/women functionally rule the western churches, exactly as they functionally rule the western States (with front-men to give the appearance of male power and authority)

    there is a very simple reason why “pastors” (and even the mere kids they groom as “junior pastors”) MUST be married before they are allowed to do what their wives say oops i mean lead their churches

    the fact that it’s a Texas Baptist is perfectly ironic — the folks always at the forefront of tough-love Righteousness and thirsting to punish others (not females tho!)

    . . . . the Law n Order Crew, the Zero Tolerance Zealots . . . yet, as ever, it’s his WIFE, and not Christ, who he follows as the ruler of “his” congregation

    even worse, i’ll frequently hear these “pastors” admit their subjugation to their wives during sermons — but its always done in a jokey way, as if by everybody giggling at the pastor’s “confession” of emasculation, the actual emasculation of the congregation is somehow lessened (psychologically)

    but it isn’t lessened, only swept again under the rug

  165. Yes. They do use that for humor….so sad.

    The irony is evidence that the very targets of feminist attack, these so called ultra conservative churches of bitter old legalistic men and weak women in house dresses are actually flat ass run by the stern jutted jawed wifes of men who force way too much air through thier “s” sound when they talk…that’s rural Texshas, I shaid. They alwaysh talk that way out there. These women run homes and church with an iron fist, and manage to give off an air of traditionalism. My poor FIL the man is a proud Baptist ordained minister, he has never pastored a church but he teaches a lot. His wife vets and corrects his messages, she “allows” him time to go play dominoes, and though he suffers Parkinson’s, she works him to death on needless chores. She shoves him away if he so much as places a hand on her shoulder with statements like “get off me you dirty old pervert”….Bless him, he once said to me, recently (he is 79) “I just want to say you and (my wife), you all if you know what I mean need to enjoy each other cause, well, I said enough already”…..those were his words, heartbreaking, he a pillar of the community and the church.

  166. Pegasus says:

    I also go to a Church of Christ, Elders daughter is/was leaving her husband. He said she was being sinful and asked us to pray for her. My guess is the husband (who is a cop) is too beta(feminized).

    We did have a guy do the courageous pledge in front of church, this was before dalrocks review of the movie. Everyone looked awkward while it was going on and i was sickened. It felt dirty to watch this guy. I’m not sure why our elders agreed to do it, my guess is they didn’t watch it yet.

    We also don’t have instruments. The congregation is about half white half black. I’ve attended two different churches of Christ, I’d say they are the least corrupt churches to be found. (is there such a thing as a pure church when humans are involved?)

    For the record Calvin was a nutjob.

  167. ballista74 says:

    Ray Writes:

    it’s the Number 1 problem in the false Western churches, far and away — you cant fix “marriage” and/or “relationships” while the wives/women functionally rule the western churches

    there is a very simple reason why “pastors” (and even the mere kids they groom as “junior pastors”) MUST be married before they are allowed to do what their wives say oops i mean lead their churches

    It’s almost the dirty little secret that most people know yet don’t want to acknowledge publicly. Perhaps because of their wives. The thing with churches is that they talk a good game and put out a good air of spirituality, but it always seems to be this way. It’s passed off as “joking”, but it is unfortunately all too deadly serious. The marriage has to be there (in contravention to direct evidence – Paul and Jesus both would be unworthy to lead the modern churches given the definitions they pose), or you’re a childish person unworthy of leadership or even being called an upstanding Christian man. Of course, the real reason is feminist control. Women run the show in the home and lead the congregations and have so for a very very long time. Don’t anyone allow you to fool yourself. The deception upon those involved always is that somehow they are leading things both in the home and in the churches. They aren’t.

    It’s all too readily seen, too, among those men outside of the blinders of marriage. Is it any wonder that non-feminine men at large treat the churches with revulsion and stay away en masse? So many books have been written about attempting to bring men back into the church, yet they are all just wastes of paper in the grand scheme of things. The solutions to bringing true masculine acceptance this are so simple, yet so far away as long as the women run things.

  168. ray says:

    The irony is evidence that the very targets of feminist attack, these so called ultra conservative churches of bitter old legalistic men and weak women in house dresses are actually flat ass run by the stern jutted jawed wifes of men who force way too much air through thier “s” sound when they talk…that’s rural Texshas

    got em right in the middle of the lone star

    theyre real Tough Guys when it comes to stomping/caging boys and men who cant defend themselves, but it all goes buh-bye when it comes to standing up to their wives, women, or matriarchy

    pretend to “conservatism” but they are actually gyno-grovellers and woman-worshippers just like the Progs — got the exact same problem as the Progs, no nads before women, it’s been the downfall of the american west for over a century now

    it’s funny, you’d think the District of (goddess) Columbia or NYC/Babylon would be the Feminist Capital of the World

    but in fact Texas holds that satanic honor

    b/c of this rebellion judgment has been, and will continue to be, upon that state

  169. Pingback: Not The Same Institution » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

  170. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Week of May 20, 2012

  171. Pingback: Christian Marriage | Air & Space

  172. Pingback: Sell Me Marriage | The Society of Phineas

  173. Pingback: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the oh my god I can’t believe she’s wearing those heels with that skirt! | THE UNIVERSITY OF MAN

  174. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Purely Blogroll Selection Edition « Patriactionary

  175. Pingback: Links – First Edition « Quit Playing Church

  176. Pingback: The Deification of Wives | The Society of Phineas

  177. Pingback: The Cowardly Pastor | Sunshine Mary

  178. Pingback: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the oh my god I can’t believe she’s wearing those heels with that skirt! « stagedreality

  179. James says:

    As some posts suggest, loving your wife and her submitting to her husband are without condition. i do things for my wife around the house: caring for the kids, doing dishes, laundry and even cook from time to time, but when I don’t, then I’m “not doing enough to help” her. She is head strong, abrasive, and contentious at times if she doesn’t get her way. Oh, she’ll ask permission for something and everything is fine as long as I say yes, but let me say no and I’m beat down by her sarcasm and ridicule without her first stopping to listen to my reason.

  180. J says:

    Such sad angry men and you all blame women. Why do you all think that a woman wants to be ruled with an abusive iron fist? Where are meek and the humble. Do you think that it is right for a man to have and arrogant, cold heart, and tell his family, that he is the king of the family, and everyone must obey him without question.

  181. Dontbeharshwithwo,en says:

    Thank you Dalrock for writing with some talk of love that women can for once feel.
    My wife believes there is a double standard coming from the beliefs of most of those women marriage writers on the internet. I have begun to see what she found a long ways back about how some women marriage counselors write with an anti wife/woman angle. it is kind of scary. Dalrock go and read from some of these women.

    Sometimes it is so easy to see the hate for women/wives in their. messages. Anyway we enjoyed your article. It makes so much sense. Please keep writing.
    These same complainers on your site, will go right on over to the women writers’ sites and show contradiction when the female writers defend men.

  182. Timothy kershaw says:

    Your comments about wives and husbands only applies when both the husband and wife are born again. If one is not saved all rules you state do not work. It becomes a supernatural battle. The husband can love as Christ would and the response can be so bizarre because its a battle for her soul. If you want to discuss [Phone # redacted] call me.

  183. Pingback: Why Christian Men Choose Not to Get Laid Before Marriage | The Reinvention of Man

  184. Pingback: What a Typical Christian Wife Looks Like | The Reinvention of Man

  185. Pingback: The flower of rebellion. | Sunshine Mary

  186. i agree with Timothi kershaw, what hi sad is what i want to talking about, is right really

  187. Buepillprofessor says:

    “Husbands are urged to lay down their lives in sacrificial love and protection. And in this safe and cherished embrace of a loving husband, what wife would not be willing to submit to his leadership?

    As Mr. Strauss explains in his piece on the role of wives (but contrary to what he wrote to husbands), this simply isn’t the case. Wives are commanded to submit to and obey their husbands, and this isn’t predicated on the husband showing Christ’s love. In fact, 1 Peter 3:1 states that wives must submit to their husbands even if the husband isn’t a believer. What she writes has no more validity than if one were to say:

    Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands. And given this submission, what husband wouldn’t be willing to love and sacrifice his life for his wife?”

    But…but….but.. Dalrock, both of these are absolutely true! This is the reciprocal situation with “Girl-Game” and “Game.” The girl acting sweet and innocent and in need of help (i.e. “Girl Game”) causes the same reaction in the man as the guy acting strong, determined, and dominant (i.e. “Game”). That reaction is instant and happy compliance from the opposite sex. Similarly, if the wife submits, it is easier for the husband to love her. If the husband loves her it is easier for her to submit. The Churchians have precisely inverted the Biblical intent of this reciprocity.

  188. Pingback: The Types of Women in Church – A Primer | The Reinvention of Man

  189. Pingback: The Pussification of the Christian Male, Part 2 | Cryptochoron

  190. soulthirstjc says:

    Research shows that husbands who do take part in household chores, cleaning. etc. are actually statistically happier, than those who do not. (It could be because they are taking pride in their living space, and because they are creating some really happy wives…which, even in natural, non-christian marriages, has a chain reaction. Let’s take an example from non-believers here). The examples mentioned in this article really seem like they are directed to husbands (in general), not the wife. It’s a calling to each spouse to give 110%. Now- I am- as a woman- called to “submit” (I know this. Even most unbelieving women have heard this.. We’ve ALL been hearing this for decades. LOL), It IS very encouraging to me that there are ministries out there that do place responsibility on the husband of LEADING the home in a LOVING manner (Ie. being the ultimate example of Christ). That one thing gains soooo much respect from women- women long to be loved like Christ loved the church (unselfish leadership). I think this one thing can SAVE a wife. And I feel the absence of that is what created the women’s “liberation” in the first place. I don’t feel my love for my husband is contingent on these things (as a believer- it’s called to be beyond that)- But let me tell you- if your husband is constantly totally unloving (calls you names, flips you off, acts superior, etc.)…it can lead a wife to a place of feeling total injustice and naturally wanting to rebel- not just against him, but GOD. Now that’s a dangerous place to be. I can see how having a Christian husband working on his 110% and a wife working on her 110% would greatly improve the marriage. I can’t speak for all women, in general, i think we are wired to respond well to Christ like love- “laying down of ones life (as Christ did)” …in fact- I can have nothing but total admiration and respect for that man (and -that’s- just a natural reaction🙂.

  191. JDG says:

    Research shows that husbands who do take part in household chores, cleaning. etc. are actually statistically happier, than those who do not.

    Would you be so kind as to provide a link to this research?

    It IS very encouraging to me that there are ministries out there that do place responsibility on the husband of LEADING the home in a LOVING manner (Ie. being the ultimate example of Christ). That one thing gains soooo much respect from women- women long to be loved like Christ loved the church (unselfish leadership).

    While it is true that a husband should lead in a loving manner, it is false to say that women long to be loved like Christ loves the Church. Sure there are some women that are mature in their faith and long for Christ like behavior in their husbands, but this is not a woman’s default setting, nor is it common.

    1 Pet 3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.

  192. Pingback: Effortless | Dalrock

  193. John Nesteutes says:

    The object of Christian living is the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings, embodied in the cross. We are promised nothing other than suffering, persecution, death, and martyrdom if we lay the world aside and become followers of Jesus.

    Nowhere is personal happiness promised or even lifted up as a worthy goal. Whilst Christian spouses are detailed in 1 Corinthians 7 as having divided loyalties because they want to please their spouse in addition to pleasing God, there is no promise, anywhere, or even a moral imperative, for one spouse to be responsible for making the other spouse happy.

    Paul said that if one wants to be happy/fulfilled, to remain unmarried. (He also commanded us not to fornicate, commit adultery, use prostitutes, etc.)

    Asserting that women will be happier when their husbands do the housework is about as absurd as asserting men will be happier when their wives try to stay thin, attractive, and engage in whatever sex acts their husbands want. It’s a reduction of life to a kind of hedonism.

  194. JDG says:

    John Nesteutes says:
    April 15, 2015 at 1:11 pm

    Well said!

  195. James says:

    Great points John. I’ve often told my wife that a man cannot MAKE a woman happy if she isn’t happy in the first place. Happiness starts from within, through the joy that we get from Christ. Both parties need to give that 110% or it isn’t fair to either.

  196. Now I’m just curious to hear what “unselfish leadership” is.

    Jesus told his followers to lay everything down they owned, to leave families, houses, businesses, riches, to follow him. They followed him: to the foot of the cross. Most of his first batch of disciples ended up martyred.

    The only interaction I can think of involving Jesus and housework was to rebuke Martha for doing too much and for ordering Mary, who was listening to him talk, to come help with the housework. Jesus sure didn’t offer to pitch in and wash the dishes.

  197. Vic says:

    THANK YOU, SOULTHIRSTJC! You and your sisters are the norm and the more you speak out and write, the easier it is for me to dissuade Christian men from throwing away their liberty for an institution that no longer, in any legal sense, exists.

    PLEASE keep voicing your opinion. The more transparent toxic doctrine-lovers like you speak honestly, the more men are saved from the poison of this diseased institution.

    Signed, Married to a toxic woman but loves his sons

  198. Pingback: How would you respond if your husband lead/loved you like Christ? | Dalrock

  199. Pingback: Documenting, Not Complaining | Christian Marriage Issues

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s