3 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the [a]incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.
— 1 Pet 3:1-6 NKJV
Sheila Gregoire’s latest post doubles down on the idea that wives who submit to their husbands are in sin for making their husband/marriage an idol. Gregoire holds up Vashti in the Book of Ester as a role model for Christian wives:
Just because the king and his nobles thought that encouraging discord among wives was evil does not mean that God thought encouraging discord among wives was evil…
I believe that the rush to demonize Vashti is rooted in an unhealthy view of marriage, where obedience to a husband is seen as the greatest good, and sowing discord among wives as the greatest evil.
No, the greatest evil is substituting something else in the place for God.
Sheila’s guest poster Gary Thomas made a similar case in Wifey Wednesday: When Your Marriage is in Trouble, Do Something! Thomas argued that wives who feared divorce were in sin, as they were guilty of making an idol of marriage and their husbands:
Let’s apply some simple theology here. 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.”
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 husband, if you’ve centered your hope on him, if your security depends on his approval, and if you will do almost anything to gain his acceptance, then you’ve just given to a man what rightfully belongs to God alone.
And that means you’ve turned marriage into idol worship.
This is a clever feminist reframe of Scripture, because it makes submission a sin and rebellion a virtue. As clever as the argument is, it is not valid. Despite modern Christians wanting to make Abigail or Vashti the role model for Christian wives, Peter tells us in 1 Pet 3 that Christian wives should emulate Sarah. Sarah is famous for submitting to her husband Abraham’s foolish instruction that she tell the Pharaoh she was Abraham’s sister. Sarah complied, and but for the direct intervention of God it would have lead to catastrophe (Gen 12:15-20, ESV):
And the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. 16 And for her sake he dealt well with Abram; and he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male servants, female servants, female donkeys, and camels.
17 But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram’s wife. 18 So Pharaoh called Abram and said, “What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife; take her, and go.” 20 And Pharaoh gave men orders concerning him, and they sent him away with his wife and all that he had.
Abraham did this not once, but twice! The same basic thing happened earlier in the same chapter:
2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife.” 4 Now Abimelech had not approached her. So he said, “Lord, will you kill an innocent people? 5 Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this.” 6 Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her. 7 Now then, return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, so that he will pray for you, and you shall live. But if you do not return her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours.”
Gen 20:10-11 tells us that Abraham told Sarah to do this because he he feared for his own safety (when he should have trusted God):
10 And Abimelech said to Abraham, “What did you see, that you did this thing?” 11 Abraham said, “I did it because I thought, ‘There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.’
The Apostle Peter is clearly referencing these incidents when he tells Christian wives to submit to their husbands even when doing so is terrifying:
6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.
Moreover, Scripture repeatedly instructs wives to submit to their husbands and view them with fear and reverence.
But the Apostle Peter’s clear instructions are detestable to modern Christians’ feminist sensibilities. Not only have modern Christians rebelled against Peter and Paul’s instruction, but they have created a new rule which says that instead of submitting to their husbands wives need to set and enforce boundaries. Setting and enforcing boundaries is incidentally only something that modern Christians believe wives should do to their husbands. You will never see a modern Christian insisting that husbands set and enforce boundaries for their wives.
See also Cane Caldo’s You Bowed Up When You Should Have Bowed Down for a discussion of the application of submission when a husband instructs his wife to do evil.
Pingback: Vashti’s daughters. | @the_arv
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?
It’s necessary for the man to be “in charge” because that’s how the Bible says it’s supposed to be. 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.
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 submission looks like the wife being a cowering wallflower prohibited from speaking or making decisions.
This is truly flabbergasting, it really is.
This makes zero sense any way you cut it. Take it from God and move it down to Walmart. If I’m an employee of Walmart I can’t just circumvent my store manager and call the CEO asking them for instruction! The CEO has placed people underneath him, delegated authority and responsibility to certain people! That person is the manager of the store in which I work and I report to and follow the orders of this person, at the instruction of the CEO! Sure he might patronize me a call or two (hey, yeah, you work for me, that’s great), but when I start calling him all the time, knowing that I should instead be following the orders of my store manager its going to piss him off! According to these yahoo’s the janitor of the store has every right, and is actually a better employee (!!!) if he tells the store manager to suck it because HE only reports to the man in charge! The CEO!
The mere idea of it is ludicrous!
Forward from previous thread.
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.
Gregoire’s logic had a small point, that was amusing to me. She wrote,
After all, the Bible tells us that Xerxes was a pagan king who had enslaved the Israelies. His nobles were enemies of God, too. So why would we take their concerns at face value?
Really Sheila? Well it’s pretty clear that Vashti was also a pagan who demonstrated no love for the “Israelies.” So why would we take her concern at face value?
Going through her piece, Gregoire is clear that she is promoting today’s temporal, leftist values, and imposing them on this story from the Orient in order to judge it. She has no regard for Christian values, rather she uses terms from Christianity, then defines them according to her belief system. Further examples:
She [Vashti] likely spent the last few years of her life in misery. But she was a hero. She was one of the first recorded instances of a woman saying, “I refuse to be treated like a sex object, because that is not what I am.” She stood up for the dignity of women,
Today we honour heroines like that. Think of Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban for going to school and taking exams.
But in the end, Gregoire’s gobblygood message is easily decomposed as so many have. At it’s simplest we read from her,
Jesus does not want us blindly obeying our husbands. Jesus wants us following Him, wherever it leads.
Well it’s obvious where that leads according to the Bible, 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
@thedeti @hose_b @snapper_tx
Remember women are inherently solipsistic, the definition of which is:
“The view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.”
So for Sheila, anything outside what she can feel or make self-referential doesn’t really exist. The Bible only exists in how she reacts to it. It seems it is literally impossible for her, and most modern Western women, to understand this teaching because it is so outside there experience.
We as men see the Bible outside ourselves and want to logically parse and understand it, which can be a weakness: the most important part of the Bible is to LOVE GOD with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. So it’s very natural for Sheila, without proper male instruction, discipline and headship, first from her father and then from her husband, to fall into this nonsense.
This is precisely why the Bible insists women respect men and submit to male teaching and headship.
Why should we take any lessons from a stone age religion?
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”
Then Ms. Gregoire replied, “Women can have hard hearts, too!!”
Hero? Let’s see: If one were a queen and knew that talking against the king could end up costing one her life why would one opt to be willfully disobedient? Could it possibly be that ol’ Vashti maybe had one too many by the time the seventh day rolled around and wasn’t exactly in her right mind? Its one thing to stand up and say “I wont be a sex object”, its another thing to reply in a drunken stupor because you, too, have been partying for the past week. No one thinks highly of the drunken slosh, stumbling over her words and complaining about how she “could have been something if Xerxes hadn’t of knocked me up!”
Pagan king, pagan queen, pagan party. I doubt she’s quite the hero Sheila is making her out to be.
The more Dalrock exposes the writings of people like Sheila and Gary T., the more shocked I am at how badly they deny and argue aginst what is so clearly presented in the Bible. They even use the very scripture that rebuke them to bolster their arguments.
Submission, while extremely unpopular with women, is not a very complicated topic in the Bible. It is as black and white as any topic written there. The arguments around it are so pathetic and indefensible, that you almost feel sorry for them for having to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to twist scripture into something they can stomach.
This line from her response was so ridiculous it made me laugh: “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.” How do you even respond seriously to someone with that mentality? if they truly believe that, then they are beyond reasoning with. I cant imagine what kind of hell it must be to be married to that woman.
How do you even respond seriously to someone with that mentality? if they truly believe that, then they are beyond reasoning with. I cant imagine what kind of hell it must be to be married to that woman.
It’s far worse than that, at least to me. This is a woman who claims to be a Bible teacher. She is preaching and interpreting Scripture. And she (very emotionally) responds to a quotation of “wives, submit to your husbands” with a statement that lays bare either her fundamental ignorance of how God ordered marriage; or her fundamental rejection of how God ordered marriage. No matter how you slice it, she, and those who adhere to her teachings, are standing on dangerous ground.
But, in any event, I see now the argument is not that “wives, submit to your husbands” is invalid; it is that that particular passage has to be interpreted with all the rest of Scripture in order to assess its “true meaning”. Otherwise, if you refer only to Eph 5:22-25, you’re “cherry picking”.
But Dalrock has laid out how that scripture is intended to be understood and interpreted with scripture. It is internally consistent.
For a Bible teacher to so emotionally state she doesn’t understand why anyone needs to be in charge is alarming, really.
I’m convinced that Sheila is simply being deceptive on the topic of submission. Her position changes depending on the day, but she is consistent in rejecting submission. Note that in the Vashti post she says that wives shouldn’t submit if doing so is “degrading to women”. This gives the impression that she believes in submission, just not in that case. But when pressed on the topic, she expresses disbelief that anyone believes in submission (ever). In her signature book, she explains that wives really are to submit to their husbands, but then goes on to explain that biblical submission means the wife gives the husband a list of household chores:
Sheila knows exactly what the Bible says, she just hates it. As do her readers.
In her signature book, she explains that wives really are to submit to their husbands, but then goes on to explain that biblical submission means the wife gives the husband a list of household chores:
I heard the FLT radio guys present the same line of thought 15-20 years ago. It has deep roots in US churchianity.
They even use the very scripture that rebuke them to bolster their arguments.
Yes, she even quotes the famous verse, Micah 6:8:
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
And submission is walking humbly. But she ignores that obvious connection, as she reinterprets the entire verse so that it means something very different.
It’s not just Sheila……….this is the standard for SBC churches as well. I cannot speak for other denominations, but I’ve been immersed in SBC culture for the last twenty years. The church I got divorced in about ignores the same concepts Sheila does. They use the same tactics. They haven’t praised Vashti yet, but our “pastor” made the statement in sermon that Jesus was the first feminist. Submission consists of Eph 5:21 ONLY. And they are wholly rejective of scriptural testing of their presented media.
About Sheila’s viewpoints. I think in some of the comments she really reacts emotionally and probably shows her true feelings.
” 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.”
And yes, husbands ARE to submit. “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ….”
Sheila: “Submission does not mean leadership but serving.”
Well, yes, serving under leadership, but that’s probably not what she intended to say…
It also shows the critical interpretation of Eph 5:21 for this to work.
(I think Eph 5:21 “mutual submission” and Gal 3:28 “equality between man and woman” are the key texts being misused by egalitarians/feminists)
“And too many who believe in patriarchy seem gleeful that they get to subordinate women. In what universe do you think that’s a good evangelistic tool? And in what universe do you think Jesus would be happier with someone gleefully revelling in their power over women versus trying to reach a lost and hurting world?”
According to Sheila:
Patriarchy means being gleeful that you get to subordinate women.
Patriarchy means gleefully reveling in your power over women.
Pingback: Vashti’s daughters. | Reaction Times
What did Vashti’s replacement queen do, anyways? For some reason the book of ESTHER is named after her.
Let’s see …
1. Obeyed her uncle Mordecai
2. Risked death to approach the king for the sake of her people at Mordecai’s command. (vs. Vashti refusing to approach the king on command)
3. Plead the king for her life, while accepting slavery: “If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king.”
4. Always showed respect to the king, every communication having, “If it pleases the King”
Proud independent feminist womyn, right there. Where would we be if Christian wives imitated Esther and prefaced every request, “If it pleases my husband/the king”?
I’m helping out the Protestants…are you beginning to see the fruits of wimminz worship and wimminz pastoring in your churches?
‘Episcopal Church Considers A Gender-Neutral God’
“As long as ‘men’ and ‘God’ are in the same category, our work toward equity will not just be incomplete. I honestly think it won’t matter in some ways,” Wil Gafney, a professor of the Hebrew Bible and strong advocate for the edit, told The Washington Post.
The Episcopal News Service said that Church leaders felt the masculine pronouns created a “barrier to evangelizing young people.”
Of note…I’m aware of this type of mindset happening in some areas of the Catholic church (possibly the Orthodox too but take it from an actual Orthodox member if it is happening). The point is this is going to be one of the greatest lies unleashed upon all us Christians. Taking the masculinity away from God.
“Submission does not mean leadership but serving.”
Submitting to lawful authority in the grand sense of it is showing submission to God. This includes marriage, parent-children, religious clergy, workplace, etc.
When Christ was on earth He showed the fruits of obdience to God the Father. This came through often directly when He prayed but also by submitting to his parents, the state, even pointing this out about the evil leaders who took the chair of Moses.
Women are not Evil; exactly. But the hard MFing truth is, they are very receptive, sexually, to Evil.
Women are by nature more receptive than men. That’s probably why the serpent went after Eve….and why the angel Gabriel delivered the message from God to Mary.
What they are more receptive to is often what leads them down the path they are going.
The only idol that Sheila approves is girl-power!
Steve Earle, a half mad example of a contemporary Scots-Irish-American singer-songwriter, produced a little ditty a few years ago called ‘Copper-Head-Road”, that somehow escaped into the Youtubes — where it has continued to thrive and has nowadays been watched by about 100 million people.
Its main theme is that resisting certain kinds of federal agency over-reach is sometimes a very righteous thing to do.
Watch the clip.
Do not blame me.
Anyone who studies Scripture in depth sooner or later comes upon the science of Hermaneutics – the science of biblical interpretation.
The first thing you learn in Hermaneutics is to examine a context carefully. This helps you do two things:
-To work out the context of what was written
-To work out what the writer intended
Thus, if Scripture uses anthropomorphic terms, analogies, or metaphors, we understand them to be as such in order to work out what the writer is telling us.
Shelia Gregoire, in this case, has lifted every one of her justifications out of context. It occurs very frequently among women studying Scripture, which is perhaps why they shouldn’t be in charge of and teach it. And the mistake they make is this:
Scripture was written to men.
The plain teaching of Scripture is as the apostle Peter has said, “Likewise, wives, be in full submission to to your husbands…” as he had previously been instructing men who were slaves or under the authority of government to be submissive to (obey) them.
Thus, when Scripture tells us the two passages Sheila has selected, it is speaking to men and it is assumed in context that wives follow their men as was the Scriptural order, a point which Sheila misses.
She then leads her married wife followers into rebellion because the hierarchy of husband-wife, necessary for Scripture to be obeyed in its’ entirety, is negated.
This is common. At a parish council meeting in my local church, a woman employed in university evangelism wanted to give a sermon. I was among the few who said, “No”, because of the scriptural injunction against it.She countered by saying that she was a full-time evangelist, that she wasn’t under the church’s authority, but under Christ’s (not true: if I attend a church, I am under the pastor’s authority) and she burst into tears when the pastor told her, unmarried at 37, that she is still under her father’s authority, whether her father is a believer or not.
The tears prevailed, and she went ahead and gave her sermon. I was rostered on for music that week and sat at the back with my arms folded. I rostered myself off the next time she tried pulling the same stunt and will now boycott her until the pastor’s hand gets forced.
I came to this conclusion a while so myself after seeing in several discussions that in biblical times women weren’t even allowed to touch the holy books. Top that of with Paul telling the men that their women should he learning at home, from their husbands, and what do you get? The word was written to the men of the church! It would then be passed onto the kids and wife by the afternoons husband, as prescribed by Paul! If the women did happen to be present at the church they were to remain silent. Of course, this would never, every be accepted in a mainstream church in the United States. Crazy and amazing!
An odd way to start a bio…
Does that mean it took 5 years before Mr. Gregoire started submitting to her?
Must be. Of course, one wonders whether if he’d stayed strong she might have had a bit more stirring, positive, and dare I say, PASSIONATE things to say about her marriage when asked? As it is, she sounds like she is having to work too hard to find the positives.
Clearly my HTML is rusty, let’s try this again (link to https://postimg.cc/image/hae87q7on/ if it doesn’t work).
Earl wins the thread.
Taylor Caldwell had it all figured out, in 1970: https://www.henrymakow.com/feminism_spoiled_natures_great.html an abridged version of the article she wrote then:
“There is no solid satisfaction in any career for a woman like myself. There is no home, no true freedom, no hope, no joy, no expectation for tomorrow, no contentment. I would rather cook a meal for a man and bring him his slippers and feel myself in the protection of his arms than have all the citations and awards and honors I have received worldwide, including the Ribbon of Legion of Honor and my property and my bank accounts. They mean nothing to me. And I am only one among the millions of sad women like myself.”
Sheila Wray Gregoire has been married for 26 years and happily married for 21!
I think it indicates that being Haaaaappy, is the main thing for Sheila in this life. For her it is all about the here and now. Her eternity will be Hell. Haaaaappy for 21 years, damned for eternity.
But, hey! At least she never had to humble herself and submit to her husband like God asked her to do, or had to have that quiet spirit, that God desires in a woman.
1 Peter 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
‘Taylor Caldwell had it all figured out, in 1970:’
Interesting that she semi-predicted MGTOW.
Why would a man marry a woman who was not his helper, his supporter? If I wanted an independent follower of Christ as my constant companion then I would enter a monastery or find a roommate.
Sheila isn’t just upending marriage roles, she is ruining the institution.
Q: What does the FeMarxist want in terms of American immigration policy?
A: Fried ICE
Oh look! I followed the link to Sheila’s Lair and the select color scheme seems to be . . . but Scripture says it ever-so-much better
“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet . . .” (Rev. 17:4)
The scarlet is on her hands. You just can’t see it. Yet.
‘I am Woman, hear me roar/in numbers too big to ignore/and I’m never gonna go back and pretend . . . I am strong. I’m invincible! I AM Woman!’ (Helen Reddy)
Hm. I AM. Where have I heard that grammatical construction before?
Likewise, note that the female anthem above indicates that, for the female, the ‘I’ and the ‘Woman’ are the same. Meaning that the individual and the collective are viewed as unitary. Not that we’ve seen any evidence of that in Western society.
Who in Scripture is known for roaring? I do believe, the same entity known for desiring to be the I AM.
Helen Reddy. Hell ‘n Red D. Hell in Red D. Wonder if Hell In is related to Gloria All-red? Just so everything matches, you know.
The hilarious thing about her argument regarding decision-making in the marriage, is that it likely results in going her way 90% of the time. I can guarantee you will never find a self-described, “no leader” marriage, where the decisions ultimately favor the wife.
I’d really be interested in hearing about some hard decisions that Sheila and her husband made through “praying together”, which actually, objectively resulted in her husband receiving a better “deal”. You won’t find any real examples though.
Praying together is code for: I’m going to be really bitchy and possibly deny you sex until you come to a decision that I already approve of. “Wow, God answered our prayer. We finally moved to my parent’s zip code, Yay!!!”
*A no-leader marriage, where the decisions favor the husband cannot be found.
“Reddy credits the song as having supernatural inspiration. She said: “I remember lying in bed one night and the words, ‘I am strong, I am invincible, I am woman’, kept going over and over in my head. That part I consider to be divinely inspired. I had been chosen to get a message across.” Pressed on who had chosen her, she replied: “The universe.” The next day she wrote the lyric and handed it to Australian guitarist Ray Burton to put it to music.”
I noted this in the other thread, but I have seen the exact “mutual submission” teaching (which ends up just being husbands submitting to their wives) from every Calvary Chapel pastor I have heard. They are proud they teach “verse by verse” yet they miss a key concept like this.
Sure, in the same way Eve was divinely inspired by the serpent.
“Setting and enforcing boundaries is incidentally only something that modern Christians believe wives should do to their husbands. You will never see a modern Christian insisting that husbands set and enforce boundaries for their wives.”
Brilliant. Can’t be too often repeated. A shiv thru the heart of marriage.
1 ,,, submit to one another in the fear of the God (Ephesians 5:21)
2. Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel … (1 Peter 3:7)
So – let’s do both of these things – since we are commanded to in the Bible.
Does doing either of these two things then change the reason that God gave Eve to Adam – to be a proper and fitting help for him? Does doing either of these two things change God’s expectation that a wife is intended to be a proper and fitting help for her husband?
The answer is a solid no. Although Ms. Gregoire seems to think that her verses, by virtue of their existance, have changed God’s design, have changed God’s purpose for giving Eve to Adam and a wife to a husband.
Grant Ms. Gregoire all her verses, everything she says that the Bible really says. Then, when she is done, quietly ask her if any of what she has said does away with the reason that God created Eve for Adam, the reason that God gives for why a man leaves home and takes a wife (or three).
That is to say, grant Ms. Gregoire her time with the wives. Then each man says to his wife OK guys. Break’s over. Here’s a list of the next set of things that I need you to do to help me.
Surely Ms. Gregoire cannot object to that. At least not without completely redesigning what God said was the reason he create Eve for Adam, wife for husband – to be a proper and fitting help. How does the wife help except by carrying out the husbands instructions?
Does Ms. Gregoire claim that this is NOT why God created Eve for Adam, or wives for husbands?
… the case of the missing close quote.
I found this relatable tiny, one-sentence, paragraph while reading Judges this morning:
“When he returned the eleven hundred shekels of silver to his mother, she said, ‘I solemnly consecrate my silver to the Lord for my son to make a carved image and cast idol. I will give it back to you.'”
There you have it, she is both spiritual and deceived.
Could one say Sheila has returned her queef to the world-wide web and said, here, make an idol of it?
I always call out women who say gibberish like this. If this were so then they do not need Domestic Violence laws of any kind at all. I ask them if I can test their invincibility as one would be inclined to do with any claim of importance. I should be able to fire a cannon right in her face, no questions asked. 10 times.
Let’s put this to the test ladies.
And yes, I would happily put her claim to the test and my conscience would be clear as a moral person, i.e. I would not be a murderer, I would not be an abuser, I would be a perfectly valid individual putting a claim made by another person to the test. If they at any time were to recant their claim, then the test would not be required to go ahead.
I just posted a couple of replies to the Gregoires website. We’ll have to see if they eventually get posted. So far I have had over half of my posts there not get posted. And they’ve all been very postable. Perhaps just not what she wants on her Feminazi website.
I’m glad you are posting to her site, but if you keep her too busy, she won’t have enough time to put out for Keith.
Jer responses to you remind me of Dalrock’s Oprah wheel, where a woman’s feelings replace the Holy Spirit.
Sheila knows exactly what the Bible says, she just hates it. As do her readers.
This is important to grasp because it makes all the rest understandable in context.
During the three years I spent doing domestic violence intervention groups (regulated by the state) the secular worldview made it, in fact, easier to move forward with egalitarian teachings. That is, if a client used a Bible reference to explain why he felt he was entitled to make a decision, the pat answer was that religious beliefs are not an excuse to make the female spouse a subordinate. That is, you simply crap on the persons beliefs as being totally irrelevant to the discussion.
“Chrisitans” with these beliefs have to absolutely tie themselves in knots to wiggle around what the Bible says on these matters. I wish they would just start a new religion.
So when the Deti points out that it was not “men” who created this hierarchical framework for marriage, and that God reveled it Paul and Peter, the rational response to that would be
1. To point, sarcastically, how convenient it is that “God” revealed this to a bunch of men
2. Discount revelation/inspiration as nothing more than an ancient superstition.
Which is fine. It just seems easier than forcing egalitarianism in to Christianity.
But the church is so eager to embrace it, and it’s an existing institution with a ready made market. The honest path for her would be much harder, riskier, and probably with less recognition.
Most in my church can’t find a reason to reject cross-dressing and are quick to point to the bible to say that it doesn’t say women should be homemakers. From that, they say the bible doesn’t say a woman shouldn’t work and then it’s off to the races from there.
Coming soon to Gregoire’s blog…
Job’s Wife: The Woman in the Bible Who Gets The 2nd Worst Rap
The Woman at the Well: Why the Carousel Doesn’t Really Matter When You’re a Daughter of the King
Eve: Was Deception Really the Problem – or Adam’s Abandonment?
Jezebel: Why Ahab is to Blame and How a Prophet Abused his Gifting to Extract Vengeance
Sapphira: The True Cost of Submission
The Church embraces all this false doctrine because
–the Church has fully embraced “social justice”
–the men in the church are terrified of the women in church for fear of divorce, wife cutting off sex, wife making his life and everyone else’s lives a living hell, etc. These are men who are accustomed to living this way because they saw their own parents live this way, and because everyone tells them that this is just the way it is and it is supposed to be.
–the men in the church are terrified of being called sexist, racist, and any other “ist” you can think of.
The worst crime in America right now is to be guilty of an “ism”. Sexism, racism, classism, “other”ism, anti-fat ism, whatever other “ism” you can think of. You’ll be excommunicated from your church. Your accusers will notify your employer and you’ll be out of a job. No employer can afford to keep you. They don’t want the trouble. No reputable employer will hire you – they don’t want you blemishing their reputations.
You’ll be pushed to the margins of society and put in a virtual gulag. Oh, you can live here. You just won’t be allowed to make a living, you’ll be a pariah, you’ll be denied basic services, and no one will associate with you for fear of the same consequences befalling them. You can’t get social services. Your children will be bullied at school (if they are even allowed to attend a school). No colleges will admit your children; no employers will hire them.
That’s where the North American Church is right now – it is fully complicit in all of this.
True, and you can add “vulgarist” to the list if my anecdotal survey of the republican men in my church means anything. Trump, if he gets a true prolifer on the next justice seat and gets a speaker to kill Planned parenthood funding will do more for us than any other candidates would have but they hate him. But Sheila, she’s just fine because she is outwardly calm. They want the ship to sink, they just don’t think anyone will get wet or drown.
What part of something as simple as even if is Gregoire struggling with in 1 Peter 3:1?
It says “even if’ NOT “only if”.
In what universe does an unsaved husband merit a higher level of submission than a saved husband? Apparently one in which well-trained hamsters can defy all logic and the language itself to achieve the desired ends.
Just unbelievable. Truly unbelievable.
@thedeti observes about Sheila’s use of the absolute to craft straw men and red herrings –
“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.”
Right. In fact just the opposite if we use her own standard of measure. Quoting Sheila’s husband from the earlier “Defenseless” post:
We both submit to God as the Bible teaches. We both submit to each other as the Bible teaches (Eph 5:21). We make decisions together and when we disagree we keep talking, praying and seeking God’s will until we figure it out. If we ever got to the point where we were truly at an impasse, my natural reaction would be to seek Godly counsel from friends, mentors, parents or a pastor.
It is the husband, by own admission, that can’t decide ANYTHING. Apparently a very well trained churchman. I’ll wager he’s much more decisive and authoritative when dealing with his medical patients, lest they lose confidence in his fitness to treat them.
What is even more unbelievable is that some men would allow themselves to be used and abused by these feminazi “Christians”. I hope they remember they only got one shot at this life.
Well after watching the Southern Baptist. Convention capsize into Lberation Theology is their any doubts left among the faithful where egalitarianism and rebellion is really leading?
Straight to ball chopping left wing campus Unitarianism. Sheila is but a stepping stone.
If we ever got to the point where we were truly at an impasse, my natural reaction would be to seek Godly counsel from friends, mentors, parents or a pastor.
No, Sheila, your natural reaction should be to defer to your husband’s judgment. You picked this guy. You share a home and a bed with him. You have sex with him, you carried and gave birth to his children. Don’t you trust him? Don’t you trust that he has your, and your family’s, interests at heart? Don’t you trust yourself? You picked him. Didn’t you, and don’t you, trust yourself to pick a guy and stay with a guy who takes his responsibilities seriously and will do what is best for everyone, including you?
Don’t you trust God? Dont’ you trust Him to see you through to the end, no matter what happens and what decisions (right or wrong) Keith makes?
No. You’re going to get friends, mentors, parents, and pastors to overrule your husband, act as an appellate court to review his decisions, and if you can, get them overturned or modified to your liking.
You don’t trust yourself to pick a decent guy. You don’t trust the guy YOU PICKED. And you don’t trust God and His Word.
Who’s the one with the lack of faith here? Who’s the one practicing idolatry here? Haven’t you, Sheila, made an idol of your own intellect and judgment? Haven’t you, Sheila, made a graven image of other people?
If you’re reading the comments, you’ll notice the sudden appearance of Dr. Keith Gregoire. Sheila usually brings out the “big guns” of the patriarchy when she’s at the end of her rope, which means that all of her detractors are about to be banned.
Dr. Gregoire has always struck me as a reluctant public figure, and Sheila’s disrespect for him is evident inasmuch as he is being forced to participate in her embarrassing public spectacles. Imagine, after a long day being shat and spat upon in the pediatric clinic, you return home to be demanded to step into goony internet arguments started by your dimwitted wife.
If I thought it would help, I’d join Reverend Camp, in praying for him. As it is, I just feel sorry for the guy.
The Female Imperative demands its own Bible translation. Gregoire, Rachel Held Evans and many others are in the process of delivering. Of course, the revision can never end…
Does that mean it took 5 years before Mr. Gregoire started submitting to her?
Coming up soon: Sheila drops the surname Gregoire and convinces Keith to take her maiden surname of Wray as his (“hey, who’s the more famous of the two of us?”).
earl — “Sure, in the same way Eve was divinely inspired by the serpent.”
Yup. And that was my point in posting it.
Don’t give Sheila any ideas!
So when the Deti points out that it was not “men” who created this hierarchical framework for marriage, and that God reveled it Paul and Peter, the rational response to that would be
1. To point, sarcastically, how convenient it is that “God” revealed this to a bunch of men
2. Discount revelation/inspiration as nothing more than an ancient superstition.
That’s already what the churchians today are doing: spitting in God’s face and mocking Him by their actions and attitudes towards His commandments. They KNOW, at least on a visceral level, that this is what they’re doing, as witnessed by the ferocity of denial and pushback when they’re called out on it. There’s still enough residual shame and fear, however, that they cannot QUITE yet bring themselves to apostacize and declare Vaginanity their new religion. They really need to “fish or cut bait” soon, though, as the cogdis of their current bastardized, perverted religion is more and more becoming to obvious to ignore.
Your questions are right and sound right to a red pill crowd, but she hears, “what way is the way to make the most abundant answer?” So she would think you have it all wrong because her impasse is only a practical matter to be solved, not a mpral one like you are making it out to be. (“Lighten up, what a creep” might cross her mind.)
Where does her wrong thinking get strengthened at, why, the Sunday morning social club and therapy culture.
As you know, the incentive, or benefit of ignoring scripture and making it a puzzle to be solved, is that solving a puzzle won’t lead to calling a woman to account.
Everyone involved in her model, elders, pastors, counselors and friends would all be eager to help her solve her impasse puzzle. None would say ask your husband, all would say, “I can see where you are both coming from.”
They would tell themselves that it is godly to make peace and can’t fathom the source of your questions because your questions would lead to an answer where one participant in the impasse puzzle is not fully happy and that sirely doesn’t seem like a godly outcome to the common believer.
feminist hater — “I always call out women who say gibberish like this. If this were so then they do not need Domestic Violence laws of any kind at all.”
I wanted to publish an example of how the Feminist Empire was constructed, spiritually. The history of the race is the history of demons speaking ‘wisdoms’ to females. Sometimes this is done in sleep, sometimes in trance or under drugs; in the ancient world, these were the CENTRAL ‘religious’ rites of the Eastern World — sibyls and ‘seers’ who would enter into ‘altered states’ and receive information from demonic entities.
Of course throughout history, demons also entered into the conscious and unconscious lives of males, too. But not as readily, nor as numerously, as they influence females — just as Scripture describes in the first transmission of ‘expert wisdom’ to the world via Eve. Satan did not target Adam, for the sensible reason that Adam couldn’t have been taken down by direct assault; the attack had to be re-routed through the female, because Adam had little/no defense against her. So, Eve was targeted. The rest is, well, history.
The modern FeMarxist West did not arise from nothingness, nor from the grass-roots of supposed ‘oppression’ of females by The Evil Patriarchy, as we are all propagandized. It arose gradually and incrementally, and at each significant step — including the INSPIRATION and CREATION of the modern feminist anthem — it was guided, very carefully, by satan and his demons. Note that the recipient/influenced songwriter (Reddy) had NO IDEA that her worldwide hit, and gynarchic spur, entered into her consciousness from the denizens of hell. She called it ‘divine inspiration’. LOL
This is the way the world works. For now.
Hose B — “They haven’t praised Vashti yet, but our “pastor” made the statement in sermon that Jesus was the first feminist.”
Wonder not at the day that ‘Christians’ will hunt down and slaughter God’s own people. It is easy to see this ahead. Do you think that as the pressure continues to mount, that men are going to side with Jeshua against their own wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, and the feminist law, culture, and climate surrounding them?
They will not side with God’s people. They will side with the world, even as most of them already do.
Got to love wimminz interpretation of this verse….they drop the ‘out of reverence for Christ part’ and then completely ignore the next verse. But that’s the Feminist Interpretation translation. Take out any part that has to do with submitting to a man.
@deti said: 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.
deti – you are and have been pushing a meme every bit as much as Ms. Gregoire is and has been.
1. You know the scripture that tells the older women to teach the younger women to love their husbands. God expects wives to love their husbands, and told them so. The fact that you leave this part out of your meme suggests that you are pushing an agenda far more than simply teaching what God actually said.
2. You know the scripture that tells us that God created Eve to be a help for Adam and that Adam would rule over her (the help carries out the instructions of the helped; heirarchy). St. Peter and St. Paul also knew those same scriptures – which is where the original imposition of the heirarchy between husband and wife was spelled out. They either read them in the Temple personally or heard them read by others. That is where God told them of this heirarchy. That is where the world learned of this heirarchy. The Hebrew nation knew of this heirarchy before the New Testament was created. What Peter and Paul said was not news to the Hebrew nation (but maybe was news to those not famliar with the Jewish Bible?). The fact that you leave this part out of your meme suggests that you are pushing an agenda far more than simply teaching what God actually said.
In terms of creating a narrative that is at odds with what the Scriptures actually say, I see little difference between you and Ms. Gregoire. You both have a preconceived notion, and then present scriptures to support your notion, while ignoring other scriptures that present a more complete picture of what God actually said, and when he said it.
Who bitch dis is?
I am sure they would just stand in the middle of the street and get run over if they could not figure out whether to go to the right or left side….
Sheila says we’ve been reading Esther wrongly because Christians place obedience to the husband as the highest, and perhaps only, point to the story, but that we forget about loving God when we read Esther.
That is a pair of crazy and cynical assertions she is making. Not nice of her to assume others read it without thinking about the Lord. She and other Christian leaders live in this strange world where the predominant belief is that wives should be obrdient to there husbands. It is very frustrating to read her and others keep making that ridiculous claim. They are holding the gayes back against half of the church who is just braying for wifely obedience. Where do her and Doug Wilson live, because it sure isn’t like that around me.
Deti, I hope you don’t take Richard P’s bait. He only comes to correct, a self-appointed nag, or concern troll. Let him fret about all the uncorrected errors he sees. If I only came to a blog to nip and nag, I would stop going to it, and just start my own blog.
No she does not. That was one of the most serious problems my exwife faced. She could never trust me to truly look out for our good.
BillyS, and Sheila doesn’t trust other Christians to read Esther with loving God foremost in our minds. Seems like living with a terrifying fear comes natural to her.
The only time wimminz trust is when they gotz the tinglez.
Perhaps Deti omitted that women should love their husbands, because that is not as observable or provable. Love is in the heart of the giver, not the eye of the beholder. I’ve been charged with not being “loving enough” for not allowing my wife to engage in all sorts of evil behavior, when it is because of love, that I want what is holy and best for her. She does not perceive my love as being loving, but it is nonetheless. Obedience, and respect, however are objectively observable. If I tell my wife to do Y and she instead does X, then she is not being submissive/obedient. If I tell my wife to call me Sharkly in public, but she insists on calling me Sharky-poo, even after I have told her that I find that disrespectful, then her behavior is in fact objectively disrespectful. I myself am able to determine if some behaviors are respectful of my expressed desires, while somebody can be fully and truly loved and yet still feel quite unloved.
That being said, Deti might just be focusing on what can be known for certain that is lacking in women’s behavior. or he may just be focusing on the most imperative need of the family, which is for the wife to be an obedient and respectful helper, to her husband, thus modeling obedience, submission and respect for authority, for the children. The wife can work on her “thought crime” of not being loving enough, as she has time, but the marriage will not function without her immediate compliance with the husband’s leadership.
Also to say that he is false teaching like Ms. & Ms. Gregoire, just because you feel like something was not mentioned, that might have been, is just you attacking and being irritating without cause. Deti has no burden to share the entirety of scripture, in any particular post. Who would even read a post that long and inclusive? Unless Deti has said that husbands should not love their wives, you’re just attacking Deti, like a Feminist sympathizer might want to do. The Gregoires actually teach directly contrary to God’s word, that the husband should submit to the wife, and that the wife should not submit to the husband, but appeal to “friends, mentors, parents or a pastor” to overrule the husband’s rule.
Even that’s just pride.
What we are seeing is a redo of pagan religions where the trust comes from sexual immorality, idols, and human sacrifice. Anything to do with God the Father and Christ the Son and what the Bible says starts to be in ‘error’ because it doesn’t jive with their pagan worship. I can’t help but think these things start rising when men start giving women the authority in matters.
However every time it rises…from Egypt, to the Israelites going that route, to the evil leaders of Moses in Jesus’s time…God’s love for us never stops and never fails…even if we forget about it.
Sheila Wray says: “So the husband is then the mediator, even though we are clearly told that there is no mediator between God and humanity.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
My post, on her site, correcting her scriptural ignorance last night, did not get posted. As usual. She seems to just spew her feelings, and make accusations, and put words in her critics mouths, while playing fast and loose with God’s word, because her market is that she provides a Feminist alternative to the plain reading of God’s word.
One responder tells Sheila; “thank you for shedding a different light on a story”. They come to her site to get a feminist alternative to the plain meaning of the Bible.
According to Sheila and her Ilk, Esther is not a beautiful and Godly example of submission and courage who was honored for her attractive body and spirit by being chosen queen of the empire. Instead they portray Esther as a victim of patriarchy, and her own submission to it, saying she was “part of a harem and was basically sex trafficked”. While they take the “goat” of the story, the foolish and headstrong woman who lost everything, and try to make her a figure to be emulated. These ugly bull dykes also have a crazy preoccupying notion that being seen as a sex object, is somehow evil. God created the woman to be a mate to the man. So, if a man finds a woman attractive as an object of sexual desire, I’d say that is pretty natural. It is no reason to get mad. I suspect jealousy is what brings the anger. A jealousy that other women are far more often objectified than these crazy cat ladies. If you look at the comments, that have photos by them, you see a lot of homely women with butch haircuts.
And it’s noble to preach the error of Shelia’s ways to her…at the end of the day though she is under the authority of her husband bestowed by God in marriage. So how he goes is how she will go. What we need to focus on is the audience…those both commenting and the lurkers. Convince them that God’s ways always work and the ways of the world are doomed to failure.
God’s ways always work; when eternal reward is able to be viewed. Just looking at the earthly side of things it often looks like submission is losing, Martyrs are victims, giving to the less fortunate, is just stealing from yourself, Etc. It takes both a strong and childlike faith and abstract reasoning to justify a Christian life. It seems like foolishness to them that are perishing.(Sheila & her ilk)
Being a Christian is not an easy earthly life…because it costs something.
What is funny is that Jules Winfield is more curious about the proper interpretation of Scripture than Sheila Gregoire and most Pastorbators.
The what? I’m having trouble finding the front or back of whatever you say.
FWIW, I saw nothing off about deti’s post, maybe he left out an element or something. Why not just append it to his statement rather than telling him repeatedly he’s pushing an agenda? OK I’ll bite, what is his agenda? I’d prefer to know, because I didn’t see it.
earl at 7:15 —
July 6, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Why should we take any lessons from a stone age religion?
I can easily answer that one for you:
1. I’m a guy from Europe, believe in evolution, modern science & scientific method, love technology, balh blah you get it.
2. I am a current witness to the live process of “stone age religion”-men, women and families…
– displacing civilized, white people street by street
– starting to rule the streets by physical presence and social policing
– openly subverting rule of the law by appeal to “modern, secular leftist ehhh democratic” feelings
– mass invading the country, without even having to fire a shot
3. The only thing those guys have is ###spiritual essence###.
They have no guns, no modern weapons, no real internet, no psy-ops think tanks aka NGOs, no education, often no physical strength, not much courage, severly constrained intelligence…you could go on and on.
But they have a “holy” book, they follow this book, spit on individuality, feminism and other degenerate sh*** like that -and that makes them strong. Strong enough to invade Europe by the millions, when they failed several times, foiled by guys like Martell.
4. Meanwhile, people talking like you (not saying you are like that) cannot see the wood for the trees, because they are too busy giving everything away to the lions invading their territory – because those lions seem malnourished, have poorly kept lion litters with them and should all get new teeth paid from my tax money. (No joke, this last part)
A spiritually healthy, strong civilization would never do something like that, it would not even be thinkable.
That is why we need big fawking azz bibles, need to read them and renew our spiritual essence, so that we might profit from ancient, well-meaning wisdom (and reject rapedy-rape pedobear wisdom from the arabian deserts), reject the serpent’s whisper and go severly crusadin’ on those Mordor Orcs (and their Snake-tongued vanguard in human disguise in our courts) … AND the weakness and degeneration that enables such symptoms to ARISE AT ALL.
It’s not about Sheila – it’s about unchained hypergamy killing off civilized nations.
It’s about renewing spiritual essence, because without that only self-defeating, hedonist nihilism remains…leading to intellectually sound but socially suicidal questions like the one you posed.
And that is why mocking the Sheilas about their teeth or their thousand cock stareis totally A-ok and actually a good thing to do- ’cause you don’t discuss or intellectualize with Sauron’s voice. He will always have intellectually sound remarks to “contribute to an enligthening, humane discussion” until you find yourself wearing black and shouting for blood in Saurons army, figthing those xenophobic hobbits and elves and humans who exclude those poor, mistreated Mordor orcs from their ill-gotten gains in the West.
The Sheilas are the visible symptom of spiritual rot.
You don’t discuss with a desease.
The churchianity power structure is setup similar to the BDSM scene: Wife is your mistress, Pastor is the Master, Husband is the Sub.
Of course the wife won’t listen to the sub. In areas of dispute, they must bring in the master to settle the issue.
Too many pastors get off on their unbiblical role as being the head of their church members’ marriages.
If there’s one thing I can prop up the Catholic church when it comes to the sacrament of Matrimony…it’s that the church and the priest ministering the sacrament are a witness to the marriage. That means they don’t have any authority to go over what God established…hence they shouldn’t be usurping the husband’s role as the head of the marriage.
@earl: “If there’s one thing I can prop up the Catholic church when it comes to the sacrament of Matrimony…it’s that the church and the priest ministering the sacrament are a witness to the marriage. ”
To be precise: “it is the spouses who are understood to confer marriage on each other. The spouses, as ministers of grace, naturally confer upon each other the sacrament of matrimony, expressing their consent before the church.”
I praise the RCC for its stance on marriage as “dissoluble only by the death of a spouse.”, except for its doctrine of the so-called Pauline and Petrine “privileges” by which the RCC gives the pope the power to dissolve a marriage. These doctrines directly contradict the indissolubility of marriage and are formulated to allow remarriage after such a divorce. If husband and wife were the ones administering the sacrament of marriage, how can the pope (and only him) remove it?
Lest I forget; I also praise the RCC for the recognition of marriage as (only) between one man and one woman.
Dalrock, how can we call this Girl Power Story? Inception Women’s Strength?
Made up she-hero? I leave it up to you if you haven’t written about it!
From Europe with love.
Research the topic…it usually gives the answer. There’s a difference between natural marriage and the sacrament of Matrimony.
Petrine privilege aside, the route most divorcing Catholics would pursue is annulment. My understanding of this process is that it seeks to find the underlying cause for the split, and also to determine if the marriage was “valid”, ie, made in good faith with each partner having full knowledge of the other that would allow them to make a fully informed decision about entering into the marriage. For example, if one spouse was unaware that the other had a drinking problem prior to the wedding, and this drinking problem became a reason for the split, the church would likely grant an annulment.
Obviously, the vast majority of American divorces are “frivorces” and I have to allow for the possibility that the Catholic annulment process may sometimes be merely a way to mine for an acceptable excuse. We apparently request more annulments here in America than anywhere else in the world. Overall though, if properly administered, it seems like a fair system.
The Catholic Church is huge on marriage prep. I’m going through this process right now, and in addition to the classes we have to take, our pastor is meeting with us monthly. I think it’s a good thing, as it gives us a chance to talk through issues we might not have otherwise.
I have to say, it makes me sad that Gregoire is one of these Bible-feminists. I read one of her books last year and it really helped me with something I’ve been struggling with for years. I was under the impression that she was one of the sane ones. I think sometimes what women say to each other in genuine good faith can seem underhanded or devious to men because we look at problems differently, but the stuff on her blog right now is very clearly incorrect.
@: Her position changes depending on the day, but she is consistent in rejecting submission.
My cousin once asked me for marital advice. Her husband was invited by his male coworkers to play pool and hang out at a local pub and grub I told her that she grew up here, but he was new to the area (they moved here so she could be closer to her family), and needs male friends.
A few hours later, she called me crying, saying he wanted a divorce.
I asked her what happened. She said, “well I did what you said.” It didn’t make sense he would come home from playing pool and detonate the marriage, so I pushed for details HAMSTER WARNING. Proceed with caution.
He asked her what time she was getting together with her friend, and she said she cancelled so she could spend time with him. He said, you know I have plans with the guys tonight, and she said “since I’m your wife, I assumed I’d be welcome to go too.”
I asked her how that was dong what I said. She said ” you said I should support him having male friends, so I wanted to there with him and support him.”
Point being, having been taught from cradle to marriage that women are naturally good, they think everything must be interpreted through to match their emotions. So, if women are told to let their husbands have male friendships, that mean let their husbands have CLOSELY MONITORED male friendships SUBMIT TO WIFELY APPROVAL.
And when Sheila is reminded that “God wants wives to submit to their husbands” she hears “God WANTS HUSBANDS TO BE GODLY ENOUGH THAT THEIR WIVES WILL WANT to submit to their husbands.”
Think of the women of Courageous submitting to their husbands AFTER their husbands let them make all the rules.
Of course, any argument is met with “husbands don’t want to be godly.” It’s projection.
That is may be what she thinks she hears, but certainly Christ is godly enough and she refuses to submit to Him when He commands through His apostles to submit to her husband in all things. IOW – the whole thing is a canard. If she wanted “godly” she would already be in submission. What she wants is to be as god, deciding good and evil herself. This is why Biblical ethics have swept aside for emotionally driven hamster ethics.
It all just makes me ask, again:
Wives, don’t you trust your husbands, the men YOU PICKED? Don’t you trust yourselves to choose wisely? Don’t you trust God so that even if this man YOU SELECTED screws it up sometimes, or even lots of times, you’ll still be OK?
You controlling everything…. How’s that working for ya? Does it make you happy? Give you peace? Know you’re in God’s will for your life? Have peace of mind? If so, why are you here, bitching about your husbands and what they do?
Older women teaching younger women how to be good wives and mothers, as in Titus 2, has nothing to do with women preaching or teaching scripture. Women are to teach each other about those limited subjects, not scripture. My not touching on that particular part of scripture doesn’t mean I think women’s Titus 2 obligations aren’t important. It just means they’re not relevant to this discussion. Sheila isn’t acting under Titus 2. She’s acting as a II Timothy elder or deacon, or even an ordained clergyman. She purports to be a Bible teacher, preaching and interpreting scripture.
And yes, Genesis 3 sets out the hierarchy of husband and wife, wife is helpmeet; the “curse of Eve” after the Fall is that childbirth will be painful, that she’ll desire to rule her husband but her husband will rule over her. Yes, that’s how marriage was ordered after the Fall. St. Peter and St. Paul reiterated it in their writings: Husbands are to love. Wives are to respect (or obey or submit, depending on the translation you read). Paul says “submit” in Eph. 5 in the NKJV. Peter says “be submissive” in I Peter 3 in the NKJV. Paul and Peter were giving the Church practical advice and reminding everyone this is how God wants it, so do it. I don’t see how that’s omitting anything. I’m certainly not pushing any memes or agendas other than what scripture says.
The problem here, everyone, is that modern women, modern people in the West, do not like “wives, submit/be submissive to your husbands”. They don’t like it. They’re extremely uncomfortable with it. Because sexism. Because not fair. Because “who is he? He doesn’t know better than me!” Because it means I won’t get something I want.
Because submission requires TRUST. It requires FAITH. It requires RECOGNITION OF, and OBEDIENCE TO, AUTHORITY OVER WIVES. It requires obeisance to something bigger and more important than yourself, Who created you, Who gave you life, Who sustains your very being, and by Whose grace you draw every breath. It – HE – was here before you, and He will be here long after you’re gone.
I’m required to submit to God, and to whatever pastors in authority over men. I have to trust them. I have to have faith in them. I have to recognize their authority and obey it. I especially have to obey God, and the Word he gave us in the Bible, as interpreted by Church fathers. I have to trust that that word is good, true, right, and beneficial. I have to have faith that that Word is for my good. I have to accept and acknowledge in my spirit that it is the Authority over me, my conduct, and my life. I have a hard time with that, a lot.
So it is with women. They don’t trust men. They don’t trust their husbands. All of society encourages wives not trust their husbands. They don’t want to submit to or respect anyone (except maybe their male bosses, and sometimes their daddies, but in both cases, only when necessary to get something they want). They buck and bristle and bitch and complain about any restrictions placed on them, anyone putting guardrails on their conduct, and anyone otherwise telling them “no, you can’t do that” and “no, I will not do that and we are not doing that; we are doing this and that’s final”.
This is about TRUST and FAITH and SUBMISSION. And men don’t want to trust, submit to, or have faith in God. Women don’t want to trust, submit to, or have faith in God. And they don’t want to submit to their husbands (despite the fact that GOD EXPLICITLY REQUIRES wives to submit to husbands).
pastors in authority over ME, not “over men”.
@thedeti: “If she wanted “godly” she would already be in submission. What she wants is to be as god, deciding good and evil herself. This is why Biblical ethics have swept aside for emotionally driven hamster ethics.”
Hence the projection. She wants to be the center of worship, so she accuses those who disagree with her of giving “to a man what rightfully belongs to God”
In other words, she saw a large group of men, in the beginning stages of accepting her husband into their social group. She wanted to symbolically cuck her husband in front of these men, in order to display dominance and scuttle any chance for meaningful support in the future (i.e. when she decides to divorce him.)
Maybe I’m still naïve; but I don’t think that poorly of this clueless wife. I don’t think she’s trying to cuck him or publicly disrespect him or display dominance.
I think she’s insecure; trying to make sure he’s not doing something she doesn’t like (like going to the strip club or cheating on her); and wants to be around him.
Great blogs Dalrock!
The riddle always looms large, “Who taught the women to rebel and deconstruct the Church? Why did they do this?
OT: My FireFox feed presented a suggested story with the title, “Americans are having fewer babies. They tell us why.”
And the image to go with it? It is an appropriate image, of a woman with a cat.
Full story at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-babies-they-told-us-why.html
I might be jaded, but I’ve seen “tag along” girlfriends before, and they always end up attempting to get sexual attention from the male-partner’s friends.
This humiliates the woman’s boyfriend/husband, and puts him in his place. It also signals to the rest of the group that this guy is not to be invited to any more outings, as we generally don’t want his bitch wife hanging out with us.
You may be right. I’m curious as to what the Dalrock boys think? Gentlemen? Have you ever seen this scenario? Which of us is on the right track?
I’ve seen “tag along” girlfriends before, and they always end up attempting to get sexual attention from the male-partner’s friends.
I’ve seen this too; but not that they attempt to get sexual attention. They get that attention whether they want it or not.
This humiliates the woman’s boyfriend/husband, and puts him in his place.
What actually humiliates the guy most times is that she’s there at all. He had to bring her so he could have his balls there. Because she carries his balls in her purse. It’s “Had to have the “Boss'” permission to come, eh?”
It also signals to the rest of the group that this guy is not to be invited to any more outings, as we generally don’t want his bitch wife hanging out with us.
Yeah, it’s “this is for men only. No women/wives.” Not so much “you’re a wimp for bringing her”.
@Boxer and Thedeti
I think you are both right in different instances. Insecurities can lead to controlling behavior, but as a Christian her security should come from God. If it’s a men’s night, no girls. IF the guys are just doing something, she may be welcome…….but not if she demands to go. Her attitude should be that which makes him WANT her there. If she is just there to babysit him, he doesn’t want her there. She doesn’t actually want to be there either, but can’t let him go without her. It’s a hard cycle.
I wanted my ex to be a part of what I did. Hunting, fishing camping, nature in general. She didn’t want to be there. Unless she was insecure, then she didn’t want me going without her. Then I didn’t want her going. She wasn’t going to be part of my life,
She didn’t really want me going, but because she couldn’t stop me from going, she would grudgingly go. It wasn’t usually pleasant. We usually went with my brother, not even “friends”
The woman in the example should tell her husband “Hey, _______ sounds like fun. I’d love to experience it with you. May I join in or is this a “men’s night?”. And be ok with either answer. It sounds like she told him to go to the men’s night, then told him she was joining. Regardless of why…..she told him.
I wanted to focus on that sentence too, so I’m glad you did. But I had a different take completely. My take was that this wife was one of those clueless people I meet very seldom, but then I thought, it’s just as likely she used this passive statement to sound innocent to her cousin, in response to his question about her disobedience. As a result, she missed an opportunity to confess and repent of her pride, as her honest answer may have sounded like this, “Cousin, good idea, but I know how to make it better, so I am going to reject your idea, but in a way that allows me to feel like I’m not rejecting it. And an added benefit of doing it my way is, is that my importance is not diminished. Besides, I know in reality that me going along isn’t how guys time is, bit I don’t care for reality and I want reality to bend to my whims. My real God, TV, says that girls are just one of the guys anyway, so for him to deny me, is him denying reality.”
You asked why, my answer is more about how she reasoned it. For your question, I have to say not enough data about that particular woman, but if you forced me to bet my car on it, then I’d probably go with awoke and proud, not clueless. But she was using a believing cousin fpr good advice, that means she could be clueless, that is, she isn’t turning to Sheila for advice (probably).
Your cousin’s husband needs to read this classic – https://therationalmale.com/2015/10/20/never-take-a-woman-fishing/.
I’d lean toward clueless without any other indicators but likely insecure and/or doesn’t trust him. Regardless of the initial reason it certainly looks like his balls are in her purse and it can always turn into inappropriate attention from other men which can easily become something else as the two grow to resent each other (him because she tags along, her because he keeps trying to have time for himself).
Even if just clueless, she is still thinking almost entirely about herself when “Going out with the guys” becomes “Well I’ll just go too because he likes having me around.”
Probably the entity that said…’Did God really say that?’
Perhaps women may or may not get this…but for all the supposed perks they think authority has, it’s a very sacrificing and burdonsome task. Hence when women are place in such situations outside of being a mother…that’s why they are often worn out, angry, and insecure. How they were created is obvious they weren’t meant to be there…and submitting to the proper authority such as God, their father, and eventually their husband relieves a major part of this burden. Hence why Christ said ‘come to me all you who labor, and I will give you rest’.
I know most women probably don’t ask themselves this question…so I will…Why do they think men are often tempted to give up the authority?
earl asks: I know most women probably don’t ask themselves this question…so I will…Why do they think men are often tempted to give up the authority?
I found a great read today, that sort of answers that. I recommend it to all. I don’t agree with everything.(contrived evolutionary explanations, dismissing Christianity as a falsehood, & Etc.) But otherwise there is some really good observations put forth. It is well worth the read.
“You moronic pastors are in such big trouble. You damned idiots. Do you have any idea what God thinks of perverting His Word?”
Even the pastors don’t believe in God anymore.
Church is just a social networking gathering where hypocrites signal moral supremacy before and after committing the most egregious sins.
Buffet style Personal Jesus approves this message.
(Because he loves me and all the things I command)
This is accurate as to fully explaining what ‘blue pill’ is.
The unearthly connection to God which is available to both women and men…is the Holy Spirit. The earthly connection is Jesus Christ. There is no other secret, ‘new’, or special way out there. They are lies.
As men abdicate more authority to the feminine, as they themselves are the products of a continuous social feminization, we see a wholesale handover of the spiritual to the direction of women. The male leadership of mainstream religions is itself compromised with the imperatives and priorities of women who are already presumed to be “more in tune with God or the supernatural”. As such they exercise the Feminine Imperative and assimilate women’s stake on the spiritual by being proxy agents for women’s authority.
Today I was linked a story about how Episcopalians have begun to Remove the Man from their religion. Apparently this marks the beginning of rewriting the doctrine of this religion by erasing all masculine pronouns for God. Of course I expect the predictable retorts that Episcopalians aren’t real Christians, but theirs is just one of the more glaring examples of how the feminization of religion progresses. The latent purpose is a wholesale removal of anything conventionally masculine from religion, and/or placing the feminine as the primary connection with the supernatural. Whether it’s mainstream religion or psychic reading, a woman is at the center of that mysticism.
Funny, that even the godless can see that the churchian leaders are kissing the goddess’s asses. Yet the churchian leaders are somehow blinded to their own cunt-worship. When I’ve confronted some of them on it they get indignant and point the finger at me as being toxic and the one who is off base. Apparently, me not going along with their goddess mysticism , is seen as meanspirited, and they say their “Buddy Christ” was a happy ol’ cuck, and you should be one too, Sharkly.
The hirelings running the churches are losers! That is why every day the churches lose more ground to the world and worldly “culture”. The hireling cuck cunt-worship minister’s job, is then to tell everybody that they’re not adrift and blown by the storm further out to sea, but that they are instead, beginning to win. This quote from Sheila Wray G. illustrates that:
As for submitting to Steve Camp, we were not the ones who began insulting. Steve was. And I must call this out in a public forum so that people like YOU can see it. This will no longer be tolerated. For far too long women have been told that we are not important, that we should take a back seat, that we should shut up. Well, that was not Jesus’ message. And the church is awakening so that we can actually speak up and be Jesus to a world that desperately needs Him, rather than a church that just creates patriarchy within its walls and doesn’t care two hoots about what’s going on outside. That’s not a real church anyway.
LOL the fool thinks the cunt-worshipping churchian forces are awakening to become magical “Buddy Christs” to a world in desperate in need of more Feminazis. She doesn’t realize they have thrown out the Bible and are just becoming the world, through her goddess mysticism.
Ah yes what message from Jesus is she referring to…is it in the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Feminism?
Be Jesus??? I guess I should ask her how she can be Jesus since she’s a woman…but I figure that would probably hurt her feelz. Us Catholics get accused of Marian worship over Christ…and these broads are flat out telling us they want to be the Messiah.
I think there was a song that said IIRC “we should be (like) Jesus hands and feet”, to others.
Somehow, that has now just morphed into “Be Jesus!”
Which is a churchian version of:
Woman flutist sues Boston Symphony in a comparable pay (not equal pay) lawsuit: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/arts/music/boston-symphony-orchestra-equal-pay-massachusetts.html
The top flutist of the Boston Symphony Orchestra has filed a gender pay discrimination suit against the ensemble, claiming that her compensation is only about 75 percent that of her closest comparable colleague, the orchestra’s principal oboist, who is a man.
The suit, which was filed on Monday by Elizabeth Rowe, the orchestra’s principal flutist and one of its most prominent musicians, appears to be the first under a new law in Massachusetts that requires equal pay for “comparable work.” …
Ms. Rowe’s complaint also appears to be the first pay equity lawsuit brought by a leading orchestral musician, suggesting that the debate over gender equality in the historically male-dominated classical music world may be moving into new territory.
On Helen Reddy: Three years after “I Am Woman”, she had another top ten hit: “That Ain’t No Way to Treat a Lady”. Somehow the fish wound up needing a bicycle, I guess.
I found a great read today, that sort of answers that.
Yeah, that’s a good piece.
The term used on this side of the pond is Flautist not Flutist. I see my software does not approve of Flautist although happy it is with Flutist. Most orchestras seem with the exception of the heavy Brass, Percussion and Timpani to be dominated by women. My local orchestra’s Cello section has achieved 100% equality in that it has eight women having consigned to irrelevance all men. Presumably: the status of being a member of an orchestra will drop as men flee – perhaps to the Vienna Phil where under Frankly Worse-than-Most it is still an all male affair – but then I am told all Austrians are Fascists. In the meanwhile our Principal Conductor has as he coaxes superior tone out of the eight lady Cellists gesturing to his right with his stick, a soft harem.
We need a new St. Paul to write another letter to these neo-Corinthians. IIRC, many of the Corinthians disdained marriage because Jesus was coming back tomorrow or some sort of Gnostic reasoning. Thus, they refused to get married and went to pagan sex and food orgies instead.
Now, we have Mrs. Gregorie stating, “And that means you’ve turned marriage into idol worship.” So once again ladies, don’t marry because it’s idol worship. But, stuff your face with bonbons and ride the cock carousel. You believe in Jesus so you don’t have to worry about those bodily sins!
Nah…there’s nothing different about what St. Paul wrote to those Corinithians in that time compared to this time. Pagan, idol, and goddess worship has always been around. That’s probably why the first commandment is the greatest commandment.
As far as Sheila saying that the church needs to be Jesus, and not be “patriarchy within the walls,” does anyone remember when she pretended to be ignorant of radical feminism? Dalrock did the Lord’s work several years ago in exposing that in her.
I thought “Flautist” had to do with emitting smelly gasses….
Looks the like the has-been “American Vision” gave Dalrock a mention…
This seems like a good place for this.
Yes. But this is denied by modern evangelicals. There is even a note in the MacArthur study Bible about women being the last to morally decline in culture. It’s not only untrue, but disproven by history and the Bible. They are the first to rebel and go crazy. In Romans- they give in to unnatural passion… likewise men follow.
Modern Christians put all women on a pedestal as if they were virtuous Victorian virgins, rather than face reality.
Why do you think the OT commanded a “raped” woman to cry for help if she was in the city? Because even back then they were making false accusations about rape.
There are least 2 or 3 people in America that need corrective of this type – women who worship their husband. Of course as our host points us for everyone else (99.9999% of Christian women) this teaches false doctrine and encourages all the worst impulses and is not a corrective but a temptation toward sin and rebellion. I cannot decide if it’s worse if all the false teachers know this or if they really believe their feminist doctrines.
You can’t say she didn’t warn you:
I can say “where’s the rest of the words?”, though. Try shrinking your screencap and reposting.
But whatever Gregoire wrote, it isn’t anything she wasn’t saying years ago. FWIW.
In her post I Didn’t Really Care if My Sons-in-Law Were Debt-Free, Tattoo-Free Virgins, she writes:
So, God wants us to remain virgins until marriage, but “ultimately virginity means nothing. It’s just a pile of horse manure.”. Sheila, theologian extraordinaire, comes to this conclusion based on Philippians 3:8, which states:
One of the commenters had the gall to complain that Lori Alexander deleted her comment on Lori’s blog. I replied that the same thing happens on Sheila’s blog. I wonder if my comment will be deleted.
When CH stands on the moral high ground compared to popular female “Christian” leaders, you know we are in interesting times:
What Men Want: “Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos”
The quote in this post’s title is from a woman.
Is she wrong?
(h/t jeangray07): speaking of big truths, this woman is getting ripped to shreds on Facebook for dropping some truth bombs
The authoress, Lori Alexander, tackles the subject from a Christian perspective:
“Do you know how much more attractive debt-free virgins (without tattoos) are to young men? Unfortunately, there are so few of these types of young women anymore because of the high costs of college (debt) and sexual promiscuity even within those in the church. As believers in Jesus Christ, we need to live in a way that is pleasing to Him because His ways are the best. He calls debt a burden and urges us to live lives of sexual purity.
There are many more reasons why Christian young women should carefully consider whether or not they go to college, especially if they want to be wives and mothers someday. Secular universities teach against the God of the Bible and His ways. It’s far from what God calls women to be and do: it teaches them to be independent, loud, and immodest instead of having meek and quiet spirits.”
She is right, because the New Testament of Jesus is basically age-old wisdom about the Darwinian nature of the sexes wrapped in religious symbolism. But I prefer to skip the middleman and go straight to the helical chaser.
Men prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos because
1) debt indicates indulgence and low self-restraint, qualities that correlate with sluttiness (as well as being a golddigger)
2) tattoos similarly indicate indulgence and impulsivity, also correlating with sluttiness (tats are cues for casual sex availability, which in a woman is opposed to her commitment worthiness.
3) aesthetically, tats obscure and disfigure the clear, supple skin of prime fertility babes)
sluttiness is unattractive to a man who is looking for a relationship (slutty women can’t be trusted)
4) virginity in and of itself is attractive to men because it indicates a woman who has not become jaded and befouled from riding the cock carousel, a woman who will more easily fall deeply in love with her “first and only” man (for she has little to compare him too — see: alpha widowhood), and a woman who can be better trusted to remain faithful and therefore guarantee a father’s paternity should the two decide to commit and have kids
5) not to mention, virginity means a tight twat, which is extremely pleasurable to a man
Anyhow, I’m glad that Christian housewives and Your Humble Heartiste can see eye to eye on the pressing questions of the day.
PS The fact that there are vanishingly few adult-aged American Woman virgins just means the few virgins there are get to enjoy sky high value on the marriage market. Work it, chasties!
So God wants us to be holy, but ultimately holiness means nothing.
So God wants husbands to provide for their families, but ultimately provision means nothing.
So God wants us to avoid sin, but ultimately it means nothing.
Start to apply it to everything and the inherent stupidity of the statement becomes very clear.
Sheila is really going wray, wray off the mark.
Sheila Says: And, in fact, ultimately virginity means nothing. It’s just a pile of horse manure.
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.