Complementarian marriage: Egalitarian marriage with a veneer of headship.

In order to understand complementarian marriage, you have to start by tossing out everything the Bible says about marriage roles and begin with a foundation of egalitarian marriage.  Then add back a thin veneer of headship, focusing on headship sounding principles which are calculated to least offend modern feminist sensibilities.

I’ll start with the base 95% of complementarian marriage:  egalitarian marriage.  Dr. Wayne Grudem explains the base of complementarian marriage in A Balanced Look at Roles (emphasis mine):

…how does it work? How does it work in practice?”

In our own marriage, Margaret and I talk frequently and at length about many decisions. I can tell you that I wouldn’t be here tonight unless Margaret and I had talked about this and asked the Lord about it, and she had given blessing to it, and said, “Yes, I think that’s right.” Sometimes we make large decisions such as buying a house or a car, and sometimes they are small decisions like where we should go for a walk together. I often defer to Margaret’s wishes, and she often defers to mine because we love each other.

In almost every case, each of us has some wisdom and insight that the other does not have. Usually, we reach agreement on the decisions that we make. Very seldom will I do something that she doesn’t think is wise–I didn’t say never.

So far, this is pure egalitarianism, or if you prefer, “mutual submission”.  Note the implication that love means they almost never disagree.

In Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism: Biblical Responses to the Key Questions Grudem explains that complementarian couples nearly always come to mutual agreement because God makes them one flesh:

The biblical ideal is that the husband is to be both loving and humble in his leadership. The wife is to be both joyful and intelligent in her submission. Practically, this means that they will frequently talk about many decisions, both large and small. This also means that both the husband and the wife will listen to the other’s unique wisdom and insight related to the decision. Often one will defer to the other in the decision; rarely will they differ greatly in the decision (for the Lord has made them “one flesh”).

Now that we have defined the base 95% of complementarian marriage (egalitarian marriage), we add in the remaining 5% of non threatening, non offensive headship.  But since the word headship is itself too offensive to feminist sensibilities, many prefer the term servant leader.  Whatever you call it, this 5% is calculated to be as non threatening as possible while seeming something like headship, but it is not biblical headship.  We can understand what this looks like by Grudem’s description of what is missing when it is absent.  When husbands are “wimps”, what exactly is missing?

Opposite the errors of aggression are errors of passivity. They are equally wrong. When a husband abdicates his leadership responsibilities by not disciplining his children, not caring for the family’s physical or spiritual needs, or not defending his wife and children when verbally attacked by a friend or relative (these are just a few examples), then his acting as a wimp does not fit the role God designed for him in marriage.

When Grudem says a husband is being a wimp by being too passive, he doesn’t mean the husband isn’t leading his wife in any meaningful sense of the term.  He means the husband isn’t doing a laundry list of things every wife is tempted to nag her husband into doing.  None of these things are threatening or offensive to all but the most radical feminist woman.  Even better, under this definition anything you want to manipulate husbands into doing can be framed as “leadership”, including dating/wooing their wife and telling her she is pretty.

There is another component to the veneer of headship complementarians place on top of egalitarian marriage, and that is responsibility.  While complementarian decisions are made using the same process egalitarians use, the difference is the husband is responsible for every decision made using the egalitarian process.  As Grudem explains in Countering:

But in every decision that involves both the husband and wife, whether large or small, and whether they agree or not, the responsibility to make the decision rests with the husband. Therefore, male headship makes a difference every day in the marriage relationship.

This is egalitarian marriage with a female friendly cherry on top.  If your husband isn’t giving you your way, he must not really love you.  But even when he gives you your way, he is always responsible for any bad outcomes.  Only the most hard core feminist woman could find fault with such an arrangement.

Grudem makes the same point in Balanced:

But in every decision that we make that affects us together or affects our family, the responsibility to make the decision rests with me. If there is genuine male headship, I believe there is a quiet acknowledgement that the focus of the decision making process is the husband, not the wife. Even though there will often be much discussion and there should be mutual respect and consideration of each other, ultimately the responsibility to make the decision rests with the husband. And so, in our marriage the responsibility to make the decision rests with me.

In summary:

  1. Nearly all decisions are made by coming to consensus.  If husbands are making decisions their wives disagree with, someone isn’t loving the other well enough;  to understand who this someone might be, consider which spouse Scripture instructs to focus on submitting, and which spouse is to focus on loving.  Alternately, perhaps they aren’t really married, since if they were one flesh this wouldn’t be happening.  In a world of rampant divorce because wives don’t “feel loved” and/or decide they were tricked into marrying the wrong man, this is gasoline on the fire of rebellion and broken homes.
  2. Husbands need to defer to the better judgment of their wives on a regular basis.
  3. No matter who made the decision, and even though it must be made using the egalitarian process, the husband is responsible.

For comparison, consider a very typical description of egalitarian marriage from a woman who started out as a complementarian:

We make all major decisions together.  Since each of us starts out willing to yield to the other, any disagreements are usually resolved in favor of who the issue is more important to.  But if we disagree, we have to talk and pray until we find consensus.  He doesn’t have an “I make the final decision if we disagree” trump card.

On the other hand, since back in our complementarian days, he never actually used this trump card, this makes no practical difference.  We have always sought consensus.  He has never wanted to override me.

The practical decision making process is the same in both models.  The difference is the removal of the veneer of headship (emphasis mine):

In short, our marriage has not changed all that much in its outward appearance.  The difference is in our attitudes.  I can no longer coast along, letting the responsibility for everything rest on him.  I have to step up and take responsibility alongside him, shouldering with him the adult load.  Any rules that we set for the household and children, we must both be fully willing to enforce.  And once we got used to this, we both liked it much better.

Indeed.  If you insist on having an egalitarian marriage in structure, it is far better not to pretend that it is traditional.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Dr. Wayne Grudem, Feminists, Headship, Rebellion, Servant Leader, Submission, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

85 Responses to Complementarian marriage: Egalitarian marriage with a veneer of headship.

  1. Pingback: Complementarian marriage: Egalitarian marriage with a veneer of headship. – Manosphere.com

  2. @Dalrock

    Pick a so-called church (any church) that teaches feminist doctrine… and look it up in the Secretary of State’s directory of businesses. The probability of finding said church listed as an incorporated not-for-profit business entity providing services to the general public of a religious nature approaches unity.

    The first rule of a successful business is to provide the customer with what they want to buy at a cost that’s competitive and keeps the business running. Churchians are quite good at doing that and they don’t make it a secret that they’re in business to make money. Not a profit, mind you, but in business to make money all the same by giving the public what they want.

    You’re perpetuating the idea that these people are Christians and in doing so you’re attempting to hold the churchians to a standard they have publicly rejected. Christ created His church and He is the head of the church, which is required to obey Him and keep His commands. This is how we told that we know someone actually is a Christian (1st John 2:1-6). The State creates corporations that are required to obey the law of their creator (the State). It’s true that there are some ignorant people out there who don’t understand what it means to incorporate but (certainly from the perspective of any court) it must be presumed that if a church incorporates it has signed off on the fact that they worship the State and obey the laws of their creator- the State. The Bible is not part of the Uniform Commercial Code or the State code, therefore it does not apply in any meaningful way to churchian entities.

    For churchians, all the references to the Bible are nothing more than window dressing subject to interpretation and appreciation, in the same manner the paint scheme and body style of cars are changed to suit the buyers but don’t affect the car itself, which is basically unchanged underneath. Christ gave us an aircraft that lets us fly, but holds us to rules that can’t be broken without serious consequences. Refusal to obey those rules keeps you on the ground. Churchians want to stay on the ground in cars that change shape and form with the seasons but still look like planes or rockets, because they refuse to obey the laws that would allow them to fly.

    Automobiles are not planes and cannot become planes without a transformation that requires obeying the basic laws required for flight. Isn’t it better to simply identify the autos for what they are and point out the fact that they aren’t planes and thus can’t fly? Seems to me that is where the real fight is.

    Framing it that way makes obedience to the Word the litmus test that can be argued effectively, but the entire argument is irrelevant without first settling the issue of what the entity actually is. Is it something that is tied to the world or something that can fly?

  3. Gunner Q says:

    AT @ 5:44 pm:
    “You’re perpetuating the idea that these people are Christians and in doing so you’re attempting to hold the churchians to a standard they have publicly rejected.”

    Dalrock is doing no such thing. They call themselves Christians and claim Biblical standards, and Dalrock is pointing out their hypocrisy. This is productive work and we should be grateful he does it. If you can do better then show us, don’t tell us.

  4. Looking Glass says:

    @Dalrock:

    This is something of a side point, but it’s actually fairly critical to this discussion. As moderns use the word, there is no “balance” with or within God. God is. It’s as simple as that. Where there are choices, there is Wisdom to be had from the Lord.

    The entire concept of “balancing” is itself an intentional move to end-run around the very clear commands of the Lord. (Or the occasional way used to get around completely botching the reading of scripture.) It falls into the Cult of Nice side of things quite clearly, but it’s also a fairly classic tactic to de-escalate tense situations. But it’s still wrong when applied to the Lord.

  5. John Miller says:

    AT, your attack on churches which incorporate is ill-founded on so many levels.

  6. LeeLee says:

    What stands out to me is how divorced his description of his marriage seems to be from real life for the vast majority of human beings.

    I mean, I had to be corrected for leaving dishes in the sink just while I was reading this post.

    Meanwhile, the most heat Margaret and Wayne seem to be experiencing is their struggle to suss out of whether the other would really like to take a walk, and Piper’s only had to pull rank over his wife a few times in 40 years.

    Spotless. Mysteriously spotless human beings, light-years ahead of the rest of us.

  7. @John Miller

    You have evidently never read Hale v Henkle, which has been cited in over 1600 subsequent decisions and is considered bedrock jurisprudence in the United States. I will provide you with the relevant passage for your edification:

    “…the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

    Now, Mr. John Miller, perhaps you’d like to explain why the Supreme Court’s explanation of the status of corporations is incorrect. This is the clearest possible explanation of what a corporation is and nobody twists anyone’s arm to incorporate, but I eagerly await your explanation of how they’re wrong.

    While you’re at it, please explain just how a Church, which is the creation of Christ who is the Head of that Church, could possibly become a corporation without renouncing Christ in the process. Keep in mind that the act of incorporation is to publicly declare that the entity in question is a creation of the State and subject to the complete control of the State.

    No man can have two masters.
    If you deny me before men I will deny you before my Father.

  8. Swanny River says:

    Home run. OTOH, it leaves me torn because I like new posts here, but this seems so crucial, it could be the last post for 6 months and still bear good fruit.

  9. feeriker says:

    What stands out to me is how divorced his description of his marriage seems to be from real life for the vast majority of human beings

    That’s probably because he’s lying through his teeth about the real nature of his own marriage. Grudem undoubtedly no more has any ultimate say in his own household than does any other American man whose wife will drop the Divorce Bomb faster than one can say “ABUUUUUUUUUUUUSE!” should he ever dare even think of trying to assert real biblical headship.

    Not to say that Grudem (or any other complementarian “pastor”) is necessarily a henpecked castrato, but if he were to tell the truth about his own marriage, which is probably a lot closer to the norm for most men, no one would pay him the least bit of attention (“if this guy’s marriage is no better or different than mine, then why am I wasting money and precious life minutes on his books?”)

  10. Swanny River says:

    Just in case I wasn’t clear, i meant Dalrock’s OP as the HR, but the topic of corporations is also important (not being snarky).

  11. Mojohn says:

    AT, I will prepare a more detailed response in the morning. But suffice it to say that the case you cited has nothing to say about the specifics of non-profit corporations under state law. As to state corporation laws applicable to churches that avail themselves of their protections, I can say with confidence that incorporated churches have no obligations to the state that are inconsistent with scripture.

  12. Swanny River says:

    I agree about the lack of reality with these no headship needed marriages, but I can add that I knew a missionary couple who lived with Piper I think, for two years about 12 years ago, and my friend had a strong sense of leadership, not the kind that never disagrees. I saw a Piper conference 3 to 5 years ago called Don’t Waste Your Life, and it was awesome. He really has a great ability to cut through the culture and get people focused on Jesus. That man knows what dying to self is,IMO, which makes Dalrock so important. I see him bringing a godly correction to a good brother (Piper, and I believe Grudem recently died) that glorifies Godand helps single christians avoid making the painfully bad decisions churchians help them make in choosing mates, or getting along with them once they are married.

  13. theasdgamer says:

    AT is quite correct. I am reminded of the proverb that fools despise a wise man’s wisdom.

  14. Mojohn says:

    Asd, you do know what Jesus said about calling another person a fool.

  15. Pingback: Complementarian marriage: Egalitarian marriage with a veneer of headship. | Reaction Times

  16. Jeff says:

    Miller,

    Colorado sb 200. Outside the four walls of the church. If someone decides to file a claim against you preaching/talking it is hate speech. Try keeping your 501c3.

    Let me see a pastor who has the balls to not incorporate or have a 501c3…

  17. Mojohn says:

    Jeff, please call me mojohn.

    I’ll respond in more detail in the morning. For the moment, let me say that even if a church operates as an unincorporated association, it is subject to the bill you mentioned. The only possible “out” is not owning property and having closed worship assemblies. In other words, no “friend days” and similar outreach activities. Not an undesirable outcome, from my perspective.

  18. Mojohn says:

    BTW, churches are considered tax exempt (allowing for deductibility of contributions) without having to file for 501(c)(3) status.

  19. @MoJohns

    I can say with confidence that incorporated churches have no obligations to the state that are inconsistent with scripture.
    _____________

    Talk about straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel. Are you a practitioner of divination? Do you know for certain what any given State will do in the future and require of its creatures, who, claiming the State as their creator cannot refuse compliance? Your confidence in the past, current and future actions of the State do not inspire me, but it is your response that is most bothersome.

    Whether you know it or not, you are arguing the position of a religiostatist because your choice is to either proclaim Christ as the Author of the Church and the source of all it’s authority with the Church subject to the requirements and commands of its Creator. This is done by default in claiming to be a Church. In the alternate you can proclaim the “church organization” is a creation of the State, which is it’s creator and authority, making the “church organization” subject to the requirements and commands of the State. That is done by the act of incorporation, a legally binding but completely VOLUNTARY process in which the State juristically creates the “church organization” as an entity and bestows upon it certain privileges and benefits, its mere juristic existence being one of them.

    MoJohn, you are partially correct in saying that churches are considered to be tax exempt. I say partially correct because a church is not “considered” tax exempt, it is exempt from taxation, in contradistinction from being possessed of a “tax exemption.” However, in legal-speak, a church is not the same thing as a church organization and by definition a church organization cannot be a church. An incorporated not-for-profit business entity may be a church organization (if it so declares itself to be) but it cannot be a church and the “tax exemption” it holds is a privilege, which is not the same thing as the right of being exempt from taxation that a church possesses.

    I’m sorry if this confuses you, but this stuff was written by lawyers for the purpose of confusing people and hiding the true nature of the actions they take.

    My original point stands, which is stated in 1st John 2:4

    “The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

    A liar, not a hypocrite. Looking at the big picture, if the average Christian were to be accused of being a Christian today… would there be enough evidence to convict them? In that sense the incorporated not-for-profit business entity where they choose to worship would speak loudly. Why would someone who claims to be a Christian choose to worship at a place that has voluntarily and publicly claimed the State is their creator and master, not the Lord Jesus Christ? This cannot be reconciled even if the government was publicly and unabashedly proclaiming itself to be Christian and in submission to God, which it most certainly is not.

    The wife who claims to be a Christian yet refuses to recognize or honor God’s ordained authority structure in which she is to be ruled by her husband and refuses to obey her specific commands to be in submission to him regardless of whether or not he is in obedience to God is not a hypocrite, she is a liar and the truth is not in her. Those who support and encourage her flagrant rebellion and sin are also liars and the truth is not in them, for God has given them over to a depraved mind.

  20. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker already labeled this accurately: figureheadship.

  21. Bill Smith says:

    Gunner Q,

    AT thinks he can evaluate the hearts of all people. Any who don’t fit his narrow views must not be Christians since they don’t believe the right things. Dalrock rightly leaves the judgment of that up to God.

    I heard a preacher in the past day or so note that he was concerned about those who claimed to never have an argument in their marriages. His assertion was that two human being will never be in perfect alignment and any that seemed to be were stuffing a whole lot of things that would eventually blow up, likely based on some seemingly small detail.

    I have never had a completely argument free marriage, so I wouldn’t know how that could happen, but I am married to a real women, not a textbook case one.

  22. Bill Smith says:

    Good thing you never sin AT, or your salvation might be suspect as well. Keep on the righteous judgment parade!

  23. Bill, were you referring to the quote from 1st John 2:4 when you said “Any who don’t fit his narrow views must not be Christians since they don’t believe the right things.”? I’m wondering because it sounds a lot like projection to me.

    If you’re going to make it personal, let’s have some detail instead of acting like a woman. In other words, if you’re going to use a man’s name when you post, at least act like a man. And, if we’re going to play the “mine’s bigger than your” game with past sins I’ll be happy to talk about my problems with adultery but that means you have to open up too. Were you a virgin when you got married, dear?

  24. VFM 6974 says:

    Bill Smith’s response does read a lot like woman or a very affeminate men with no positive male influence. Either way, unfit for discussing scripture.

  25. theasdgamer says:

    @ Mojohn

    “If the shoe fits…” Looks like you tried it on for size all on your own, lol.

  26. So in essence what we have is ACTIVE submission on the man’s part posing as masculine leadership and PASSIVE aggression on the female’s part posing as feminine submission. Changing the names to protect the feminist doctrine.

  27. Talk about straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel. Are you a practitioner of divination? Do you know for certain what any given State will do in the future and require of its creatures, who, claiming the State as their creator cannot refuse compliance? Your confidence in the past, current and future actions of the State do not inspire me, but it is your response that is most bothersome.

    The exact same could and should be said of marriage. Until there is a suitable Biblical option for Christian men, marriage is a state institution and therefore bound to what the state decrees.

    Christian men should not get married into a current Church, as it is duty bound to honour, not God, but the state.

  28. Astrapto says:

    Not sure how this turned into a 501(c)3 debate so quickly.

    Dalrock, have you written a positive vision of what biblical marriage is?I’d like to read it.
    Instead of reading “that’s not biblical headship,” all the time, I’d like to hear specifically what headship is.

  29. Scott says:

    Hi Astrapto-

    Dalrock intersperses bits of wisdom of the subject of headship and sometimes you have dig a little to find it. The post PokeSalad links above is a great one.

    Might I suggest, my blog devotes about 50-60% of its posts to the topic of headship.

    https://morallycontextualizedromanceblog.wordpress.com

    Scott.

  30. Boxer says:

    I’m not a solicitor and don’t know when the laws changed. In the beginnings of North American legal settlement, though, the legal corporation always had a precise social teleology. People would incorporate to build a bridge or a road, and once that specific task was completed, the incorporation would dissolve. Ralph Nader used to give good lectures on this historical change, and I’d bet some of them are on youtube.

    I wouldn’t immediately discount every church that incorporates in the current climate. Liability laws probably force an incorporation on bodies that wouldn’t otherwise want it. (It’d be rough, for example, to expect an individual priest to be responsible to defend from every slip-and-fall con game that is perpetrated on church property). That said, in a healthier and less litigious society, the need for corporations would be a lot more limited than they are presently.

  31. Bill Smith says:

    VFM,

    Yeah, right.

    I just know enough to leave the part about judging hearts up to God. We would not be given 1 John 1:9 if we could walk free from sin. You might want to step outside your own self righteousness a bit. I think I will rely on His righteousness instead of my own.

    Stand for the truth, but let God decide who is saved and who is not. The standards in Romans 10:9-10 is pretty simple, and does not include the many things often paraded.

    If you have suddenly found a way to look into someone’s heart from a distance, please enlighten us how that works. Will you really assert that true Christians never do wrong?

    What is salvation anyway? Is it an inner (not outer) transformation as the Scriptures note? Or is it just a status of staying good enough on the “good deeds” end of things as AT and others assert?

  32. Bill Smith says:

    AT,

    You regularly claim others are not true Christians, while you are, by implication. I recognize that for the foolishness it is, especially given the lifestyle choices you have noted in many other posts. I have no obligation to keep a running archive of your proclamations.

    I have no expectation to change your views however, I just find your hypocrisy galling. I should just continue ignoring it.

  33. Boxer says:

    THX 1138 writes:

    Bill Smith’s response does read a lot like woman or a very affeminate men with no positive male influence. Either way, unfit for discussing scripture.

    Actually, this looks like a female response: ad hominem and attacking your opponent’s masculinity. It’s lazy and a waste of space, written by yet another “new” name.

    The word is *e*ffeminate, by the way.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  34. Boxer, the articles of “incorporation” were stated in the Upper Room when Jesus declared “This is the New Covenant (Contract) in my blood”. If your local church can be sued into non-existence by someone slipping on the ice it isn’t your local church.

  35. mojohn says:

    Artisinal Toad, part one of my promised response to your initial comment follows.

    I want to state clearly that I agree with you and others that too many denominations and non-denominational churches seem to have abandoned their adherence to Scripture as their solid, non-negotiable foundation for teaching and practice. Members of those churches have indeed succumbed to “churchianity.”

    I do not have personal experience with boats, especially ocean-going craft. However, I have friends who have been in the Navy or engaged in making a living from the oceans. I’m told that if they do not periodically clean their boats, barnacles and similar sea-life can attach themselves to the hull. Those uncontrolled growths reduce travel speed and can, over time, compromise hull integrity placing the whole boat in jeopardy. If what I’ve been told is true, or even mostly so, I believe we can see that the same thing is happening to churches.

    I am an heir to a religious heritage that took root in the USA in the early 1800s. In contrast to the Reformation, which sought to strip some – but not all – of the perceived overreaches from the Roman Catholic church, this early group of American Christians sought to dry-dock the church and scrape it clean of all barnacles. They called Christians of their time to conform their practices to those of their First Century brothers and sisters before the encroachment of the apostasy predicted by Paul began to plague the church (Acts 20.29-30; 1 Timothy 4:1-3).

    You and others have rightly criticized the abuses that can arise when a church is led by a single pastor who has actual control over the church’s teaching and practices. I do not intend to be condescending, but do you – and others who have voiced this criticism – realize that single-pastor church leadership is a barnacle on the church ship? In the First Century, Paul taught (orally and in writing) that God’s will is that each local church be governed by its own group of elders (Titus 1:5 [see passages such as 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 1 Thessalonians 1:1, which were addressed to “the church” – not churches – in Corinth and Thessalonica, etc.]; Acts 20:17-38). It wasn’t until the Second Century that individual men were recognized as “bishops” of local congregations, and later as “bishops” over multiple churches.

    Granted, having multiple bishops/elders/presbyters is not a foolproof bulwark against apostasy. But, this structure is certainly less prone to be overcome error in the short run than a single, pastor-led church.

    The early 19th Century preachers mentioned above who sought to restore Christianity to its First Century roots – not reform Christianity did a yeoman’s job of beginning the process of stripping the barnacles – the teachings of non-inspired men – from the ship/church. But the job of restoration is never fully complete; Christians from all eras should be about barnacle-removing on a consistent basis. Christians who are members of two movements that are heirs to the restoration call work and worship with the non-denominational Churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches. (I use “non-denominational” in the sense of not having a supra-congregational hierarchy and earthly headquarters.)

    If you check into the beliefs and practices of the Churches of Christ/Independent Christian Churches, you will find some who teach things, and engage in practices, that I (and perhaps many of you) consider non- or un-Biblical. But as a general rule, in my experience, many – if not most – of these congregations are Biblically-grounded, with male-only elders, who oppose the encroachment of culture upon the church.

    Churches of Christ are in the top 15 religious groups in terms of membership per Thom Rainer in The Christian Post at 1.6 million. So, we’re not a fringe group by any means.

    I’ll respond in a second comment to your comments about churches and state corporate laws.

  36. Gunner Q says:

    Artisanal Toad @ 7:43 pm:
    “While you’re at it, please explain just how a Church, which is the creation of Christ who is the Head of that Church, could possibly become a corporation without renouncing Christ in the process.”

    Simple, the Church is not a wooden box and paid employees. Physical churches are useful tools for the Church, meaning us followers of Christ, but they are not the creation of Christ and don’t need to be. The only bad part of church incorporation is the current restriction on calling out government’s evildoing.

    This is part of how Complementarians like Wayne Grudem can go so wrong in such obvious ways. They think THEY are the Church, not all believers, therefore Christianity is whatever they say it is. As long as they don’t provably contradict their chosen interpretation of Scripture, they get to be the Gatekeepers of God. This causes problems when people outside their academic bubble have life experiences that don’t fit their beautiful theories.

  37. This preacher is so disconnected from the vast majority of men today and the way marriage operates. These are the kind of teachings that REINFORCE male submission to the female imperative. Let me expand on Rollos oft cited claim that feminism has replaced the Holy Spirit in modern churches because I don’t think he goes far. It is not just the Holy Spirit but the entire Trinity that the feminists have replaced.

    Let us compare

    –Holy Trinity:

    God the father gives us the word and doctrine.

    God the Holy Spirit gives us spiritual fruit and direction.

    God the Son gives us the divine sacrifice that saves all men and he will judge the living and the Dead.

    Hear O’Israel, the Lord your God is one God…he wants a relationship with you and has arranged a plan of redemption for those who will obey.

    –Unholy Trinity:

    Feminist screeds and demands supply our doctrine.

    The Holy Hamster provides our spiritual fruit and direction.

    The Feminine Imperative as directed by the Divine Tingles saves all men by rewarding them with access to the most Holy golden moist vagina who shall judge who shall be rewarded and who shall not.

    Hear O’Shitlord Men, the Lord your Goddess is one….she wants a relationship with you and has arranged a plan of subjugation for those who would love her like Christ loved the church…

  38. mojohn says:

    Artisinal Toad, part two of my response.

    I have been an attorney since 1981 and, during that 35-year period, advised both for- and non-profit corporations.

    I am intimately familiar with the non-profit corporation laws of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. I can state categorically that these states’ laws do not require such corporations to engage in – or refrain from engaging in – any activities prohibited or mandated by Scripture.

    I also recognize that state non-profit corporation laws (like all other laws) can be changed in such a way that incorporated congregations could be faced with the choice of whether to renounce teaching and practice that are contrary to Scripture or surrender their corporate charter.

    Even so, courts have typically shown great deference to a church’s (and yes, incorporated congregation’s) leadership in their interpretations of the Bible regarding their teaching and practice. However, I can see a day when that deference goes the way of the dodo. I can see a liberal majority on the US Supreme Court creating an exception to the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the effect that if a religious practice results in discrimination against a protected class of society, the church is liable for damages. If such a decision is handed down, it will not matter whether a congregation is incorporated. All local gatherings of Christians will face legal persecution if they engage in “discriminatory” teaching or behavior. BTW, I predict such an opinion will be written within the next 5-10 years.

    Pending a change in law, I see nothing sinful or problematic from a Biblical perspective if congregations decide to incorporate because: (a) the legal effect of anti-religious laws and court decisions will be felt by both incorporated and non-incorporated churches; and (b) existing case and statutory law doesn’t require incorporated congregations to act in ways contrary to the Bible. If churches intend to own property, take up contributions, and borrow funds to pursue their religious activities, incorporating is prudent. It makes these activities much easier to engage in.

  39. Looking Glass says:

    @mojohn:

    The other point is that, if they do succeed in forcing Churches around with the law (too much), it won’t be for long. If we don’t have our First Amendment rights, we don’t have any others, so it’s simply Civil War 2.0 time.

    The problem is too many people don’t realize the dangerous game they’re playing.

  40. mojohn says:

    @Looking Glass:

    I absolutely agree. If the First Amendment is gutted, the rest of the Bill of Rights are effectively written out of the Constitution.

  41. Astrapto says:

    Thanks, PokeSalad and Scott!

  42. Scott says:

    If such a decision is handed down, it will not matter whether a congregation is incorporated. All local gatherings of Christians will face legal persecution if they engage in “discriminatory” teaching or behavior. BTW, I predict such an opinion will be written within the next 5-10 years.

    This seems like the most likely future scenario. At that point it will be underground home churches and such.

  43. mojohn says:

    @Scott,

    Talk about returning to First Century roots!!

  44. Scott says:

    MoJohn–

    Its interesting you are CoC. I grew up in that faith tradition and eventually became Orthodox. Even wrote my masters thesis in seminary on a topic that forced me to review the history of the Stone-Campbell movement.

    The curious thing is, the same rationale for why the Churches of Christ exist is what eventually led me to Orthodoxy, at 43 years old.

  45. mojohn says:

    @feministhater, March 23, 2016 at 6:38 am

    I hadn’t thought about it that way, but you made an excellent comparison!

  46. mojohn says:

    @Scott,

    I’m actually attracted to certain elements of Orthodoxy and wish I knew more about it. Is your thesis available in electronic format, and would you be willing to share it with me?

  47. Scott says:

    These guys own it. Looks like you have to pay $9.40 for a CD of it.

    My only copy is a hardbound paper version in my home library. This should link right to it.

    http://www.tren.com/e-docs/search.cfm?p091-0009

  48. mojohn says:

    @Scott,

    Can you recommend the documentation about Orthodoxy that you found helpful in your migration from CoC?

  49. Bill Smith says:

    Scott,

    What is the Orthodox position of underground churches and such? Do they have a “formal” way to handle that?

    (Seems like an interesting question to me, though a bit off topic for this blog. I suppose the same question would apply to the RCC, such as in Communist China, especially in the relatively recent past.)

    ====

    Anyone who wants a Scriptural challenge should try to align Paul’s assertion that we should obey all authority and that such authority is all ordained by God with the intense persecution Paul and others faced under Nero and others. Anyone who wants to claim following the Scriptures is trivial hasn’t thought things through much.

  50. Novaseeker says:

    Bill —

    It isn’t really formal, but similar things have happened in Orthodoxy as well due to the situation in the Soviet Union and, to a lesser degree, in other Eastern European Orthodox countries that were under communist rule to one degree or another after WW2. Basically, in the Soviet Union, there was first a period of massive persecution, which drove the church mostly underground, followed by the gradual resurrection of an official church apparatus, which was monitored, and to a significant degree, compromised by the communist regime. Parallel to this, there existed secret churches which were Orthodox (people would meet in houses, for the most part), with priests who were ordained by the official church (that’s where the bishops were), but who were private dissenters from the official church due to the collaboration aspects. In addition, the “diasporas” of these churches were operating largely independently of the “mother” churches, due to the compromised situation of the mother churches. For the Orthodox outside the Soviet orbit, all of this was considered Orthodox, due to the highly irregular situation of the “official” church in the Soviet Union and its satellites, but also highly irregular and, it was hoped, temporary.

    After the changes from 1989-1992, there was a big move to regularize all of this, of course, and it proceeded fairly quickly but with different degrees of success and speed in different places. There aren’t any more underground churches, however, because the official churches, while not perfect, are closer to the more typical levels of human-based imperfection rather than the extraordinary situation of direct official government interference and persecution.

  51. Scott says:

    Can you recommend the documentation about Orthodoxy that you found helpful in your migration from CoC?

    Well, the process took about two years once a few key events happened in my personal life. This is apparently pretty common.

    So to point to any particular readings might be difficult. At the time I was reading 1000 year old papal encyclicals, the canons, homilies from the church fathers, ultra-traditionalist websites, you name it.

    I have been invited to write about it on a website called “Journey to Orthodoxy.”

    Once I get that done, it will chronicle how I got from raised in the Church of Christ to Orthodoxy.

  52. mojohn says:

    Thanks Scott. I’ll monitor that web site and look forward to your post!

  53. Bill Smith says:

    Thanks for the insight Novaseeker. That is about what I was expecting. The situations for the RCC in China was/is likely similar.

  54. @MoJohn
    I am intimately familiar with the non-profit corporation laws of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. I can state categorically that these states’ laws do not require such corporations to engage in – or refrain from engaging in – any activities prohibited or mandated by Scripture.

    (NB. You should understand that I’m responding to you for the benefit of those reading so please don’t get upset with me for stating things we both know perfectly well, points I would omit entirely were we to be speaking privately. I’m practically quoting CJS)

    I assumed you are an attorney and had I not, this statement would have convinced me. It is reasonably truthful within the semantic limitations you have placed upon it, but is nonetheless a deflection of the original issue because you carefully neglected the issues of status, standing and jurisdiction on both sides of the equation. As you are no doubt aware, the status of any particular entity determines its standing and likewise the jurisdiction of any particular court over said entity. Your answer indicates you are well aware of the point I made regarding status, which is why you deflected so carefully to avoid the point.

    In fact, the same point applies to you. In your status as an attorney you are an officer of the court and have a duty to the court as well as to your clients. If there is a conflict between the two it must be settled in favor of the former rather than the latter and there is no requirement for you to explain this to your client (and as you well know, the concept of “duty” can vary wildly from one judge to another). You’re also well aware that the attorney-client relationship is also known as a “guardian-ward” relationship and any person or entity represented by an attorney is automatically considered by the court to be incompetent and unable to manage their affairs before the court without the need for a guardian. The fact that a Church can be represented by anyone, in contradistinction to a corporation which must be represented by a member of the bar, taken with the previous two points about attorney status and the attorney-client relationship makes your comment one in which you have performed only the bare minimum of necessary disclosure by stating you are an attorney.

    The decision to incorporate a church is a voluntary one, freely made, but the act of doing so changes the status of the entity involved, which changes the standing of the entity by granting jurisdiction over “church functions” to secular courts which would have had no such jurisdiction prior to the change in status. That is a bald statement of fact that cannot be disputed. However, the point is that the decision by a Church (which has a distinct legal status and standing) to incorporate is to formally extinguish the legal existence of the Church and declare a new entity had come into existence to replace it, created by the State and subject to the caprices of the legislature, the courts and any pertinent regulatory agencies.

    I will state again, that no man can serve two masters and neither can any church. Your memory should be long enough to recall the case of the Faith Baptist Church of Louisville, Nebraska during the 1970’s through the early 1980’s. While you can carefully and truthfully claim that “these states’ laws do not require such corporations to engage in – or refrain from engaging in – any activities prohibited or mandated by Scripture” that is a very fine semantic line you’re walking, designed to deceive rather than enlighten, as I shall demonstrate.

    When the church I mentioned decided God was calling them to educate their children and opened a school that was not licensed by the State of Nebraska and did not have accredited teachers, the result was the pastor spent time in jail, his wife and children were forced to flee the state to prevent their incarceration and the church was padlocked by the Sheriffs office. Parents were jailed. That situation literally came very close to the point of people getting killed. If you are curious, you can read the testimony of the pastor. About half-way through the formatting is lost for a while but his testimony refutes your argument far better than any long list of court citations I could provide. For those who want to “cut to the chase” relevant to the issue of church incorporation, search for the heading “CHURCH INCORPORATION” which is about 2/3 of the way down the page. However, I encourage reading the entire text:

    http://www.everettramseydd.com/lessonsfromlouisville.html

    Here’s a short explanation of the heart of the case:

    “Humanism has successfully convinced the majority of Christians that Christianity is just a religion, like all religions and that is for piety, personal and inner thoughts. It is not to govern the public lives of an individual or a nation. In fact, this is exactly what the State attorneys argued in the courtroom.

    “We do not care what Rev Sileven and his people believe, they just can’t practice it”. (Emphasis in original)

    “Well, this is no different than any wicked tyrannical government of history.

    “In this case in Nebraska, the State testified in court that they had no problem with us being Christian or teaching religion or anything else pertaining to our God. We only had to accept the State curriculum, the State philosophy (theology) and use only teachers that were trained and approved by the State.

    “Well, my friend, if you do all that, the State would not fear your God or your Christianity, because your religion becomes a tool of the State. The enemy has figured it out. If you teach your children the wicked and evil theology of situation ethics, socialism, communism, tolerance and universal equality and salvation, what you teach your children about the true God will never enter their minds, let alone stay in their minds or affect how they act and who they obey.”

  55. @MoJohn
    Pending a change in law, I see nothing sinful or problematic from a Biblical perspective if congregations decide to incorporate because: (a) the legal effect of anti-religious laws and court decisions will be felt by both incorporated and non-incorporated churches; and (b) existing case and statutory law doesn’t require incorporated congregations to act in ways contrary to the Bible. If churches intend to own property, take up contributions, and borrow funds to pursue their religious activities, incorporating is prudent. It makes these activities much easier to engage in.

    A short example is sufficient, I think. I’m aware of a case in Texas in which a congregant was maintain an open and notorious adulterous relationship with the pastor of another church. The directors of the incorporated church entity mistakenly thought they were a church, exercised church discipline and excommunicated her, which under the Commercial Code of Texas they had no right to do. She successfully sued them for damages.

    However, you have me arguing practicalities. The only real point is this: Is Christ the Head of the Church or is the State? If Christ is the Head of the Church, it is sinful for a church to publicly proclaim their creator is the State and the State is their head. Your objections about commercial issues involving money are noted for what they are worth, which is much to a business but nothing to a church. The mission of the church is to go forth and make disciples, not to make money, buy property and borrow funds.

  56. Pingback: Not feelings. | Dark Brightness

  57. feeriker says:

    The decision to incorporate a church is a voluntary one, freely made, but the act of doing so changes the status of the entity involved, which changes the standing of the entity by granting jurisdiction over “church functions” to secular courts which would have had no such jurisdiction prior to the change in status.

    Alas, if only that were true in practice. As we’ve seen happen with “covenant marriages,” the secular courts will assert their jurisdiction over anyone and anything within their geographical or legal boundaries if called upon to do so by anyone with legal standing, or if they feel it in their own interests to do so.

  58. Gunner Q says:

    Bill Smith @ 2:33 pm:
    “Anyone who wants a Scriptural challenge should try to align Paul’s assertion that we should obey all authority and that such authority is all ordained by God with the intense persecution Paul and others faced under Nero and others.”

    It isn’t hard. Authority used properly commands our obedience. Authority used improperly does not. Nobody has authority to overrule God.

    The authority God provides to governments (Romans 13:1-7) is provided as a means to the end of public service. He does not endorse them with total power and expects God-defined morality of them. God has believed in separation of powers as early as Moses & Aaron.

    All authority comes from God but that does not mean His ‘appointees’ are trustworthy or sanctioned. The most classic example is God installing Exodus’ Pharaoh for the specific purpose of mistreating His people and giving God casus belli to enact the famous plagues. Another is Judas, who was one of the Twelve because Jesus needed a betrayer. Does that mean betraying Jesus was the right thing for Judas to do? Absolutely not. And then there’s the dreary list of bad kings in the OT starting with God-appointed Jeroboam.

    The early church was persecuted because until that moment in human history, outside of Israel, Government and God were synonymous. Then God made Himself known to non-Jews and government chose to kill instead of serve.

  59. Admin says:

    So why do Grudem and other Christian men think Christian manhood is as he describes? I think it’s because he’s a beta male. All of his bible training, sincere dedication to the Lord, the work of the Holy Spirit in his life, holding roles of leadership, and etc. have not yet brought him out of a beta mindset.

    Most PUAs know, through experience with tons of women, headship/manhood principals better than most Christian men. If Grudem were to take the mindset he described into the dating world, and try to execute it with high value women, they would reject him hard as a wimpy girly man. A high value woman wants to be lead by and be the helper of a man who is grounded, going somewhere, leading, etc. Grudem’s “Is this okay honey?” method of relating to a woman is only attractive to manly women.

    What Grudem described is gross to me, and I’ve seen other Christian leaders describe the same thing. I’ve learned more about being a man from PUA blogs than Christian leaders. Thank God for posts like this.

  60. Admin says:

    p.s. I see the keyboard warriors are controlling the comments with some argument about inc churches. …Seriously guys?

  61. @feeriker
    Alas, if only that were true in practice. As we’ve seen happen with “covenant marriages,” the secular courts will assert their jurisdiction over anyone and anything within their geographical or legal boundaries if called upon to do so by anyone with legal standing, or if they feel it in their own interests to do so.

    Not the same at all. Louisiana is the only state that has “covenant” marriage on the books that I know of, and all it takes is to move to a different jurisdiction to defeat that, although it’s possible a post-nup could preserve the issue (would have to be done right). As to courts asserting their jurisdiction over anyone and anything, I won’t say it doesn’t happen but long after the media has gone home it gets reversed on appeal if the issue was properly challenged. If it wasn’t, well, failure to make a timely objection is an objection waived.

    @Admin
    I’ve learned more about being a masculine leader from PUA blogs than Christian leaders.

    FIFY

    What would be funny if it were not sad is there are a lot of BDSM submissives who could teach Christian woman quite a bit about Biblical submission. However, I’m told it’s impolite of me to point that out. Reminds me of an old joke:

    A farmer was in bed with his wife in post-coital glow when she said “You know, you’re a lousy lay.” Farmer thought about it, then smacked his wife across the chops. Wife says “What was that for? All I did was tell the truth!” Farmer nods and says “Being a lousy lay has nothing to do with it, that was for knowing the difference.”

    Whether the subject is masculinity or femininity, knowing the difference seems to be quite offensive to churchians these days…

  62. Jim says:

    I’ve learned more about being a man from PUA blogs than Christian leaders. Thank God for posts like this.

    Ha, what does it say about the state of modern Christianity that you learn more from promiscuous men than the Christian Church?

  63. Admin says:

    I know, my experience has been really bad.

    It’s not easy to seduce a woman. One must know how women work, and how men are to relate to them, in order to get the seduction ball rolling. PUAs, because of their large time spent with women, learn how the genders best relate to each other the way God designed them to. And that’s with polarity. They get it.

    In my experience Christian leaders just don’t get polarity, even though it’s clearly taught in the bible. I’d be totally bummed out, but I did have one Dutch Reformed pastor who got it.

    My guess is most Christian guys are fumbling in the dark when it comes to dating and relating to women. And I’ve found the manosphere generally not helpful in this area because it either tacitly promotes hate of women, or gives advice on how to be a caricature of a man.

    Dalrock’s blog is a bright spot.

  64. greyghost says:

    Good to see “game” is becoming acceptable for Christian men. Lack of “game ” seems to make Christian men churchian losers that compromise scripture. As someone commented above the concept of “game” is already in the bible. PUA study truth and reality to score pussy and what do you know truth and reality are already written for us all in the bible.

  65. Bill Smith says:

    Gunner Q,

    I would definitely agree with your principles, but that is not what is written in the “submit to authority” portion. Many of those same authorities were harming Paul at the time it was written, or at least shortly after that.

    I do believe your approach is correct because it takes things into context, but it does require going beyond what is literally written in the specific Scriptures that support following authorities. Many were quite corrupt at the time Paul told those he wrote to about obeying them. (See Nero.)

    Sorry for the divergence however. The post on underground churches got me thinking about that.

  66. Jim says:

    What would be funny if it were not sad is there are a lot of BDSM submissives who could teach Christian woman quite a bit about Biblical submission. However, I’m told it’s impolite of me to point that out.

    It may be “impolite” but you’re completely right.

  67. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Admin: My guess is most Christian guys are fumbling in the dark when it comes to dating and relating to women.

    This is true. In my youth, I thought that what women really wanted was a sensitive and caring man. A man who listened. Admired her mind. Respected her choices. Supported her career goals. Shared his feelings. Was not into “that macho bullshit.” Was not overly aggressive. Knew that No means No. A man who was slow to touch her intimately, and quick to back off at the slightest sign of resistance.

    Naturally, I was not very successful with women in my youth. Women said they admired and approved of my views. “So refreshing to find a man who … yada, yada.” But they “just didn’t feel anything” for me and I was usually friend-zoned

  68. jeff says:

    What would be even funnier is not use game and hold women to biblical standards, that way you are following His commands, washing her with the word, and having sex. You love and honor her, live with her with understanding. She obeys you, submits, respects, honors and loves you. She understands you are the authority, and her head. She understand that she consents to sex. You cherish her and honor her as heir of grace.

    Weird…

  69. feeriker says:

    What would be even funnier is not use game and hold women to biblical standards, that way you are following His commands, washing her with the word, and having sex. You love and honor her, live with her with understanding. She obeys you, submits, respects, honors and loves you. She understands you are the authority, and her head. She understand that she consents to sex. You cherish her and honor her as heir of grace.

    Weird…

    And of course the majority here already knows this, but it bears repeating for newcomers:

    While what Jeff describes is absolutely and completely grounded in Scripture, the reaction of 99.99 percent of “Christian” women and at least 75 percent of “Christian” “men” to the very suggestion of this by the average less-than-fully-alpha man will be “ABUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSER!!!!!!!!!”

  70. Admin says:

    Well said guys.

  71. greyghost says:

    feeriker
    the policy and laws of civil society handles a large part but always remember man’s curse/punishment on par with “you will desire your husband and he will rule over you” (the jest) for Men

    Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

    No easy way for you fellas, it will always be work. the shit test never end

  72. jeff says:

    Ah…., but you can stop listening to the wife.

  73. Admin says:

    Coincidentally I was posting here on masculinity and polarity, and Krauser just posted a brief video on the topic. Grudem’s description of his complementarianism puts him and his wife close to the “A” in Krauser’s line chart in the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RoRRRU1WZo

  74. truthslave says:

    Complimentarian and Egalitarian Marriage Vs. Biblical Truth

    Being greater than God is not the aim of Satan, in fact, it is not even necessary. Equality is all that is necessary to dethrone God (if it were possible). The same truth goes for headship. A woman does not need to be greater than her husband to remove all of his biblical authority. She must only be equal in any sense that matters in order to upend and reverse God’s design. This is because equality gives a canceling vote. A canceling vote can stop any action and therefore render the decider impotent, ineffective, and no longer the decider.

    Lucifer speaking:
    “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be LIKE the most High.”
    Isaiah 14:14

    The Serpent speaking:
    “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be LIKE God, knowing good and evil.”
    Genesis 3:5

    Conversely,
    Paul Speaking to the Philippians:
    “You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.
    6Though he was God,a
    he did not think of EQUALITY with God
    as something to cling to.
    7Instead, he gave up his divine privilegesb;”

  75. feeriker says:

    Anon says:
    March 24, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    Hmmm, that looks like someone’s attempt to venture into Onion territory.

    I’m not saying that the event didn’t happen. It certainly would have turned out exactly as described if it did. I just find it curious that no real details were included in the original linked article.

  76. @RPLatecomer: “In my youth, I thought that what women really wanted was a sensitive and caring man. A man who listened. Admired her mind. Respected her choices. Supported her career goals. Shared his feelings. Was not into “that macho bullshit.” Was not overly aggressive. Knew that No means No. A man who was slow to touch her intimately, and quick to back off at the slightest sign of resistance.”

    Don’t forget kind, considerate, polite, and most important LISTENS (obeys) to what women say and ignores what they do. It really is the mind frack of all mind fracks. EVERYTHING they told us. EVERYTHING written in “relationship books” and EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF ADVICE given to young Christian men was a LIE. ALL OF IT!

    Women do not respond sexually to “nice guys.” The more you desire them, the less they desire you. The more you need them, the less they will give you. The more you take from them on threat of abandonment the happier they become. The more you treat them dismissively, the more respect they give you. The more options you cultivate to replace them, the more they want to have sex with you.

    He who has more shall be given more; while he who has less will have even that taken away from him and given to the one who has more.

  77. Claus says:

    Dalrock, check this: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/03/01/throwing-natalist-benefits-at-women-wont-fix-low-fertility-rates/

    Basically it says, by allowing a woman to gain money by working in the economy, they are paid not to reproduce. (and the more intelligent she is the greater the incentive.) It is easy to have a full-scale feminist rebellion if each rebel gets paid a small fortune over a lifetime. The slightly overlooked elephant in the room.

  78. Gunner Q says:

    Claus,
    You give women too much credit. They aren’t sitting down and planning out the most profitable life they can manage. If they did, they wouldn’t blow up their marriages out of boredom or play soldier or do incredibly stupid things like freeze their eggs so that, with expensive medical procedures and a big risk of genetic defects, they can postpone kids until retirement.

    Separately, of course paying people to have kids isn’t working. Our leaders are so badly deceived that they cannot understand the connection between tearing families apart for decades and there being no more families. They’re so unrepentant that they’ll try to purchase human lives like chickens before admitting their New Man is a failure. Fatherhood is banned but they want more fathers! Women are liberated from being feminine but what is more feminine than motherhood? We Christians call such consequences the wages of sin and there isn’t enough money on Earth to make ’em go away. The choice is repentance or death, for governments as well as individuals.

  79. feeriker says:

    The choice is repentance or death, for governments as well as individuals.

    As Scripture makes clear, they’ll choose death, especially the former.

  80. Pingback: Limbaugh nails the Us vs Them culture war… | Honor Dads

  81. Pingback: This Is What Happens « HOLY HELLFIRE

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