In modern Christian theology, the wife’s vagina is God’s messenger. If a woman isn’t sexually attracted to her husband it is a sign of God’s displeasure in her husband.
Sheila Gregoire has adopted the same modern Christian teaching, and brings in Gary Thomas* to urge wives to listen to the voice of God that resides between their legs. The title of the post is Wifey Wednesday: When Your Marriage is in Trouble, Do Something! It closes with:
Initial romantic intensity is unearned; it seems to fall on us out of nowhere. But a solid, lasting marriage has to be built (and sometimes rebuilt) stone by stone. You married a fallen man and that means the time will come when you need to become an active woman to confront the weaknesses you see in yourself and your husband.
As daunting as this might seem, here’s the hope behind it: the current challenges in your marriage may well be God’s vehicle for you to become the strong woman he created you to be. Maybe you grew up with an overly passive view of being a woman. Maybe you’ve always let people run over you and allowed things to happen rather than to rise up and unleash the power that is yours as a woman not only created in the image of God, but filled with His Holy Spirit.
This challenge, as scary and painful as it might be, could be the doorway to new growth, new maturity and a new woman who more closely resembles the character of Jesus Christ.
Gregoire urges her readers to tweet:
The current challenges in your marriage may well be God’s vehicle for you to become the strong woman he created you to be. – Gary Thomas, Loving Him Well
While teaching wives to make an idol of their own vaginas, the post warns women that following the instruction of 1 Pet 3:1-6 would be a sin, as it would make an idol of marriage and their husbands.
God made you, as a woman, to rule in this world, to subdue it, to act according to his image.
*Readers may remember Thomas from this post.
Usually by that time the wife ramps up the bitchiness also. It never just ends at the tingles. Just stop even asking for sex and work out like you are single. Stop giving a crap what your wife does. Odds are it will end in divorce if financially beneficial for her anyways so you might as well start preserving your assets as well. If serious also get spycams to prevent abuse claims.
Gary Thomas urges women to pay even less attention to their husbands and to become more self-centered. That’s pouring water onto the flood. Perhaps there was a day when women were too obedient, too passive in their marriage. But that is not so today.
He recommends being bold, but his message is as common these days as “stop” signs on roads.
Unbiblical nonsense! Women were not made to “rule!” The ignorance of the truth of scripture on the part of so-called church leaders is a reckless and dangerous thing. Women rule???!!! Obeying scripture a sin???!!! We live in a woman’s world!
Pingback: What to do when the tingles wane. | @the_arv
It’s very interesting reading some of Sheila’s comments in that post –
Of course, “wrestling it out in prayer and allowing the Holy Spirit to lead you” simply means “do what the wife wants”.
Who here finds it hilarious that a leading feminist non-ironically compares respecting your husband to idol worship?
@jbarruso: Scripture? Why, it sounds like you are making an ‘idol’ out of a 2,000-year-old piece of text!
I see what they are doing here. They are creating atomized units and undermining families by saying that wives are beholden *not* to their husbands, but to God *only* (while willfully ignoring everything God has previously said about our families and relationships.) This goes beyond Churchianity. I would call this Full Churchmunism.
Both Thomas and Gregoire twist scripture. Thomas ignores that the “dominion mandate” of Genesis 1 did include the woman, but not as an individual; it included her as part of her marriage to her husband. She is to “rule” with her husband, not on her own with girrrl power. The previous post and comments showed how Gregoire twists the submission passages in Ephesians 5. In the comments section to her post excerpting Gary Thomas, she grossly distorts 1 Peter 3, saying “win them without a word” applies solely to wives with unsaved husbands, submission is part of the consequences of the Fall and therefore doesn’t apply in Christian marriages (ignoring that, pre-Fall, the man was created first and had naming rights over the woman, who was created specifically to be his helper, not vice versa and not as a “mutual helper”), etc. Gregoire could be Exhibit A for the argument that bad things happen when women interpret and teach the Bible. And, biblically, her husband is responsible both for her foolishness and for letting her go public with her nonsense and thereby mislead others, men and women.
When will they just give Jesus a vagina? All bow down to our Lord/Lady Trans-Christ!
Reading Gregoire is like going to a restaurant where the adults at the next table over refuse to keep their children in their seats.
@Mr. Generic said: They are … undermining families by saying that wives are beholden *not* to their husbands, but to God *only* (while willfully ignoring everything God has previously said about our families and relationships.)
OK. So let’s be beholden to God only:
If you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15).
And what are those commandments, says the true pastor to the wife? And, if you don’t keep his commandments, what does that say about your love for God?. Says the true pastor to the wife.
Couldn’t be simpler.
Sheila outlines her basic theology in the comments section.
1. God created egalitarian marriage from the beginning.
we were created to be dependent upon God and to worship Him together, in harmony.
2. The curse resulting from original sin is Old Testament style patriarchy (and by inference along the lines of “women hardest hit”).
Doug, hold on a minute, please. Are you saying that Eve’s dependence on Adam because of her pregnancies and pain is a GOOD THING? That’s not biblical. That was a result of the fall, and is a punishment.
It was never God’s design for men to rule over women. That is because sin entered the world, and in Christ, “there is no male nor female.”
3. The sacrifice and resurrection of Christ shows that everything from cast-out-of-the-garden-day to The Ascension is a regrettable interlude, and all our current efforts should be directed toward resuming pre-fall relationships between husbands and wives.
Jesus came to erase the punishment for sin. Our goal, then, should not be to make the fallen nature as good as it can be, but instead to get back to what we were intended to be.
No wonder this gets a lot of traction with church ladies. Very convincing from their point of view, I should think.
Unleash the powers lol. Uh. Aren’t we called to self restraint
Wow, three articles in one week. You’re on a roll Dalrock.
I happened to land on a marriage ministry call-in show on the radio when I was stuck in traffic today. The hosts got excited when a female caller mentioned that her husband, who denies having committed real adultery, failed a polygraph test. I couldn’t believe that an interrogation tool was being used approvingly in marriage counseling. The hosts (two effeminate-sounding men and a woman) clamored over each other in their eagerness to confirm every suspicion of the caller. It was fiendish.
I’m astounded that a polygraph test, an interrogation tool, is being used in the marriage counseling context. Couple the polygraph with their relentless promotion of an upcoming male self-criticism seminar and you get what looks like a cult designed to blackmail and trap husbands of cluster-b Daughters of the King for the benefit of the marriage ministry’s principals. Are these “marriage ministries” a big thing in the non-denominational/evangelical world? If so, count on more divorces, suicides, and atheism in that community.
“Perhaps there was a day when women were too obedient, too passive in their marriage. ”
No, there never was.
“Women rule???!!! Obeying scripture a sin???!!! We live in a woman’s world!”
No, we live in Satan’s world and he’s doing great. These women choose to be his handmaidens.
dvdivx – well said.
What is so funny about this (sad) reality about modern Churchianity is that they never consider factors for a woman’s LACK of libido for her husband, such as:
*Husband’s appearance has worsened due to poor health, large weight gain, damage due to accident/injury, etc;
*Non-appearance related factors, such as boredom due to routine lifestyle, wife’s depression/neurosis, the fact that wife is cheating on her husband, bad children, money problems, stress, etc.
*Wife’s own decline in her appearance and self-confidence; age-related hormonal changes in wife that trigger reduced libido, etc.
But leaving these factors aside….
It is also very ironic that Gregoire tells her female readers to “…unleash the power that is yours as a woman not only created in the image of God, but filled with His Holy Spirit”. 🙄
That is not only counter-intuitive, but also un-Biblical. 2 Timothy 1:7 teaches that “For God did not give us a Spirit of fear, but a Spirit of power, love, and self-control”.
“Unleashing” a power that is unique to a woman is not only contradicting the universal presence of The Spirit, which is given to ALL true Believers, male and female alike, but also that “Self-control” is completely ignored. “Unleashing” is defined as “turning loose or free from restraint”.
Imagine the world we would have if everyone simply “unleashed” their “power” as they saw fit, without restraint. Men would be punching others in the face for minor infractions; women would be whoring themselves with thousands, instead of dozens or hundreds of random men; kids would be disobedient and violent; drivers of large trucks would run over drivers of smaller cars blocking them in traffic; cops would abuse their power and authority for fun….. 😮
The reason 2 Tim 1:7 puts “Self-control” as one of the 3 gifts of The Spirit is because that is what the core of Christianity is. We resist our sinful nature, the dark urges stemming from the innate desire to do evil naturally, and curb such urges to become more like Christ. We seek to do good, not because it is natural to us, but because doing good takes controlling our sinful nature and creating a new one through Christ and the gifts of The Spirit.
Just that sentence alone in Gregoire’s piece tells you how far away from actual Christianity she really is. And the scary thing, her un-Godly, imbecilic advice CAN and DOES hurt real women, real men, real kids, and real couples in real life.
That is why we should beware of Feminists teaching Christianity or their version of it.
That is why James 3:1 states that “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”.
At least we know Ms. Gregoire is headed for a heap of trouble on Judgment Day if she stays this course of teaching false doctrine. But will she likely change? Probably not. In FemiNazi Christianity, the woman is always right, even if God has to be wrong sometimes. 🙄 *sigh*
At the bottom of the “Wifey Wednesday” post, it says that the post was adapted from a book by Gary Thomas titled: Loving Him Well: Practical Advice on Influencing Your Husband.
I think the Bible covered that in a few verses. Specifically 1 Pet 3:1-6, as Dalrock mentioned. Are those verses really so archaic and complicated in the original languages, with multiple translations etc. that an entire book is called for? I doubt it.
Pingback: What to do when the tingles wane. | Reaction Times
One thing I note is how subtle all this is.
Thomas (and Gregoire) first say you can’t build a marriage on “initial romantic intensity” (i.e. screwing like rabbits, hard sexual attraction). Because that’s not “solid” or “lasting”.
The better advice would be instructing women to do things or cultivate attitudes that lead to sexual attraction. Things like dressing attractively, spending time with him, having frequent sex, not turning him away when he approaches her for sex, and, well, just being nice to him. “Even if you don’t feel like doing it, do it until you feel like doing it.” We can’t have that, though, because that would be encouraging women to respect their husbands and submit, and obey Scripture.
So instead she is being told to “confront” her husband’s “weaknesses”. She is told she needs to become a “strong” woman. The only way to become a “strong” woman, though, according to Thomas and Gregoire, is to confront their husbands, refuse to submit, and take charge. Yes, the way a wife is to save a marriage in trouble is for her to get in her husband’s face, argue with him, fight with him for control of the marriage and for leadership, and then simply take control of the marriage.
Some of the better parts are here, though, and this is the foundation of the “don’t look to your husband, don’t submit to him, ever” theme that keeps popping up.
Who does the Bible say is your refuge — God, or your husband? Deuteronomy 33:27 provides the answer: “The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.”
In whom does your hope lie? Your husband’s continuing affection? First Peter 1:21 says, “Your faith and hope are in God.”
Where will you find your security? You and your husband’s ability to earn a living and your husband’s commitment to stay married to you? Philippians 4:19 answers, “My God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.”
See that? The message is clear: “If your husband isn’t doing what you want, if he’s not tingling you, just go over his head to God. Your husband isn’t your “refuge”. Your husband’s affection is worth nothing. Your husband’s ability to make wealth or his commitment isn’t secure. Don’t trust your husband. Don’t believe in him. Don’t support him. If you do any of those things, you’re making your marriage into an idol.”
And this advice stands directly counter to Paul’s admonitions to women. “Submit to your husbands as unto the Lord.” “Win your husbands over without a word.” “Let them be quiet and ask their husbands in private.”
Bad advice all around.
“In modern Christian theology, the wife’s vagina is God’s messenger.”
That is my fav quote of the week! 🙂 And it is totally true! 😮
It should be noted that many, if not most, modern women are attracted to the worst our society produces. They like “bad boys”, drug dealers, criminals, and violent/physically abusive men.
Some quick examples from the top of my head, if anyone doubts my statement above:
*The “hot felon” Jeremy Meeks had his jail mugshot posted online and thanks to American women swooning over this guy online, this gangmember with an 18-page criminal rapsheet has now become a “model” and has now married the heiress of a fortune.
*Rapper beats up singer Rhianna, her battered photos goes online, and Rhianna still stayed with this clown for over a year after her beating went public. Girls were lining up online to bang Chris Brown after it was revealed he beat Rhianna into a bloody pulp:
*Serial killers get more offers of free sex from American women while in prison after their mass murders then when these same clowns could not even PAY prostitutes before they became infamous criminals. Some quick examples:
James Holmes (Aurora movie theater terrorist): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179107/James-Holmes-Sickening-tweets-girls-crushes-cute-Denver-Batman-killer.html
Nikolas Cruz (parkland high school mass murderer): https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/nikolas-cruz-love-letters-prison-parkland/2018/03/29/id/851489/
Charles Manson (mass murdering cult leader): had a kid in prison, his cult of death became legendary and caused so many women to have the hot’s for Manson, many of these women could have drowned their babies in their panties. :-d
Mumia Abdul-Jamal: a darling of the Celebrity class and media Left, this admitted cop killer has had thousands of Hollywood groupies support him, send him money, and offer him free sex.
If vagina’s tingles = God’s messenger, then God is telling so many women to seek out the scum of our societies?!?! 😆
Not even the church is safe for a decent man anymore. Until we effectively quash Christian FemiNazism, our posterity is doomed never to experienvce relationships and.or marriage with women in a healthy, Biblical way. Question is: can we reverse this mess during our lifetimes? ❓
I’m not sure, with a few adjustments I think at least part of this article might be pretty decent advice:
A Man’s Spiritual Platform to Influence His Wife
Let’s apply some simple theology here. Who does the Bible say is your refuge — God, or your wife? Deuteronomy 33:27 provides the answer: “The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.”
In whom does your hope lie? Your wife’s continuing affection? First Peter 1:21 says, “Your faith and hope are in God.”
Where will you find your security? You and your wife’s ability to earn a living and your wife’s commitment to stay married to you? Philippians 4:19 answers, “My God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.”
Where will you find supreme acceptance that will never fade or falter for all the days of your life? “As a bridegroom rejoices over his bride,” replies Isaiah 62:5, “so will your God rejoice over you.”
If you’re trying to find your primary refuge in your wife, if you’ve centered your hope on her, if your security depends on her approval, and if you will do almost anything to gain her acceptance, then you’ve just given to a woman what rightfully belongs to God alone.
And that means you’ve turned marriage into idol worship.
When you do that, both you and your wife lose. How will you ever find the courage to confront someone whose acceptance so determines your sense of well-being that you believe you can’t exist without her? How will you ever take the risk to say what needs to be said if you think your future depends on your wife’s favor toward you?
Your future depends on God, not on a fallen man. Your security rests with your caring Creator’s providence, not with your wife’s approval. Your acceptance as a person became secure when God adopted you, not when your wife agreed to marry you. If you truly want to love, motivate, and influence your wife, your first step must be to stay connected with God. Find your refuge, security, comfort, strength, and hope in him.
Armed with this acceptance, security, and empowerment, you become a mighty force for good. You can then claim the power of Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 31:8:
“The Lord himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.”
Fear and discouragement create stagnancy and persistent disappointment in marriage. If you’ve had your fill of those, why not try God’s path of faith and boldness? When you begin taking initiative instead of simply feeling sorry for yourself, you become an active man, and active men mirror the active God who made them.
We Serve an Active God
The first thing God wants us to know in Genesis chapter 1 is that he is an extraordinarily active God. In Genesis chapter one, thirty-eight active verbs describe what God does: he creates, he speaks, he separates, he calls, he blesses, he gives, and much more—all in just one chapter. Then—and this is key—he tells the man and the woman to do the same: “God blessed them [male and female] and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground’ ” (Genesis 1:28).
God made you, as a man, to rule in this world, to subdue it, to act according to his image.
Sin often drags us back toward sluggishness, despair, and despondency—giving in to life as it is rather than remaking life as it could be with God’s redeeming power unleashed. People give up on their marriages, give up on prayer, give up on their churches, give up on their kids, and eventually even give up on themselves. They say, “It’s no use,” and start to sulk instead of painstakingly remaking their marriage—simply because their first (or even tenth) attempt failed.
Initial romantic intensity is unearned; it seems to fall on us out of nowhere. But a solid, lasting marriage has to be built (and sometimes rebuilt) stone by stone. You married a fallen woman and that means the time will come when you need to become an active man to confront the weaknesses you see in yourself and your wife.
As daunting as this might seem, here’s the hope behind it: the current challenges in your marriage may well be God’s vehicle for you to become the strong man he created you to be. Maybe you grew up with an overly passive view of being a man. Maybe you’ve always let people run over you and allowed things to happen rather than to rise up and unleash the power that is yours as a man not only created in the image of God, but filled with His Holy Spirit.
The current challenges in your marriage may well be God’s vehicle for you to become the strong man he created you to be.
This challenge, as scary and painful as it might be, could be the doorway to new growth, new maturity and a new man who more closely resembles the character of Jesus Christ.<
That’s pretty much what Skanky Sheila has always suggested her disciples do. You have to be a real idiot to think that you’ll become more attractive by being as disagreeable as possible.
Good points ChristianCool.
““Unleashing” a power that is unique to a woman is not only contradicting the universal presence of The Spirit, which is given to ALL true Believers, male and female alike, but also that “Self-control” is completely ignored. “Unleashing” is defined as “turning loose or free from restraint”.”
Yeah, I think I’ve read of that spirit before. Jezebel, I think she’s called.
Part 996 in the “post-wall woman rationalizes away loneliness”:
I Didn’t Expect To Be Single At 42. Here’s How I’ve Embraced It.
“In the summer of 2009, just before I turned 33 years old, I found myself embroiled in a divorce ― which made me feel ashamed, abnormal, lost and, honestly, like an unworthy piece of s**t.”
But that’s okay! Today, the author has passport stamps, can hail her own taxi, and buys herself flowers. Who needs a husband or children?
Minus the fact God is involved here…this is pure feminist ethos nonsense.
It doesn’t take Tarot cards to predict a large number of felines in her future.
So a wimminz rationalizes her divorce…let’s see here.
This is why therapy is stupid and often the instigator of divorce.
Very vague…I don’t see anything about abuse, adultery, neglect, dehumanization…all I can ascertain from that is she had bad feelz.
There it is….feelings in the wimminz is the #1 reason they instigate divorce. And the serpent keeps taking advantage of them.
OP quote — “Maybe you’ve always let people run over you and allowed things to happen rather than to rise up and unleash the power that is yours as a woman not only created in the image of God, but filled with His Holy Spirit.”
That is not true. The spirit chooses whoever he will. His influence upon the human spirit/soul is VERY selective, and does not rest automatically upon all humanity. To say the least.
Father breathed His Spirit into the MALE. Pls. read the Book, O ‘Christians’. He did NOT transfer aspects of His Pneuma into the female — or at absolute minimum, we are not specifically told so. Given the vast importance of such an act/choice by God, I’m fairly certain that if He’d breathed pneuma into the female, then that’s what the Bible would say. But it doesn’t, it says the female then was created from the male. Likewise, Scripture attests that the MAN was created in the image of God. It does NOT say that about the WOMAN. Folks don’t like that? TFB.
The King surely will correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that it’s error to assume that pneuma somehow was automatically transferred to the female, by the male. There is no biblical evidence for this. There is, however, much circumstantial/Scriptural evidence that Father’s Pneuma is somehow directly connected to (more likely the source of) the presence of masculinity in the human male. Probly the same for the angels. They were created of different substance, but I think with the exact same Pneuma.
Unless I hear different, and I damn sure don’t mean from this world, I consider the above quotation blasphemy against the Spirit, and will leave the balance of legal matters to Jeshua’s discretion after arrival. Be assured that the warning in Matthew 12:31 gets my full attention, because when the King of Forgiveness says He won’t forgive something, some single particular thing, that means duck and cover, not that it’ll help. Praying is too late, then.
Earl, I think this woman’s reaping what she’s sowed; her life sounds pretty depressing.
The article of Sheila contains lots of fine examples of bad theology, as well as some subtle word twisting. Some examples
“God blessed them [male and female] and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground’
God made you, as a woman, to rule in this world, to subdue it, to act according to his image.”
The subtlety here is of course that the command is given to Adam and Eve, to first procreate, then to rule over the animals. We can deduce that this holds for their offspring, but it is twisting and stretching to make this into a command for a woman to “rule in this world, to subdue it”. For sure she does not have any animal in mind here…
“Many women, for instance, fear leaving abusive marriages because they have no income. That’s being dependent in the wrong way.”
We all know what “abusive” means. This is directly promoting no-fault divorces with cash awards.
“It was never God’s design for men to rule over women. That is because sin entered the world, and in Christ, “there is no male nor female.” (Galatians 3:28). Women and men were meant to be interdependent in marriage; that is what is following God’s design.”
Oh boy. The gal twists gal 3:28 again.
“We were not created to be in subordination with one another, having power over one another, or hurting one another. Nor were we created to be dependent upon one another; we were created to be dependent upon God and to worship Him together, in harmony.”
This is interesting… Did she not realize she accidentally drops the mutual submission thing?
“And arguing that women are to be financially dependent on men in a world where many women earn more, and where millennial men are increasingly stay at home dads (while the family fares just fine) is likely not the best route to go.”
No of course not! Men should be financially dependent on women, and stay at home!
“I want to point out that the passage in 1 Peter about “winning without words” is really often taken out of context. What it is talking about is how to share the gospel with an unbelieving husband”
So limiting yourself to one sub-sentence of 1 Peter 3 is now an argument AGAINST taking things out of context?!
“You don’t just nag or order someone around; you say, “My children and I need shelter and food. If you are endangering that, then I will have to take action to fulfill my own responsibility to care for myself and my kids.””
So 1 Peter 3 now has become an example to not “nag” but just directly bypass your husband and take the lead.
“Indeed that’s really what Peter was saying when it came to winning someone to Christ, too. It’s not about words; it’s about actions.”
Ding ding ding ding! Extra expository bonus points!
[on a question on a husband’s role] “Our main goal should be looking like Christ, not fulfilling a role. When we make it into fulfilling a role, we’re creating rules and legalism and becoming a Pharisee.”
Role => Rule => Legalism => Pharisee
It’s really simple once you see it!
” if God wants us to submit to our husband’s leadership, and if what we mean by that is that when we disagree, the wife will let the husband make the decision, then disagreeing and allowing him to decide is somehow holier than wrestling it out in prayer and allowing the Holy Spirit to lead you.”
So obeying your husband if you disagree is NOT holier?
And somehow if you disagree with your husband YOU need the Holy Spirit to lead you to decide if you follow him or not?
“we are simply saying that if your marriage is in trouble, you should DO SOMETHING! That’s what Abigail did in 1 Samuel 25, and she saved her people.”
Well, she didn’t exactly save her marriage… So, good advice based on a very applicable text!
“That if their husbands are wrong, they should put up with it? Kind of like how Sapphira went along with Ananias?”
Already addressed, Sapphira 100% willingly agreed with her husband, she did not “went along”.
“And Peter specifically admonished her for doing so. Seems like Peter thought that she should actually have done something, too.”
No, Peter addressed that SHE lied about it, a joint decision with her husband.
Indeed. I was searching for her bio and ended up on her instagram page. Of the 6 most recent images, five prominently feature a cat.
You are so right!!! 🙂 I did not think of her. That is the Spirit of Jezebel, a demonic force that cause the Kingdom of Israel to go into drought, misery, and civil conflict.
The Spirit of God does not call for “unleashing”. The Spirit of God is one of power, love, and self-control. You employ your power and love in a manner that is controlled and reasonable. The antithesis of Jezebel’s spirit.
By the way, Jezabel.com is an evil FemiNazi, hateful, anti-Christian, misandry website. Sounds like this “Christian author” is trying to merge such a thing into Christianity, slowly, and one step at a time?
Trying to “subdue it” [the world] is so incredibly insane, it reminds me Napoleon Bonaparte or King Canute who ordered the waves to recede. It is simply lunacy of the highest order.
What is so stunning to me is not the FemiNazi concepts of this “Christian” author.
What stuns me is that Christianity, a religion that calls for reconciliation and goodwill towards others has alleged “Christian”, female leaders women actively trying to create a cancer inside churches that stokes fear, resentment, and hatred.
Meanwhile, in The Bible:
“…make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you.” 1 Thessalonians 4:11
“…that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” 1 Timothy 2:2
It is almost Gregoire is saying to Christian women “go and start trouble, subdue your husband, go fight”. War/conflict = happiness. The exact opposite of Christian teaching. ❗
She might as well come out as a secular FemiNazi and be honest with her audience. But then again, why reveal herself? It seems to be her entire life’s purpose is to spread her non-Christian folly into the churches, so the easily deceived amongst the Church can follow her advice and bring Gregoire’s own style of misery and unhappiness into their lives. Misery loves company, I guess. 😮
Sure…unfortunately she destroyed a marriage doing it and cut down a man. I hope she had no children to traumatize because of her selfish choices.
The majority of women don’t take their vows seriously…they really think it means until feelz does us part.
Larry Kummer — “Perhaps there was a day when women were too obedient, too passive in their marriage.”
There was no such day. Ever.
While St. Paul didn’t explain in great depth as to why women shouldn’t be pastoral leaders in churches…when those go away from the Word of God, God is going to show why it is put in Scripture.
And let’s not forget the Sheila had a “perfect” stay at home mom setup with a doctor husband making a generous six figures. This isn’t some career couple where you can come home from work and argue about the dishes not being split 50/50 because you’re both earning a decent income.
It’s like you can’t just can’t win. Man works hard to provide enough for stay at home mom, traditional family. Wife discovers internet and rebels.
Both go out into the world and work and your wife bitches you out every evening after reading another huffpost article on emotional labor and shared duties.
At least with a working wife, you don’t get as screwed in divorce. And if you stay at home wife won’t even have sex with you, what is the damn point of working yourself to death. Just pick a career that isn’t sahm bait like a doctor, and enjoy the dual exhaustion at the end of the day. Maybe the question is, how do you keep a stay at home mom occupied after the kids are school aged? Maybe that is what happened in Sheila’s case. If they’re homeschooled, that’s another matter.
It’s like these people have never seen what women do in a marriage. Their natural state is to rebel and be aggressive in their rebellion.
And the biggest thing they like to tie together…they equate obedience to passivity. That’s not the case.
“Sounds like this “Christian author” is trying to merge such a thing into Christianity, slowly, and one step at a time?” –christiancool
Yes, and it’s terrifying, because she built a core audience saying things that were biblical, like (not a quote, just my impression from years ago, so maybe I just remember wrong) “give your husband his due whenever he wants it, and make sure you make yourself attractive enough for him to want it.” Where did that Sheila go? And I know women who read her and many other female teachers who are also in rebellion right now. I try warning them against these teachers, but to little avail. Our church is up to its eyeballs in women’s study groups with no pastoral supervision. This trend is not encouraging at all.
I think the tingles may have waned a bit too much…
To read the answers Sheila gives to the questions of why she got (and stays) married in the article linked below, it kinda paints the picture of someone with self-perceived low SMV jumping at the first eligible beta who expressed interest.
What do words and phrases like the following say to you?
“just didn’t want to be alone”
“a good guy”
“I don’t think we could extricate ourselves”
“nice is not a bad word”
“it’s like he’s my rock” (emphasis mine)
“I can depend on”
Riffing off of what ray said about pneuma, and referring to the story of creation in Genesis:
He lay there, still dead, looking every inch like the human he would soon become.
Q1: When did Adam become a living soul?
A1: When God breathed into him the breath of life. (after he already had human form and visage)
The Hebrews believe(d) that, at death, for everyone, the body returns to dust and the breath of life returns to God.
Q2: When did Eve become a living soul?
A2: The Bible doesn’t say.
Comment: What did God do with the rib taken from Adam, already infused with the breath of life, to get from a rib to firm and rounded breasts and buttocks, and wavy brown hair? Obviously, he added to the rib. By taking from the dust of the earth? Or by making the rib multiply like he did the loaves and fishes, until he had enough flesh to create the entire body? Did the breath of life in the rib spread to all of the other parts that touched it as God fashioned Eve’s complete body? Or did God breath the breath of life directly into Eve as well? Does God directly breath the breathe of life into each one of us to make us a living soul?
We are not told the answer to any of the questions raised in my comment. All we are told is that God created them, male and female, and called their name Adam (Genesis 5:1)
However, the Hebrews believe(d) that, at death, for everyone, the body returns to dust and the breath of life returns to God. Which implies that the breath of life is there. In everyone. Does it really matter how the breath of life gets into us, as long as it is there? That is, was the breath of life in Adam of higher quality because if was breathed directly into Adam? If Eve only inherited the breath of life because it was in the rib taken from Adam, does that make her (and our) breath of life of inferior quality?
Some questions can really lead to stupid pretty quickly.
Agreed. If you want your marriage to crash and burn, just step into a marriage counselor’s office.
Even non marriage related therapy is useless. Have you ever heard of a woman who was pronounced CURED and stopped seeing her therapist?
Mike @ 4:55,
Good point, because many conservative Christians who are blue-pill will say they are ok with women working because they need to for the money. Sheila didn’t need to work and gets the Christians support anyhow. They just don’t want to admit to themselves that they want to sound biblical and never have to redtrict a woman at the same time.
I don’t think you meant she is an idiot in terms of IQ, right? I agree with that as barstool talk though, but I am not at the bar, so I’ll refine your answer to say she is incredibly selfish. At least her argument for her position is plain to see, not like Doug Wilson or Artisonal Toad. What is surprising to me is how bad the message is, and how easy to see it’s not biblical. She appeals to what the world does repeatedly, it’s really surprising how open she is about using that tool. It makes me think she never gets reasoned critical feedback.
God made you, as a woman, to rule in this world, to subdue it …
YOU GO GRRRL!
Here’s a mom who unleashed her Godly power by turning to crime because she was bored. (She’s described as a “housewife,” but no mention of a husband in the story): https://www.insideedition.com/bored-ohio-mom-explains-her-theft-spree-i-felt-my-life-was-going-nowhere-44743
A suburban housewife in Ohio says she went on a two-day crime spree because she was “bored” and had “nothing to look forward to in life.”
The 30-year-old mother of two young children stole 28 packages from the porches of her neighbors last July, sometimes with her children in tow, she told authorities in the Cincinnati suburb of Mason….
But this is not her first run-in with police.
In November, she was arrested on theft and misuse of a credit card after allegedly stealing a man’s credit card after a sexual encounter with him in a hotel room, police said. She went on a spending spree at a Walmart store, according to authorities.
YOU GO GRRRL!
I don’t know…but I am aware of women who are therapists who have torpedoed their own lives and marriages so they often don’t practice what they preach. Either that or they do and give other women their bad advice.
What the world (or the serpent) says…
What God actually said…
‘Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.
And from the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man, He made a woman and brought her to him.”
‘A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. For this reason a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.’
‘And even though our gospel is veiled, it is veiled for those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this age ed note…feminism could be the case now has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they may not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for the sake of Jesus. For God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to bring to light the knowledge of the glory of God on the face of [Jesus] Christ.’
Heh. She shut down comments. She quoted Genesis 1, and I just pointed out that Genesis 3:1 set men to rule over wives after the arrival of sin. She made an incredible argument: that was a curse and Jesus lifted the curse! So, now she either says we are without sin after we accept Jesus, or she says we have no consequences for sin after we accept Jesus.
Makes no sense at all.
earl — “This is why therapy is stupid and often the instigator of divorce.”
Right. That’s playing with worldly fire. Christians and ‘Jews’ should seek spiritual guidance in these instances, not therapists or professionals or any such worldly sludge. These elements are reflective of popular culture and values, not Scriptural fundaments. It’s a business. Not Father’s business, not Jeshua’s business. That leaves?
Oh and by spiritual advice you just KNOW I don’t mean the majority of modern ‘pastors’. Who couldn’t lead a dog to a tree.
Christian Cool — “I did not think of her. That is the Spirit of Jezebel, a demonic force that cause the Kingdom of Israel to go into drought, misery, and civil conflict.”
Absolutely. The very same spirit, no other. Which began influence over America long ago. Well before Seneca Falls.
All we are told is that God created them, male and female, and called their name Adam (Genesis 5:1)
I have a theory concerning this….hear me out. Women use the “God created them in the image of God, male and female” to justify a lot. But my theory is that God created man in the image of God, male and female. Think XY chromosomes. The. He took a part (the X chromosome) to make female. Females are XX chromosome. (No male in them)
I can’t prove it, but damn it speaks to me. I detailed this out to my kids recently and got a very satisfying “wow, that makes sense” from them.
Also puts into context “man was made in the image and glory of God, woman was made to be the glory of man.”
On churchians saying that women are to serve God first…..it’s a straw man. Take her eyes off her husband, which is who God told her to submit to. Then exchange “God” for the local pastor or internet sensation telling her to go subdue the world. They send her off on all sorts of “godly missions” which take her away from her real mission…..helping her husband.
It’s a bait and switch. The serpent is subtle.
That is exactly right, at least in this instance.
Who is the “God” in the Gregoire household? It’s Sheila’s banged out cunt, that smells bad, and oozes pus. That’s what’s being worshipped.
A 30 minute video on what Sacramental Matrimony is all about. You’ve probably never heard a lot of this before (I certainly haven’t)
Probably the biggest takeaway is:
‘It’s better to be single, lonely, and saved…than to be married to someone who will not help you get to Heaven.’
i think you’re all missing the most blatant refutation.
Sheila says, “God made you, as a woman, to rule in this world, to subdue it”
God says, “…and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
IF Sheila is serious about instructions to “rule in this world”
THEN it is God himself who declared that women would be ruled by their husbands.
and what is the result when women rule?
” As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”
let her make her pronouncements. then by her own assertions destroy her.
At Sheila’s site, she seems to justify a lot of her goddess worship crap, by claiming women are made in the image of God.
I sent her scriptural evidence to indicate that the Bible seems to say otherwise, and that she has to use gender neutered Bibles [using “mankind” for man(or literally Adam in the original)] to claim otherwise. Instead of posting and responding to my reply, she just refused to post it.
I’ll share some instances of the “image of God” from the Bible. See if anywhere it indicates that it is in women.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them[men] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
God makes absolutely clear there, thrice, that the man[Adam] was created in God’s own image, and clearly and separately points out that He created both the male and female. If God wanted us to know that the woman was created in His image too, then He is a retarded author, who fails to communicate clearly.
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man‘s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
That seems to clearly indicate again that either the woman is not in God’s image, or God is intentionally vague, or deceptive, or He can’t write worth shit.
Jesus Christ was also said to be the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4) (Colossians 1:15) and we know when God was made flesh and dwelt among us, God had a penis,(not a vagina) and He had it circumcised on the eighth day.(Luke 2:21)
If anybody can show any hint in non-gender-neutered scripture that any female is in God’s image, let me hear it. Perhaps some of the image carried over when eve was created from Adam, but I see no mention of it, ever in the Bible.
You often say that white supremacists are closet feminists. Do you really believe this, or is it just an inflammatory thing you say to troll?
“Some questions can really lead to stupid pretty quickly.”
Well they’re your questions Richard P, so I’m not sure what to add to your evaluation. :O)
Except you’re conflating Gen. One events with Gen Two events. The ‘made them male and female’ in Gen One is a general and preparatory description of two separate generative events, elaborated upon in Gen Two.
As I wrote above, I find no evidence that God’s pneuma ever was breathed into the female, nor is there even a shred of evidence that the female automatically partook of God’s pneuma, because God formed her from a ‘spirit infused rib’, as you suggest. Rather, logical deduction infers that BECAUSE the ‘spiritual breath’ is mentioned as having been infused into the male (Gen. 2:7) — but is omitted from the LATER and SUBSEQUENT description of Eve’s creation (Gen. 2:21:23) — the female does not possess the same pneuma character as the male.
Likewise, your suggestion that each received the ‘breath of life’ as is specific to the male-infused pneuma is unsupported by Scripture. Pls show me the passage that affirms that Eve received God’s breath directly.
In Eve’s creation, she is formed flesh of flesh and bone of bone, per Scripture. Yet again, no mention whatsoever of any transfer of God’s spiritual imago into the female, as is EXPLICITLY assured in the male. This likely is because the image of God in the man carries a MASCULINE and spiritual essence that the female has not, as is later proven out in many events in Scripture, and later affirmed more directly by Jeshua’s apostles, in instructions about sex differentiation as relates to created nature, hierarchy, and capacities of worship. Not to mention proven out by this world daily.
Dear Yorey C:
White nationalism is certainly a covert subset of feminism. This is a good source if you don’t immediately make the connection…
Note the “14 Words” of white nationalism, discussed around pp.65-70. i.e.:
“That the beauty of the white Aryan woman shall not perish from the earth.”
The whole thing is an ideology based around worship of skanky women. Note also Anon’s recent work, getting white nationalists to admit that they favor cuckolding decent married men, in order to spread the supposed genetic tendencies of white nationalists through the population.
The whole thing is immoral and degenerate.
What I’ll add to Boxer’s thoughts is that white nationalism has a lot of pagan ideology in there too. Any man with the Thor hammer, or thinking Roman gods are real, or preaching the greatness of Odin should have their ethos be met with skepticism. And I would say that if it was about black, latino, or oriental nationalism. Idolatry (mainly of a particular skin suit, culture, and pagan gods tied to the culture in this case) and wimminz worship seem to go together quite often.
That’s because the goddess thinking will never have any basis in Scripture. She can’t refute it with Scripture.
Not only will they try and force this thought process into Christianity…they will also make sure to take down things like God as a Father and Jesus as a Son. What I saw they use to get around this is referring to God the Creator and God the Redeemer. They will also quite often refer to the Holy Spirit as a ‘she’. Anything that refers to masculinity is the thorn in the side of the goddess worship.
Hose B —
Your speculation makes sense to me too. Very good sense, certainly possible. I know of no passage that annuls your insight.
@Sharkly and others…
Keep this up preaching the Word to false teachers, what we are experiencing now is nothing knew. Whether it be feminism, white nationalism, or worshiping trees.
‘Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and encourage with every form of patient instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.’ 2 Tim 4:2-4
God says, “…and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall [servant] rule over thee.”
I don’t see how, let’s call it, genealogical obsession, is woman worship. Some people seem to think white women are the most beautiful, that “pure” white children are most functional, that white families are the most closely-knit. Or at least closer-knit than “mixed-race” ones. Do you not only refute this notion, but consider it a bygone assumed falsehood, so objectively provable that you would insult someone for holding it?
I don’t think most white nats want children with a woman of sufficiently “low-quality” as to “race-mix,” so the cuckoldry argument may be an exceptional one, touted only by Anon. Besides, the white nats I know (from CH/sphere + personal acquaintances) are shitlords and patriarchs, NOT feminists (or at least aspire to be).
Just curious. I think we all are (can be) God’s children. (Acts 10:35) But I don’t think there’s any secular (non-biblical) proof white nats are completely full of shit. I think if they want to live only with other people that are like them, they should be free to.
Keep this up preaching the Word to false teachers, what we are experiencing now is nothing knew. Whether it be feminism, white nationalism, or worshiping trees.
I had a couple of thoughts. Not to start my AMOG train rolling again, but…
I’d like to think I’ve got a lot going for me. I’m intelligent, athletic, skilled in some important things, Etc., Etc., Etc., The fact that I was born White has got to be way down towards the bottom of the list of things that I think make me great. So far down the list, in fact, I couldn’t imagine myself spending time going to a meeting where a bunch of losers actually congratulate themselves on being White. While I’m certainly glad to be White, and wouldn’t switch races even if I could, I think it takes a person with a serious lack of personal attributes, advancement, or accomplishments, to have their “White Pride” remain one of their foremost prides.
Not to mention their “White Pride” usually just devolves into insulting all nonwhites as being lower than the lowest Whites(them).
I tried a bit of reasoning with Sheila, and I’m doubtful if a lack of well reasoned sharing of scripture is Sheila’s problem. She is, by Biblical definition, a fool. She doesn’t listen to sound counsel. I’m sure plenty of folks have offered it. This is sort of how things went:
Elias says: Ephesians 5:22-24 specifically addresses wives, and says that they should submit to their husbands in everything as unto the Lord. If wives did what God asks every marriage would have 100% unity of purpose, and there would be no arguments possible.
Sheila Wray Gregoire says: Shame on you! Just shame on you. … As for your scriptural logic, you make some glaring errors. So Ephesians 5:21 refers to all believers, and Ephesians 5:22 refers to wives? Are wives and husbands not all believers? If ALL Christians are to submit to one another, then submission does not mean leadership and decision making. Submission means SERVING. And that is what we are called to do. We are called to serve. I seem to remember Christ saying that plenty of times. And yes, husbands ARE to submit. “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ….”
It was like she just vomited Feminism and the flawed logic of a toddler onto the page.
My wife is actually a special education teacher. I however don’t have those skills, and am probably then not the best person to work with Sheila on her doctrines. Those who go to Sheila for “Biblical counsel” aren’t really going for that at all, but to get Feminist Permission to do what they already selfishly want to do, and to have it magically blessed by “Buddy Christ”. There are plenty of places they can get far more intelligent and wise Biblical counsel.
I may try some more, but I think praying for her and instead admonishing others less stubbornly ignorant may be most effective. If Sheila has questions, she really is to ask her husband at home, and Keith is clueless! Thus, we really need to pray for them.
One of Sheila’s problems is that she does not accept the Bible as authoritative. Her emotions rule, or, as Dalrock mentioned, she believes God’s overriding, yet muffled, endorsements can often be heard queefing out from between her legs. At the other banshee’s blog, where this crap started, It was stated that In the Greek Ephesians 5:21 & 22 share a verb. Apparently quite common in that language.
For Example: Keith Gregoire should learn to understand the Bible. And Sheila likewise!
The second sentence does not have a verb, but it is understood that it uses parts from the previous sentence.
In English, to make proper sentences, the translators added the verb from the first sentence to the second sentence to have it make a proper grammatical sentence. (And Sheila should likewise!)
However These cray-cray Feminazis were claiming that patriarchal men had sabotaged the Bible by adding the verb “submit” form the first sentence to the second. So basically she said, you women should never trust the Bible. If it says something you don’t like, it was probably just added by a patriarchal man back in the day!
That is the crap Pastor Steve Camp started arguing with them about. He had no luck talking sense into them, and is now getting blasted for even trying.
Anyhow, the twisted toddler logic in her post, that I mentioned in my previous post, is because: Sheila cannot admit to her readers, who also buy her books, that she doesn’t actually believe what any English Bible says, or what any Bible says. Not until she has proof checked it by her ultimate spiritual head; Queef Gregoire.
It’s only speculation…but it wouldn’t surprise me if she’s dabbled in some form of witchcraft. When it comes to feminists and especially prominent ones who reject Scripture…a lot of the basis of the rebellion comes from this.
Is this Babylon Bee article really parody?
Sheila’s newest post is about how Vashti is a good role model for women. Wow……I’m speechless.
Sheila’s biblical “scholarship” just keeps getting better and better…
You can’t make this stuff up (from Sheila’s web site):
The picture of the family praying together with the wife and daughters wearing mantillas is downright beautiful. Its an outward symbol of their acceptance of the expectations of women in the church and in the family, something that is rare to see today. The husband should be beaming with pride.
From @Emperor Constantine’s Link – “Jesus does not want us blindly obeying our husbands. Jesus wants us following Him, wherever it leads. And often what Jesus calls us to do is to take a stand when our culture–or even our marriage–is going off the rails.”
The Christ, Eternal Logos reduced to marriage counselor. So much for St. Paul’s words to lead by feminine example.
By the way, here is another author who reads Ephesians 5:21-23 for husbands and wives to mutually submit to each other:
Well, forget about posting at Sheila’s, she comes up with cocky answers requesting an answer, but then blocks you or closes the comment section. If you try, write as if you only have a single shot.
TLDR on Gregoire’s post on Vashti:
The story appears in the Book of Esther. King Xerxes was partying down. Vashti was throwing her own party. Xerxes called for Vashti to come to his party, “wearing her royal crown” so everyone could see her beauty, “for she was lovely to behold”. She refused.
Sheila relies on a minority rabbinical scholarly theory that the words “wearing her crown” meant she was to appear in ONLY her crown, i.e., in the nude, and she didn’t want to be “a sex object” at her hubby’s party. Most other scholars believe she refused because she believed she’d be humiliated in some way. From what we know about women, it’s “humiliating” just to have to obey a direct order from your husband – especially a husband you don’t really want and aren’t really attracted to, and especially when you’re a queen and have power of your own.
Sheila goes on and on about how awesome Vashti was, because she refused to be defiled and degraded. She stood up to her lecherous drunken husband. She “stood up for the dignity of women”.
So, Sheila believes Vashti was a protofeminist. I call BS.
Vashti didn’t refuse Xerxes because she was thinking about her own dignity, and she wasn’t doing so to pave the way for feminists. There are lots of reasons she could have said no. I suppose it’s possible she could have said no because she didn’t want to show up in the buff. It’s far more likely she said no because she was having her own party and her own fun and she simply did not want to be with her husband at that point in time. She saw herself as her own “head”, as women are wont to do.
Vashti said no “just because”. Just because “I don’t wanna”. Just because “you want me to do it, and I don’t want to do it”. It wasn’t because she was standing up “for the dignity of women”. It was a power play. It was a shit test. It was a “I’m not coming. Now what are you gonna do about it? Nothing, that’s what.” Or at least that was Vashti’s gamble – a gamble she lost. Xerxes decreed she would “no longer be allowed to come before” him, meaning he “put her away”. He would not see her again, he would not receive her again. That was the price she paid for publicly disrespecting and humiliating her husband.
Whatever else can be said here about why Vashti refused her husband, I can safely say Vashti was not “standing up for the dignity of women” by doing so. No, she did so for her own selfish and petty ends and reasons. She did it because she just didn’t want to go be with Xerxes, she didn’t want to go to his party, she didn’t want to show herself off, she wanted to piss Xerxes off, she didn’t care what he thought or wanted, or she was getting back at him for reasons we’re not told about. Most likely, Vashti did this for the specific purpose of publicly disrespecting and humiliating Xerxes. She KNEW that’s what would happen and she KNEW how other men would see it.
But she was NOT trying to be Gloria Steinem 3,000 years ahead of time.
There’s a parallel here, in II Sam. 6, the last story about King David and Michal, his first wife. David brought the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem amid much celebration and pomp and circumstance. David led the parade, wearing an ephod (a priestly overgarment) and “dancing mightily” – the equivalent today of dancing in the streets in a two-piece suit. He was so happy to be bringing the Ark home, he was overcome with joy.
Michal “despised him in her heart” and said very sarcastically to David when he got home, “How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!” And David replied to her, “It was before the Lord, who chose me instead of your father and all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel. Therefore I will play music before the Lord. 22 And I will be even more undignified than this, and will be humble in my own sight. But as for the maidservants of whom you have spoken, by them I will be held in honor.” Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death. (II Sam. 6:16-23.)
Translation: Michal disrespected David. David replied by telling her he did it for God, that he would not restrain himself in worshiping God simply because Michal didn’t like the way he worshiped; and that others wouldn’t mind. And the bit about Michal having no children? That essentially means David wouldn’t see her anymore. He wouldn’t treat her as a wife, i.e. he wouldn’t sleep with her or have sex with her. Her consequence was that she would remain barren – a terrible fate for an Old Testament woman.
But Michal wasn’t being a feminist in chiding David. She didn’t do it to “stand up for the dignity of women”. She did it because she was being a petty, harpy bitch, running her mouth and disrespecting her man (as many women do).
The price for disrespecting your husband was that you got “put away” – divorced, or your husband married someone else in addition to you, and refused to give you any kids.
Yes. Vashti was not following God when she refused to obey her husband Xerxes’ command. We are not told anywhere in scripture that Vashti was “standing up for the dignity of women” in refusing to go see Xerxes at his party. We don’t know exactly why she said no. But I feel really confident that she did not refuse because God told her to. I feel really confident that she did not refuse because she was “standing up for the dignity of women”.
Vashti refused for her own selfish and petty ends, not because she was concerned about “all women” or their “dignity”. She was not a social justice warrior. She was not a protofeminist.
Dear Emperor Constantine:
Not only is Sheila inverting and subverting the meaning of the text, but I believe she’s also stealing her arguments from better thinkers.
There’s also an apology to Jason and his friends at the end. They were all right to object to my meme, which compared Sheila to a donkey.
Sheila’s newest post is about how Vashti is a good role model for women. Wow……I’m speechless.
It’s a lot worse than that. Not only is she giving out shit advice from bad theology, it’s shit advice that Rachel Held Evans already published 6 years ago:
At this rate I’d say that within half a decade we’ll be seeing John Piper preach on Sunday morning about how this story teaches us that God loves to bless a wife’s rebellion.
Here’s a funny satire of an Alpha Widow and her Beta Hubby:
I’m not sure if these comics are even aware of the manosphere.
Actually, she’s more of an ex Carousel Rider.
Red Pill Latecomer:
In which Mr. Hapless Beta discovers the baby his “wife” carries is probably not his own.
She’s not an alpha widow. She’s just a slut who did what millions of women do – “dated” (that is, slept with) a metric ton of men, lied about it, and married a man she’s not sexually attracted to, which man might or might not be the sire of the child she carries.
Michal having no children did not require they never had sex again. I can tell you from experience that sex does not always lead to children, even over a long marriage.
The Scriptures say God opens and closes the womb. It is quite possible, and even more consistent, that God was agreeing with David’s stance in this.
Far more likely David didn’t sleep with her again, Billy. David had other wives. He likely remained married to Michal, but slept with and reproduced with his other wives.
July 5, 2018 at 11:26 pm
Probably the biggest takeaway is:
‘It’s better to be single, lonely, and saved…than to be married to someone who will not help you get to Heaven.”
Not only will the modern-day Harpies “not help you get to Heaven”, they will drag you down to Hell and make your very existence a living hell every step of the way.
These articles of Dalrock’s are the best arguments against a man ever taking the foolish risk of marrying in this day and age, and make the Path of being a Man Going His Own Way being the only sensible alternative in this misandric culture.
It doesn’t say that. The other cases of no children noted in the Scriptures are God’s choice, not man’s choice. That is why I would lean that way.
This “theology” coming from Sheila Wray Gregoire (don’t forget the hyphenated maiden name in there) is yet another illustration why Paul wrote this to Timothy specifically about how to minister and how to run churches (II Tim. 2:11-15):
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
YoreyC @ 3:20 am:
“I don’t see how, let’s call it, genealogical obsession, is woman worship.”
White nationalism isn’t genealogical obsession. It’s the idea that society’s problems can be solved via racial purity. Feminism isn’t woman worship. It’s institutionalized female behavior such as the 80/20 rule, dividing men into kings and pawns. The next time you encounter a self-described patriarch, as yourself if he means it in the sense of “head of household, peer of other men” or “tribal chieftain with a harem”.
“Or at least closer-knit than “mixed-race” ones.”
Any group has more cohesion when it has more similarities between members. I also think the races should be kept separate but that does not make me welcome among the white nationalists.
I would like to see some of the many teachers who proclaim Eph 5:21 applies to marriage answer what the point of Eph 5:22 is in that case. I have yet to hear an answer to that. They usually just claim that other made up teachers proclaim submission in a wrong way, without having a single example of that of course.
Do you think Sheila and her ilk believe parents/children and masters/slaves should mutually submit? To be consistent, they surely must!
The idea that refusing a husband, or refusing a husband’s request or even a command, is “standing up for the dignity of women” or standing up for her own dignity, is risible and ludicrous on its face.
Women do undignified things all the time. Women REVEL in their indignity. Women have sex with men they don’t like, don’t know, and wouldn’t marry, all the time. Women act unhinged and ridiculous in public all the time. Public drunkenness. Public drug use. Public intoxication. Disrespecting and humiliating their husbands in public, in front of their own children. Flying off the handle at husbands. Yelling. Screaming. Name-calling.
“Standing up for the dignity of women”? Please.
But women only do that because men make them do it Deti! Come on, get with the program! /sarc
which compared Sheila to a donkey.
..which is still an apt comparison in terms of their theological acumen….
PM/AFT had an entire section devoted to exposing how White Nationalism is a Goddess Cult :
The fact that they openly say that paternity fraud against men is acceptable as long as it produces a white baby says it all. They believe fatherhood is of zero value, since everything is 100% nature and 0% nurture.
The fact that every WN blog is nearly 100% male, despite their ideology being wholly dependent on female participation, also reveals their true nature. A disproportionate share of WNs are gay, as Jack Donovan has often pointed out.
Remember that *any* race or ethno-centric ideology by definition puts women in a position of tremendous power without commensurate accountability. It is just another form of radical feminism.
The premise that White Trashionalists are ‘shitlords’ is laughable. They are vastly below-average in just about every worthwhile attribute.
Heartiste’s own writings have enabled thousands of colored men to bed white women, and Heartiste has openly said that when Game and WN are in direct conflict (such as a black guy with good Game), Heartiste unhesitantly sides with Game. If anything, Heartiste is trolling his WN commenters. The same goes for Ron Unz, who is a pro-immigration Jew who has worked hard to normalize illegal immigration by Hispanics, yet has gotten hundreds of WNs to use his website. He has singlehandedly tied up hundreds, if not thousands, of 80-IQ WNs with a tactic akin to 4D chess.
I remember her blog and books from years ago. I seemed to have had the same impression but it seems I was either wrong or she realized she could get a wider audience itching feminist ears. 😦
I can’t stand women groups and all the “teachings” being promoted these days.
Jesus did not “stand up for the dignity of women” in the sense Sheila is trying to paint, i.e. as a protofeminist a couple thousand years too soon. Christ honored women’s faith and devotion to obedience to God. This is what He did with the story of Mary and Martha. He wasn’t deriding Martha for doing housework. He gently corrected her for putting housework above worship. He honored Mary’s worship. He used Mary’s exuberant faith and quiet attention to illustrate the importance of putting God first.
With the adulteress He kept the crowds from stoning: He wasn’t “standing up for the dignity of women” by keeping the crowd from stoning her. He was illustrating the beauty of a contrite heart and God’s forgiveness when the sinner repents.
With the woman with the issue of blood: He wasn’t “standing up for the dignity of women” when he addressed her. He used her, and her statements, to illustrate the power of faith when faith is all you have.
With the Samaritan at the well: He wasn’t “standing up for the dignity of women” by talking to her. On the contrary, He saw her sin very clearly, confronted her directly with it, made very clear to her just how “undignified” she was, and told her to repent.
Christ’s dealings with women as described in Biblical accounts of His life and ministry are not about “standing up for the dignity of women”, particularly not in the modern day meaning of the phrase. Women just happened to be those present when He decided to use situations involving them to teach, minister, or make a point. He did the same thing with men. Did he “stand up for the dignity of men” in doing so? Of course not. He ministered to them. He loved them. He preached to them, corrected them, taught them, and sent them out, just as he did with women.
It’s hardly surprising that Sheila’s theology is so poor when she starts with the idea that, if the Bible leaves something unsaid, you should draw your own conclusions! Perhaps that worked well when she studied for her two Master’s degrees from Queen’s University, one in Sociology and the other in Public Administration. But it should not be acceptable for a “Christian” woman (in ministry?) to be teaching this to anyone!
Just stumbled across this gem in the comments: “But sometimes doing the right thing DOES lead to horrible consequences (Jesus and John the Baptist come to mind!)“. It seems to me that she is saying that the consequences of Jesus’ life and death was horrible.
@thedeti (especially) @paul @boxer thanks for the feedback and Biblical scholarship. I’ve learned more about Scripture from Dalrock and everyone’s comments here than in years of study beforehand.
@thedeti: I’m going to take your logical gunpowder and use it to make a few Twitter mortar rounds to drop on Sheila’s position. More for her lost followers than for her, but she’s a (lost) child of God also.
You are doing good work. Those brothers who haven’t been blacklisted by twitter (yet) ought to join you in poking fun at this crazy feminist shrike. Twitter is where she peddles her stupid ideas and sells her substandard self-published ebooks. Go to work, boys!
thedeti @ 12:52 pm:
“With the adulteress He kept the crowds from stoning: He wasn’t “standing up for the dignity of women” by keeping the crowd from stoning her. He was illustrating the beauty of a contrite heart and God’s forgiveness when the sinner repents.”
Jesus was illustrating the beauty of due process instead of #ListenAndBelieve. “Let him who is without sin throw the first stone” worked not because the Pharisees had secret sins of their own; they were masters of redefining sin as not-sin. It worked because they’d set up the “stoning” specifically to entrap Christ and His comment let them know He knew. It was an obvious fraud because they neglected to bring the married male adulterer, too. Adultery takes two people.
Look at the aftermath (my paraphrasing):
Jesus: “Where are your prosecutors?”
Woman: “They’re gone.”
Jesus: “I won’t prosecute you, either. Go in peace and stop whoring around.”
WRT Twitter you can draft into someone’s feed where you agree as necessary but add your point. Sheila had, shockingly, a quite good post on *ahem* vibrators. She pointed out if you need them there is a problem in your marriage. I drafted onto that and added that, if you marry a dominant male leader you respect, desire won’t be a problem and you won’t need artificial devices to reach climax. If you leverage the Red Pill to maintain attraction, you never need that stuff IME. You end up on the other side of the spectrum Song of Solomon talks about: your women ends up exhausting you.
From a Biblical perspective, Sheila is in an extremely dangerous spiritual position. She is actively misleading women into destroying their families.
“If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
From the Vashti thread. Commenter Hose_B is engaging her over at Sheila’s. I can’t, as Sheila banned me years ago.
If a woman wants to see herself as the authority, accountable only to God, then she should not marry. If she marries, the Bible spells out how God wants that union.
The biblical way is to follow her husbands leadership as unto God. And trust God will take care of her if she does.
The way you explain it has an unlimited list of “unless’” so much that there is NO DIFFERENCE inside or outside of marriage. There is no unity. She is doing whatever she thinks is right and MAYBE her husband will agree.
Sheila’s response, in part:
Yes, the Scriptures are clear that we should walk in the Spirit. You know, this whole thing is bizarre to me because I don’t understand why anyone thinks it’s necessary for someone to be in charge.
People who think that a couple can’t function unless one is in charge and one does not make any decisions really confuse me. Do you not know how to make decisions together and pray together? Are you always fighting so that you need him to make the final decision? Why? That seems bizarre to me. There have been times that Keith has firmly felt God telling us to do something, and we have done that. There have been other times that I have felt firmly that God wants us to do something, so we have done it. It’s really fine.
I am not saying the woman is the authority. I am simply saying that Jesus is the authority. We serve Jesus together. It’s a really great life! **** Maybe men who are having trouble with sex should do more to serve Jesus together with their wife, rather than demanding that their wife obey them?)
This is truly astounding. She’s positioned herself directly athwart Scripture. At the very least, her response illustrates she lacks even a fundamental understanding of how God ordered marriage and what Scripture says about it.
She doesn’t understand why it’s necessary for anyone to be in charge? Is she serious right now? She purports to be a Bible teacher, a minister! She doesn’t know what the Bible says about this?
Sheila, it’s necessary for the man to be “in charge” because THAT’S WHAT GOD SAID IN THE BIBLE. Husband loves; wife respects. Wife submits. THAT’S WHAT THE WORD SAYS. We men didn’t make this up. We didn’t invent it. God gave it to St. Peter and St. Paul, and they gave it to the world. Believe me, there’s lots of times I don’t want to be in charge. There’s lots of times I don’t want it. But I do it. Because GOD COMMANDS IT.
Sheila, no one says you don’t make decisions together. No one is saying the husband has to be a tyrant, barking orders at people. No one says he puts his wife under his thumb and she can’t decide ANYTHING. She’s speaking in absolutes here to deflect to red herrings and strawmen. What IS said is that one person has to lead and one has to submit; and God says the man leads and the woman submits. NO ONE says the wife is a cowering wallflower prohibited from speaking or making decisions.
This is truly flabbergasting, it really is. This woman is teaching and instructing women in DIRECT opposition to scripture.
Gentlemen, her fruits are clear. She’s promoting rebellion in women from their husbands and ultimately God. Now I don’t know if she’s actually involved in some feminist coven…but she’s certainly displaying the fruits of witchcraft.
‘The Problem With Mother Goddess Worship’
I don’t think I’m banned yet, but the reply button is gone from her replies to me. The way she jumps to extremes is hard to engage directly, which is suppose is the point.
I totally thought of this meme when I read your comments back and forth.
The extremes, the argument in terms of “always” and “never”, the absolutes, the accusations of “cherry picking”, are all fallacious arguments designed to throw the interlocutor off track.
More importantly, those arguments are designed to paint the opponent as sexist, a woman-hater, intolerant, hateful, and mean spirited. This is one of the things Dalrock has pointed out – Scripture and what it actually says about marriage and how it is ordered, is extremely uncomfortable for modern people to take. It’s really, really uncomfortable to say “husband loves, wife submits/respects”. Because that means she has to submit to a husband and respect him. Because God commands her to do it. This is very hard in an increasingly individualistic society grounded on maximum individual autonomy.
It is also because most men in the Church are terrified of the women in their churches. They’re terrified of accusations of sexism, woman hating, intolerance, etc. All that must be done nowadays is to level the accusation to destroy a career.
It should be clear what she thinks the Holy Spirit is…is not the Holy Spirit. And you know how we are revealing this…by testing hers, seeing the fruits…revealing them.
It seems like women do have a propensity to worship themselves. I know this blog focuses mainly on Christianity, but also take yoga for instance. The philosophy of yoga is about liberation from the universe (and karma). It is about self denial and detachment from worldly possessions. Women have turned that anti materialist philosophy into a billion dollar industry where they get together and worship themselves (getting in touch with their feminine energy or some such nonsense).
Let me guess: the reply button is gone for you after she just challenged you on your response? Making it look like you’re too stupid or too afraid to respond?
At the end of the day, I read somewhere that genuine human sexual desire can never be negotiated.
And even if it were negotiated, it would at that very moment cease to be genuine sexual desire, and instead become a transactional sex act (discounted, de-valued).
I don’t even know whether one can categorize it as “loving” nor “of God” anymore.
Yet it is entirely true that most husbands in modern times are so sex starved, they will take anything they can get from their recalcitant wives.
But the majority of aware husbands grow to hate this haggling and cajoling for obligated compliance from their own wives or even girlfriends.
So when wives unilaterally decide to declare sexual retirement or turn off the sex spigot to manipulate and control, they effectively relegate the value of their husband’s devoted sexual monogamy to them down to zero.
This is equivalent to sexual infidelity. She might as well start fellating and screwing other men, because the net result is the same – her husband’s sexual monogamy has no value to her.
As for the article, it is just more of the same – women thinking they are smarter than men, hatching a plan to capitalize on male deference, only to have it blow up in their face.
Wives and girlfriends like this should simply purchase an egg-timer to set against how soon their husband/boyfriend finds a more sexually generous mistress.
Another good post, Dalrock, thanks. If only these heretical women and pastorbators read the Scripture to find women aren’t made in the image God. Then, they would know women aren’t made to subdue anything, but to be subdued. May God trouble these Christians doubly as they have troubled us.
Everybodys all like “hey look at the various strains of christo-feminist-complintarians acting like self destructive ass clowns” and I’m over here like “check out my horse trailer I just got back from the body shop.”
deti — “This is what He did with the story of Mary and Martha. He wasn’t deriding Martha for doing housework. He gently corrected her for putting housework above worship.”
Yes. Martha was honoring Him in her own way; He was making a point, to all of us, about priorities. He was mixing profane life with teaching, as usual. He loved both of those girls or He wouldn’t have gone in there to relax. Very meritocratic about spiritual things.
At the same time, His Kingdom will be v Scripture-traditional, and hierarchic, and females will never again rule over males. They will clamor and compete for men, and be properly desperate and frightened without one. Without his name as cover.
That should give you some idea.
This page gets to be part of that foundation, part of His Temple. The forever one. Plus, it’s fun to come here and watch people consternate and kick around satan and friends.
Dota — “Women have turned that anti materialist philosophy into a billion dollar industry where they get together and worship themselves (getting in touch with their feminine energy or some such nonsense).”
I’d been wondering if anybody was hip to that scene. You’ll see the klatches even in foreign towns. Every resort burg has a gaggle of yoga devotees, mostly middle-aged North American women, aligning themselves with every spiritual impulse and egoic vanity except worship of . . . well that patriarchal male oppressor, of course. The Abuser.
Females typically use these cove . . . I mean gatherings, to size one another up socio-sexually, and to reinforce solidarity and power-sharing (i.e., information/gossip) useful for fem-hegemony, which they consider only fair, just looking after their interests, and so on. Oh and they affect cool Eastern postures, too. Real spiritual and profound. Leading to awesome insights. Hello ladies! Eastern mysticism went out with bell-bottoms.
Somebody upthread was talking about Bible-hatred from ‘Christian’ women — most women, I suspect — when a Scriptural element comes into conflict with female agendas, personal or collective.
IOW, seeings how the mild passages from the Bible offend them so grievously, how’d it go over if I attended the next local Yoga Circle (it’s always a ‘circle’ but you knew that) and mentioned during a rare silence that my God commands me not to let witches live?
I’d ask Daisy Domergue about exactly that but presently she has a sore throat.
Sometimes, as a single man, I forget how bat-shit crazy it’s all gotten; then I read something like this post and it reminds me why I don’t want to every marry in this lifetime ceding my liberty to an anti-male but radical feminist body of law and theology.
colojohn says: July 6, 2018 at 11:48 am
Do you think Sheila and her ilk believe parents/children and masters/slaves should mutually submit? To be consistent, they surely must!
you just demanded consistency
from a woman.
your average woman strikes her children upwards of a dozen times per day. such that, if she were doing that to a dog, you could easily report her for animal cruelty.
how do you think a woman would respond to her husband raising his hand to her?
would that not be “consistency”?
Apparently I forgot a verse in my post above.
James 3:8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;
I’d like to throw my challenge out again. Nobody responded. Surely there is a lurker who disagrees and has some basis, besides their feelings, for believing women are in God’s image. I’m not sure what that “image” exactly means, but the image bearers seem to always be described with male terms. If anybody can show any hint in non-gender-neutered scripture that any female is in God’s image, let me hear it. Perhaps some of the image carried over when eve was created from Adam, but I see no mention of it, ever in the Bible. If it is there, I’d like to see it, and be corrected.
If you scroll above, that’s what Richard P attempted to do — show that females also were created in the Image, and with the Pneuma. He had to make a bunch of assumptions, and twist Scripture around, to do it — as I showed in my response to him.
I’m amazed at just how effortlessly women can invert any philosophy and morph it into a grotesque simulacrum of it’s former self. By all accounts, Christianity and yoga (by extension Hinduism) are two entirely different religious systems but women have made both of those systems all about worshipping themselves. Whether it’s God speaking through the holy vagina or getting in touch with her inner feminine cosmic energy, women can’t get enough of themselves.
I’m amazed at just how effortlessly women can invert any philosophy and morph it into a grotesque simulacrum of it’s former self. By all accounts, Christianity and yoga (by extension Hinduism) are two entirely different religious systems but women have made both of those systems all about worshipping themselves. Whether it’s God speaking through the holy vagina or getting in touch with her inner feminine cosmic energy, women can’t get enough of themselves.
There were once valid biological reasons for this. But those reasons no longer apply. Hence, women are obsolete. Manginas are obsolete by extension.
In The Misandry Bubble, there is a section called ‘The Fabric of Humanity Will Tear’ :
The Fabric of Humanity Will Tear
Humans like ourselves have been around for about 100,000 years, and earlier hominids similar to us for another 1-3 million years before that. For the first 99.99% of humanoid existence, the primary purpose of our species was the same as that of every other species that ever existed – to reproduce. Females are the scarcer reproductive resource, since the number of babies that can be produced does not fall even if most men die, but it does fall for each woman that dies (humans did not live much past age 40-45 in the past, as mentioned earlier). For this reason, the human brain continued the evolutionary hardwiring of our ancestors, placing female well-being at a premium while males remain expendable. Since funneling any and all resources to women closely correlated with the survival of children, both men and women evolved to see this status quo as normal. The Female Imperative (FI) was the human imperative.
As human society progressed, priorities adjusted. For one thing, advances in technology and prosperity ensured that child mortality fell from about 50% to very low levels, so 12 births were no longer needed to produce 6 children who reach adulthood. Secondly, as humans moved away from agriculture into a knowledge-based economy, the number of children desired fell, and almost all high and middle-income countries have birth rates lower than 2 as of today, with many women producing zero children. Thirdly, it has become evident that humans are now the first species to produce something more than just offspring; humans now produce technology. As a result, the former direct correlation between funneling resources to women and the survival of children, which was true for 99.99% of our existence, now no longer is.
Yet, our hardwired brains have not adapted to this very recent transformation, and perhaps cannot adapt. Women are programmed to extract resources endlessly, and most men are programmed to oblige. For this once-valid but now obsolete biological reason, society still unquestioningly funnels the vast majority of resources to women. But instead of reaching children, this money now finds its way into consumer products geared towards women, and a shadow state designed to transfer all costs and consequences away from women. Most people consider our existing society to be normal, but they have failed to observe how diverting money to women is now obsolete. In the 21st century, there is no reason for any resource distribution, if there must be one at all, to be distributed in any manner other than 50-50.
Go to any department store or mall. At least 90% of the products present there are ones no ordinary man would consider buying. Yet, they occupy valuable shelf space, which is evidence that those products do sell in volume. Who buys them? Look around in any prosperous country, and we see products geared towards women, paid for by money that society diverted to women. From department store products, to the proliferation of take-out restaurants, to mortgage interest, to a court system rigged to subsidize female hypergamy, all represent the end product of resources funneled to women, for a function women have greatly scaled back. This is the greatest resource misallocation ever, and such malinvestment always results in a correction as the bubble pops.
This is not to suggest that we should go back to birth rates of 12, for that is neither desirable nor necessary. The bigger picture here is that a major aspect of the human psyche is quite obsolete, with men and women both culpable. When this situation corrects, it will be the most disruptive event humanity has ever faced.