Complementarian soul essence.

Some readers of my recent series on the book Every Man’s Marriage may feel that I’ve unfairly lumped Stephen Arterburn and Fred Stoeker in with complementarians. After all, their book teaches that the wife is the master, and that the husband’s job is to submit to her, to comply with her soul essence in all things. On page 90 Fred explains that he is Brenda’s slave for life, and she is his “master”. But on page 93 they caution not to fall into the feminist trap of making your wife your master (emphasis mine):

Remember, we’re not talking about abdicating the crown when you choose to mutually submit. We’re talking about abdicating your style. Playing Chief Tiebreaker will trample your wife’s convictions and eat away at her soul essence. She’ll never blossom under that scenario, and there’ll be no oneness. You won’t experience intimacy.

Of course, we must be wise as we become Chief Servant, because there are two sides to the coin of mutual submission. On one side are those men who think they’re kings of the realm, and they lord that role over their wives. This attitude creates resentment and imbalance in the relationship. On the flip side are those men who have abdicated their godly role of male leadership because of feminism. In other words they make their wife king of the realm, deferring to their wives and failing to take leadership.

This is the soul essence of complementarianism; they don’t believe that men should succumb to feminism, but instead practice headship and submission, just like Stephen Arterburn and Fred Stoeker teach.

Alternately, if you read the quote immediately above and your first thought was:

Aha! I knew Dalrock was holding out on me! Sure they teach some terrible things, but they teach some good things too!

Then you might be a complementarian.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Complementarian, Denial, Every Man's Marriage, Fred Stoeker, Servant Leader, She's the boss., Stephen Arterburn, Traditional Conservatives, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Complementarian soul essence.

  1. anonymous_ng says:

    Ah, I see that the Ministry of Truth has been here already.

    Excellent.

  2. anonymous_ng says:

    I mean in the book, not Dalrock’s analysis.

  3. Pingback: Complementarian soul essence. | @the_arv

  4. Some readers of my recent series on the book Every Man’s Marriage may feel that I’ve unfairly lumped Stephen Arterburn and Fred Stoeker in ~Dalrock

    You’ve been more than fair to these “men” that remain completely devoid of empathy for the men destroyed by their channeled words:

    When Sandy and I were dating, I attempted to hold her hand one night. She jerked back and said that the thought of holding my hand kind of made her sick. She said it in the nicest way possible, but for whatever reason, I simply wasn’t appealing to her. My temptation was to lick my wounds and walk away. Instead, I told her that I wasn’t in this relationship to hold hands or do anything else but be with her. Well, that obviously had an impact on her because we eventually did hold hands. Furthermore, we eventually got married.
    …When we finally married, I was shocked to find that sex was a painful experience for her. She wanted no part of it. I was humiliated, felt like a failure, and had no idea what to do. Then I remembered the hand holding incident. I went back to that place and realized that I had to be of the same mind now that I was then.
    ~Stephen Arterburn ( @SteveArterburn on Twitter ) from his book “Every Man’s Marriage”

    As Dalrock has stated, “Because he was obedient to God during their courtship by LJBFing himself, he was prepared by God for his unexpectedly sexless marriage. This helped him double down on stupidity”

    Thank you, Dalrock, for exposing the well funded that are causing devastation around the world.

  5. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Heh. “Chief Servant.” That must be something like a “Peasant King.” How fitting that when the complementarians try to create a term describing the duties they think husbands should assume the best they can manage is an oxymoron.

    Or as I once heard an elderly preacher say: “Always remember that the devil can’t create, he can only pervert.”

  6. TMAC says:

    We need a new term that concisely codifies what you call a man who is neither complementarian not egalitarian. Instead, he is the Biblical definition in every way.

    How about “husband.”

  7. Swanny River says:

    My first thought was that they are not Complementarians because they don’t think being a tiebreaker is part of leadership, whereas complementarians make it known that being a leader means breaking ties, even though, it was Piper or Keller maybe, who only did so once in 41 years. And some other writer Dalrock exposed waited and waited so he wouldn’t have to exercise the tiebreaking card. They would leave my head spinning if it wasn’t for the fact that I now believe church leaders are stuck in a superficial sermon-syrup that precludes them from saying anything meaningful. They conserve feminist gains and are Hallmark cards, except they cause much more damage.

  8. earl says:

    Of course, we must be wise as we become Chief Servant, because there are two sides to the coin of mutual submission.

    Yes it’s clearly stated in the Bible the two sides of mutual submission…the wife submits to the husband as to the Lord and the husband loves his wife just as Christ loves the church. It all goes back to THE model of marriage…Christ and the church. This new agey nonsense they peddle makes no sense.

  9. Swanny River says:

    Earl, I keep hitting the superficiality assertion because I think it is important. You say they make no sense. That is true, so what does it say about us, at least Protestants, (these guys might not be popular in your RCC culture) that they are so popular among those who most often go to church and regularly read the Bible? It’s a horrible indictment of us and a terrible waste of the time and opportunity we have been given to go and make disciples. Yes, it makes no sense, and yet it’s the predominant paradigm.

  10. Spike says:

    This is why it’s really hard to convince people that salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone: they see that all of His followers are shifty double-speakers.
    He told us to speak plainly and speak boldly. Doing so means you must trust Him and let to of the consequences.
    Not so amongst those who have something to lose.

  11. American says:

    Leaving the supermarket this evening, the female cash register clerk reminded me that it was International Woman’s Day today. I told her that every day is international MAN’s day as far as I’m concerned. She soured, I smiled. God bless patriarchy.

  12. Bee says:

    TMAC,

    “Instead, he is the Biblical definition in every way.”

    The Biblical term is “Patriarch.” Use it, embrace it, love it.

  13. Joe says:

    “We’re talking about abdicating your style”
    What?
    What does that even mean?

  14. TMAC says:

    Bee,

    Scripture uses the word “husband.” The concept of Patriarchy might be assumed, but if it is, then “husband” should always include that nuance.

  15. Pingback: Complementarian soul essence. | Reaction Times

  16. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    TMAC :Scripture uses the word “husband.” The concept of Patriarchy might be assumed, but if it is, then “husband” should always include that nuance.

    Of course, today, to further confuse matters, some husbands have husbands.

    Disgusting, how the homosexuals, after stealing the word “marriage,” went on to steal the words “husband” and “wife.” They used to call each other “partners” or “significant others.”

    Of course, they also stole the word “gay.”

  17. Cane Caldo says:

    @RPC

    Of course, they also stole the word “gay.”

    True. Some podcast I heard pointed that out, and since then I’ve chosen to refer to them as sodomites.

    I knew the history of the word, but the podcast guest said (IIRC) his father pointed out that we don’t have an equivalent word to replace the sort of frivolous yet uplifting joy that was meant by the word gay before the sodomites savaged it.

  18. Bee says:

    TMAC,

    Scripture also uses the word, “Patriarch.”

  19. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Hasidic Jews still enforce patriarchy. When a women tries to leave the community with the kids, the entire community rallies behind the father, paying for his attorney, likely testifying in court as to what a terrible mother she is.

    https://www.jta.org/2018/03/05/arts-entertainment/netflix-included-documentary-leaving-orthodox-judaism-didnt-say-gay

    A woman who was featured in a hit Netflix documentary about former Orthodox Jews says the fact that she was openly lesbian was cut from the film.

    Etty Ausch, 33, is one of three people who tell their stories of leaving the Brooklyn Hasidic community in “One of Us,” which was released in September.

    The acclaimed film, directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady (both of “Jesus Camp” and “Detropia”), shows Ausch’s custody battle over her seven children with her former husband, whom she describes as abusive.

    It alleges that the Hasidic community bands together, harassing her and raising money for her former husband’s lawyer….

  20. Hose_B says:

    “Sure they teach some terrible things, but they teach some good things too!

    This is the hook. The duality that drives people mad. It is putting frosting in an arsnic cake and laughing because people eat the frosting and never taste the arsenic until it kills them.
    I had the same conversation with an older pastor I recently started talking to. Someone else had passed by with a copy of some book (I disremember which SBC approved drivel it was). After a brief exchange about how the book was “holey” (my new term for religious books with theological holes).
    His response was that he didn’t want to tell her that because he might discourage her from being fed by the word. I asked him the same question…..does it do them any good if we let the be fed poison?……
    He was speechless….luckily it was time to go.

    Let’s call out these “holey” resources whenever we can at our local churches. This should go for “holey” sermons as well.

  21. earl says:

    (these guys might not be popular in your RCC culture)

    From my experience most of the heavy hitters when it comes to this arena try to stick with how God set up our sexuality/roles and not what the feminists or new agey types peddle. That’s not to say there’s a few bad apples out there who get off the rails and go egalitarian or downright feminist…I’m just unaware of them.

  22. SkylerWurden says:

    (these guys might not be popular in your RCC culture)

    I’m as big a RCC supremacist as you’ll ever find, but I’ll say right out that this trash is just as rampant in certain parts of the Catholic world as anywhere else. Feminists come in all colors and stripes. The only difference is the citations. Protestant feminists will twist Scripture and Catholic feminists will twist Papal Bulls and Encyclicals and Scripture. The virus infects everywhere and everyone. Rush Limbaugh’s rule of life can be adapted to this:

    Any institution or person who is not dedicated every single day to maintaining conservatism and fighting liberalism will eventually be consumed by liberalism and become an arm of the liberal movement.

    Replace ‘liberal’ with ‘feminist’ and ‘conservative’ with whatever word you think fits, ‘Biblical’ ‘Christian’ ‘traditionalist’ ‘Patriarch’… whatever. The point is that every Apostle except John fled from the cross because they didn’t follow Christ’s most important command: be vigilant! Always be in prayer. Always be ready. The devil can worm his way into the tiniest crack and it’s ten thousand times harder to get him out than it is to keep him out.

    The problem is that big institutions will eventually compromise. Maybe not the institution itself, but someone within it. Just a small compromise, “to keep the peace” they’ll say as if Jesus ever promised peace on this Earth. You make that one compromise and 99.9 times out of a 100, you’re done. Toast. The cancer is malignant. Either cut out the eye or burn in the fire.

  23. BillyS says:

    Cane,

    The 1890s were called the Gay 90s, which had nothing to do with homosexuality.

    That was misdirected as well in the 1990s though, at least to a point.

  24. Daniel says:

    Scripture uses the word “husband.” The concept of Patriarchy might be assumed, but if it is, then “husband” should always include that nuance.

    When English Bibles use the word husband, it is translated from the Hebrew “ish” or the Greek “aner” both which mean “man.” There is no separate word for married man. Of course in English husband means manager. But that meaning is imposed, not original.

    The bible does use the word patriarch in the New Testament four times. The Greek “patriarchés” means family ruler.

  25. PokeSalad says:

    Gee, in reading those two angle on it from the book….it almost sounds like….”servant leader.”

  26. earl says:

    Catholic feminists will twist Papal Bulls and Encyclicals and Scripture.

    At least in my experiences with Catholic feminists (who were women)…they don’t twist Scripture, they just outright ignore what it says.

  27. DR Smith says:

    Thanks, Dalrock for the crisp, concise article post. You just confirmed what I have been thinking all week reading the excerpts you have provided from these idiots books . They are not just dumb, they are dangerous if they really believe the crap they write, and also a tad bit crazy because it makes no sense what so ever to say you need to provide leadership and also submit.

    How can that even be done? What, only do half the stuff she mindlessly asks to make her “haaapppy” then leader her when it comes to expecting dinner on the table when you get home from work? Makes no sense whatsoever….

  28. Cane Caldo says:

    @BillyS

    Yes, that’s what I was talking about.

  29. As predicted, “enthusiastic consent” has now become church doctrine. If you’ve had ‘duty sex’ with your wife you are now a rapist and must seek forgiveness from her and God, but at this point they may as well be one and the same.

    http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3500_policy.html

  30. earl says:

    Sounds like the cult of feelings.

    This rule teaches couples to become thoughtful and sensitive to each other’s feelings when they don’t feel like it. If both spouses follow this policy, they avoid all the Love Busters because they won’t mutually agree to anything that hurts one of them. Demands, disrespect and anger are eliminated because even negotiating strategy must be mutually agreed to, and no one likes to be the recipient of abuse. Annoying behavior is eliminated because if one spouse finds any behavior or activity of the other annoying, according to the policy, it cannot be done. It even eliminates dishonesty, because a lie is certainly not something that you would agree to enthusiastically. It helps plug up the holes in the sieve of the Love Bank that cause most couples to drift into loveless incompatibility.

    I’ll bet you my life savings this ‘not feel like it’ out only applies to the women. If a man doesn’t feel like working and providing for his family anymore…he will be called a deadbeat.

  31. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Once the complementarians of the church have finished moving the husband to a “sub” role while still demanding his “leadership,” I think we’ll see them move on to a new project: Modifying and re-interpreting scripture to teach us that when a woman sins it’s always for a good reason, and should be credited to her as righteousness.

    The latest from Christianity Today:

    The ‘Bad Girls’ of the Bible Deserve a Fresh Look
    Women dismissed as “prostitutes” and “adulteresses” were often models of righteousness and faith.

    . . . Edited by Sandra Glahn, associate professor of media arts and worship at Dallas Theological Seminary, the essays focus on revisiting the “sexualized, vilified, and marginalized women of the Bible.” Some may be tempted to read this as a politically motivated subtitle, but Glahn contests this conclusion in her preface, stating, “Our motivation is to handle faithfully the biblical text, which involves bringing to light a number of women labeled as ‘bad girls’ who deserve a fresh look.”

    . . . Many of the women in question have been interpreted based on the terminology used to describe them in our English translations. Oftentimes, terms like “prostitute” or “adulteress” conjure contemporary images that fail to capture the circumstances of biblical times. For example, in the book’s opening essay, Carolyn Custis James dissects the story of Tamar, a woman famously remembered for posing as a prostitute and sleeping with her father-in-law, Judah, to secure her progeny (Gen. 38:1–30). This legacy has led many to frown upon the character of Tamar, but James challenges this notion on numerous contextual grounds . . .

    . . . Lynn Cohick’s essay concerning the Samaritan woman in John 4 challenges the modern picture we have of an “adulteress” with loose morals. Based on a context comparable to that of Tamar, it is more likely that her situation resulted from the untimely deaths of several former husbands. Knowing she could not have survived apart from male provision, she made an arrangement to live with a man who was not her husband (John 4:16–18). Even more, Cohick argues that the text does not portray the woman as an immoral sinner, but as “a seeker of truth” who is ultimately commended by the Savior for her faith.

    . . . As Christians, the way we interpret biblical stories such as these has a profound influence on the way we interpret similar circumstances today. With sex trafficking and serial abuse occurring worldwide, there’s much at stake. When we fail to see someone like Bathsheba as an innocent victim assaulted by her king, we marginalize her suffering and hinder our ability to empathize with the biblical account. In doing so, we are far more likely react to a modern-day Bathsheba in much the same way.

    I used to read about temple prostitution in ancient Rome, and I always regarded it as a relic of primitivism that we weren’t likely to see again in a modern age. But today I find myself thinking that it’ll only be a matter of time before a mainstream “Christian” church re-introduces the practice as a rite of worship, probably emphasizing along the way that it’s a means of bringing glorification to the woman so that she may be properly exalted as God’s greatest creation.

    If you care to read the rest of this sorry mess, it’s here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/march-web-only/vindicating-vixens-sandra-glahn.html

  32. American says:

    Michael Knowles, at The Daily Wire, explains the evil and bloody Marxist history behind International Women’s Day: https://youtu.be/rzfcOIQvCls

  33. Pingback: Its gonna take some time | Empathologism

  34. Gage says:

    @Rollo

    This reads like satire.

    “The Policy [of Joint Agreement] itself prevents either spouse from making unilateral decisions about anything, so they must discuss every decision they make before action can be taken.”

    Really? No unilateral decisions about anything? you have to discuss and agree on what books to read, what shows to watch, what groceries to buy, what outfits to wear, what gas station you go to, what friends to have, etc? This is so asinine its impossible to take serious. Sadly though, it does remind me of a coworker who told me recently that to make his wife happy, he gave her 100% control of their finances, and she “generously” gives him a small allowance each month to spend on lunches. Any other time he wants to spend money, of any amount, he has to get her approval. He makes 100% of the income and controls 0% of it.

    Maybe i am just young and naive, but this “Policy” would make marriage unbearable.

  35. OKRickety says:

    Rollo Tomassi,

    ‘As predicted, “enthusiastic consent” has now become church doctrine. … http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3500_policy.html

    In case anyone misunderstands, I do not think that site claims to be a Christian ministry or anything similar.

    Rollo, I’m curious if you got that link from my tweet this morning?

  36. Art Deco says:

    I suppose what interests me is why Stoeker, whose domestic life is intact and who earns his primary living in sales and business consulting, is willing to sign on as Arterburn’s co-author. Dispensing advice about human relations when you’re own marital history is somewhere below the 25th percentile in quality requires chutzpah. You might say Arterburn is too old to retool so needs to brazen it out. What’s in it for Stoeker?

  37. Art Deco says:

    I think we’ll see them move on to a new project: Modifying and re-interpreting scripture to teach us that when a woman sins it’s always for a good reason, and should be credited to her as righteousness.

    I discovered 12 years ago that evangelicals who participated on the (then active, now dead) comment boards at Touchstone (not a publication addled by feminism to any degree) found it sickly bad form to point out that women cause trouble in human relations and were baffled when it was offered that men and woman form a dyad and that modes of behavior among men are influenced by modes of behavior among women in a dialectical process. I recall reviewing that thread and tallying a half-dozen different rationalizations for treating woman as being without fault or being without agency. Touchstone is an oecumenical publication whose editorial staff is Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical in about that order, but there was very little pushback from among their attentive readers to this mindset.

  38. Anonymous Reader says:

    Art Deco
    You might say Arterburn is too old to retool so needs to brazen it out. What’s in it for Stoeker?

    Well, I dunno. People buy books with money. Publishers give some of that money to authors…

  39. Art Deco says:

    Well, I dunno. People buy books with money. Publishers give some of that money to authors…

    That’s true, but isn’t Stoeker’s marketability damaged by association with a man whose a blatant fool (aside from what you do or do not do out of a sense of propriety) Is this a calculated trade-off here?

    I had to stop and think of male co-workers I’d had who had passed through the divorce courts 2x and were on their third marriage. I’m smacking myself on the head and I cannot think of anyone.

  40. Anonymous Reader says:

    Art Deco
    (money)
    That’s true, but isn’t Stoeker’s marketability damaged by association with a man whose a blatant fool

    Who outside of the androsphere regards Arterburg or Stoeker as fools? Far as I can tell the evangelical churchgoers think quite highly of both, and buy their books. No downside for either man, is there?

  41. Anonymous Reader says:

    Art Deco
    I had to stop and think of male co-workers I’d had who had passed through the divorce courts 2x and were on their third marriage. I’m smacking myself on the head and I cannot think of anyone.

    Ok, but so what? Obviously neither you nor your cow-orkers are as good at self-promotion as Arterburn clearly is.

  42. BillyS says:

    I used to read about temple prostitution in ancient Rome, and I always regarded it as a relic of primitivism that we weren’t likely to see again in a modern age. But today I find myself thinking that it’ll only be a matter of time before a mainstream “Christian” church re-introduces the practice as a rite of worship, probably emphasizing along the way that it’s a means of bringing glorification to the woman so that she may be properly exalted as God’s greatest creation.

    Only with fat women though….

  43. So, they replaced a King with a Queen. They replaced Colonel Sanders with a chick. Gave her a beard, mustache and everything! Amazing! State Farm (IIRC) plays a commercial where the Apollo capsule is orbiting the moon with the caption “1971”. Inside the capsule is a shaved-headed lesbian and a freaky-gay-tranny-looking Black dood. Nowhere in evidence the actual White MEN that devised and flew the Apollo missions. And remember after all, they could NEVER have flown anything except under the careful supervision of the female Black Hidden Figures. How convenient to have released that movie AFTER John Glenn died.

  44. Matt says:

    “Husband” is not a word used in Greek. It’s translated from A word meaning man just like “wife” is translated from the word meaning woman (gune).

    They are English words in our translations based on context.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.