Ken Harrison, CEO and chairman of Promise Keepers, has a new book out: The Rise of the Servant Kings: What the Bible Says About Being a Man.
This is a tough space for a modern Christian leader to break into. The field is already quite crowded, and I suspect there is more than a little “man up fatigue” as we are now fully in late stage complementarianism. With this in mind, promoting “servant leaders” to “servant kings” is a nice way to rebrand the idea that headship means husbands must nebulously “lead” but have no authority.
I did a quick search of the book on the amazon “look inside” feature. “Headship” comes back with no results, but submission comes up with a segment titled Our Role as Leader (emphasis mine):
As the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word. He did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless. (Ephesians 5:24-27)
God gave man the role of leader of his family, but what does that look like? The world often tells us that leadership and authority are the same thing, but this is not so. Authority is that influence that the law gives to a police officer or a military commander. Authority says, “Sir, please exit the vehicle,” or “Grab your backpack and sit down.” Authority offers no reward for obedience, only punishment for disobedience.
We are not called to be in authority over our wives; rather, we are called to lead them. Leadership creates a space for a person to choose whether or not to follow. Notice that a woman is commanded to submit to her husband, not to obey him. I obey the commands of a police officer out of fear of punishment, but do not submit to him. This is because submission involves equality and choice. Obedience involves a hierarchy and offers no choice.
Note that by implication Harrison is asserting that Christ has no authority over the church! This would explain why he left off verses 22 and 23 and started with verse 24. He appears to be quoting the HCSB translation, so the full quote of Eph 5:22-27 would be:
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, 23 for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[g] her with the washing of water by the word. 27 He did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless.
Lastly, notice that he offers a perfect example of what I call the Headship sleight of hand. Scripture says the husband is the head of the wife. We can then deduce from this that if he is the head, then he has an obligation to lead. The Bible doesn’t state that husbands have this obligation, the husband’s stated obligation is to love his wife, and the wife’s stated obligation is to submit to her husband. But leaders clearly have an obligation to lead. The specific nature of this obligation is another question, but the basic deduction is solid.
Harrison follows this implicit logic, but ends by denying that a husband has authority. He pretends that the Bible tells us a husband must lead (which it does not), and that modern readers infer that since the Bible says the husband must lead that he must have authority. But what is happening is the precise opposite. He infers that a husband must have the obligation to lead since the husband has authority. Then he tells us the husband has no authority, only an obligation to lead.
It’s funny watching heretics turn into pretzels as they try to make sense of their inconsistencies
What a churchian says: “Notice that a woman is commanded to submit to her husband, not to obey him. I obey the commands of a police officer out of fear of punishment, but do not submit to him. This is because submission involves equality and choice.”
What the Bible (1 Peter 3:5-6) says: “For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.”
These people are frauds.
>He pretends that the Bible tells us a husband must lead (which it does not)
why would you offer this as a point of contention, since as you say husbands clearly are supposed to lead?
My Greek is rusty but the word for “submit” in the Ephesians quote is hypotassetai literally to be placed under or be subordinate. Per Strong’s it is the same word the Apostles used when they told Jesus “the demons are subject to us in your name”. The Apostles were not servant-leading demons but commanding them to leave possessed persons. The demons were obeying them out of fear.
So, Harrison is an idiot.
The problem is that he does not know what authority is. It is a quality belonging to people in certain social roles that creates a moral obligation in their subordinates to obey their commands. It exists for the sake of the common good, and is ultimately derived from divine authority. Per St Paul, husbands have authority over their wives, i.e. the ability to impose a moral obligation on their wives to follow a command, and a wife who disobeys is offending God. Of course that command has to be in accord with divine law to be legitimate, as does every human command.
You may need the hook placed in your nose to turn you around, as you are exactly backwards.
Harrison’s claim: “We are not called to be in authority over our wives;”
Harrison’s claim 2: “rather, we are called to lead them.”
Literal textual language of Harrison’s preferred version:
“23 for the husband is the head of the wife”
“so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.”
“25 Husbands, love your wives,”
Dalrock’s counter claim: “He pretends that the Bible tells us a husband must lead (which it does not)”
Argument: If Harrison has claimed he is doing literal exegesis, the response is from the literal. Harrison got to choose his translation. He now lies about what it says. You are joining him in claiming an inference drawn from the text is the literal text.
Literally, the text gives one command to the husband: love his wife
Literally, the text makes a statement about the husband *where it is ordering the wife to submit to him*: He is the head.
It does not literally say “be the head”. It does not say “lead and you are the head”. It says the husband “is the head”.
You want to hound Dalrock over an inference drawn from the text, and yet you let this guy get a pass saying the text has a literal command to a husband which is not literally in the passage – it is wrapped up in your idea of what “is the head” entails.
If anything, the text would permit one to say that husbands are called to be an authority over their wives (being the head), and that they have no command to lead them.
“He pretends that the Bible tells us a husband must lead (which it does not)”
you are a genius sir.
“Authority is that influence that the law gives to a police officer or a military commander”
What an idiot! Competence is what actually influences authority, not law, not government. Men that are competent will lead, men that aren’t competent generally won’t. Lead, follow or get out of the way is the usual order.
Saying the wife is competent to lead, does not make her competent, nor does it make her a leader. These people are nuts!
Also unsaid is that they want the husband to have the responsibility without the authority.
Also amusing that he puts “Kings” in the title. Kings don’t allow for “equality and choice” unless they are mere figureheads.
As The Question already noted above, wives are explicitly told how to submit… by obeying their husbands and calling them “lord.” I will wager if a woman in most of our assemblies today was overheard calling her husband “lord” she would be taken aside and offered immediate help getting out of that abusive relationship.
“why would you offer this as a point of contention, since as you say husbands clearly are supposed to lead?”
It is clear evidence that the other side is reading the passage wrong.
It’s really un-Christian how men like this Harrison have set up the laws in this country and called evil good in endorsing these laws and claiming they are from the Bible. Even “Pastor John” recognizes that the man is the authority who is held to account for his family (When he said – if there was a problem with the child – he would say ‘hi’ to the wife, but go speak to the husband – even Piper knows that the man is who is held responsible BECAUSE he should be the authority). If there was real belief in this, then legislation should be crafted to enable men to lead. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth, but out comes the truth: he hates men, and he wants to see them fail, so he would shoot them in the back. Man is the image and glory of God; to undermine men in their homes as the head of the household is to attack the Son of Man.
he hates men, and he wants to see them fail,
Possibly, but more likely he regards himself as the Only Real Man in the Room, against whom all other men are pale shadows. The rest of his attitude flows naturally from that.
Yep. Be an egalitarian! Because Ephesians 5 says Jesus and the church are mutually submissive or something . . .
Good point. 1 Pet 2:13-14 is also a good reference here, since he claims he obeys government agents but does not submit to them. Yet Christians are told in those verses to submit to government agents:
So he is not only disobedient when he tells wives they don’t have to obey their husbands, he is disobedient by refusing to submit to government authorities. I cross checked this with Strongs, and the word for submit in 1 Pet 2:13 (5293) is the same word for submit in 1 Pet 3:1&5 (ISV):
It is also in 1 Pet 3:22 (KJV):
Leading is what a head does, and how can one lead at all without authority? One cannot. So if I (as Paul writes) am the Head of my House, then I will lead whether I want to, or she’s willing to submit, or not.
Notice that a woman is commanded to submit to her husband, not to obey him.
>pretending there’s a difference between submission and obedience
I obey the commands of a police officer out of fear of punishment, but do not submit to him.
Can the officer tell the difference? There is no difference. Notice his pointing out the third rail of marriage that white knights love to try to get other men to touch: a woman’s fear of punishment.
This is because submission involves equality and choice.
Equality, as in so many other areas, is a false god which leads astray.
Obedience involves a hierarchy and offers no choice.
Obedience does involve a hierarchy, but there is always a choice. This man is lying.
Oxymoron of the week: Servant King. LOL Dictionary defined:
Servant: a person employed by another, especially to perform domestic duties; a person in the service of another.
King: a male sovereign or monarch; a man who holds by life tenure, and usually by hereditary right, the chief authority over a country and people.
That absurdity is enough to completely discredit the entire theory these people are pushing. ‘Nuff said.
Ps. I thought Promise Keepers were gone long ago. I know Laura Ingraham wants to help make things better for American families, but promoting this via LifeZette is just counter-productive and dangerous. She needs to get back on the radio, being away from radio callers is causing her to lose touch with the average American and the grassroots of the country.
“Fat women do not go to Heaven.”
I think we found the best spokesman for the Church since St. Thomas Aquinas.
Too bad he was taken out by an agent of Satan.
I recall a scene in one of the Lord of the Rings movies, where a clearly discouraged Theoden asks Gamling: “Who am I?”, and Gamling replies “Sire, you are our King.”, reminding Theoden that he is more than a figure head. Theoden regains his confidence and rides out with Aragorn, leading his men against a sea of orcs.
Brazilian women are mostly appalling today, thanks for almost 20 years straight of Socialist rule. They are fat, violent, covered in tattoos, and radically feminist. They are also unbelievably lazy.
They are also prone to physically batter man publicly, as Brazilian national law makes it legal for a woman to batter and physically attack any man at anytime if she feels that “her physical, emotional, psychological, or other well-being is in peril”. And under Brazilian law, they will claim the priest’s words affected her “emotional well-being” and she will not be charged. And if she was charged, it would be a slap on the wrist. Same thing we see in America today.
Ms. Piggy over there will not be prosecuted and the Priest will be called a monster on TV.
The Tropical Trump, President Bolsonaro wants to change this, but will be hard to do, as the Congress there has a lot of socialists and feminists in it, of course. And any change to female privilege is automatically an “attack on women” or a type of “War on women” just like we see in America or Western Europe. Brazil is a much more radical feminist country than even then Northern Pakistan (UK) or the USA or probably even worst than Swedenstan.
I did an expose on Brazil and Brazilian women a few months ago on my site, I will re-post it when my site is up and running again. It was very thorough, with pictures, videos, and more.
Notice that a woman is commanded to submit to her husband, not to obey him.
Ken Harrison, human smoke screen.
Pingback: Out: Servant Leader. In: Servant King. | Reaction Times
Somewhat off topic, but it’s been just about a year since Lori Anderson triggered feminists with “Men prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos”. Perhaps we should celebrate that, just to see who gets triggered this time.
Here’s the followup essay from July 19, 2018. 50,000 negative Facebook comments? Touched a nerve.
exousia: power to act, authority
Have we not authority a sister — a wife — to lead about, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? – 1 Cor. 9:5, YLT
Because of this the woman ought to have a token of authority upon the head, because of the messengers; – I Cor. 11:10, YLT
Somewhat off topic, but it’s been just about a year since Lori Anderson triggered feminists with “Men prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos”.
She should have added ‘thin’ to the requirements for greater accuracy. Piercings and short hair should be added too.
“Men prefer thin, debt-free virgins without tattoos, piercings, and crew cuts”.
Harrison does to Scripture what others have done before, always in service of their father: http://www.andrewrilstone.com/2005/11/lipstick-on-my-scholar.html?m=1
Jesus is a Servant King. It is in fact desirable to be a Servant King, because the implication is that one will be like Jesus.
The problem is not the label being marketed, but that it is used to cover over rationalizations of female rebellion.
Godly and desirable labels are being used for the idolatry of goddess worship.
Seeing how they invert meanings. Its obvious how this is of the devil.
Another thought: if authority is the right to morally oblige a subordinate to obey one’s legitimate commands, leadership is the skill of getting other people to want what one desires. Ideally someone with authority also has the skill of leadership, but not always. Most people have to learn how to be leaders, and grow into their authority by trial and error. Some people have leadership skills but no authority. A leader without authority is at worst a usurper, at best he uses his skills to cover for the lack of leadership of the people in authority.
I suspect Christian authors make a big deal out of leadership nowadays because they are embarrassed by the concept of authority, that some people really do have the right to command others whether they want it or not. That is why these authors jump through hoops to argue a husband must develop leadership but deny that he has authority.
Of course, a husband should learn to become a good leader to be more effective in exercising authority, but being a poor leader does not excuse a wife from disobeying his legitimate commands.
What is right is now wrong in our clown world of today. What is evil is good.
“…a woman is commanded to submit to her husband, not to obey him.” – Ken Harrison
Just think about the absurdity of this statement for a second.
Dictionary definitions of:
to give over or yield to the power or authority of another (often used reflexively).
to subject to some kind of treatment or influence.
to present for the approval, consideration, or decision of another or others:
to state or urge with deference; suggest or propose (usually followed by a clause):
to comply with or follow the commands, restrictions, wishes, or instructions of:
to obey one’s parents.
to comply with or follow (a command, restriction, wish, instruction, etc.).
(of things) to respond conformably in action to:
to submit or conform in action to (some guiding principle, impulse, one’s conscience, etc.)
This writer is a fraud, a false prophet, or he is relying on American’s failed public education system to be able to pull this charade off. A simple dictionary search can reveal the truth in seconds.
But really you obey your wife so you dont have to obey the police threat point. Which he is a cop and absolutely does understand this. So you must submit to and obey your wife thru the authority the govt gives her.
Promise Keepers. I remember getting “saved” in 1989 and faithfully joining the evangelical church. I figured my job was to focus on holiness, spiritual growth, getting to know God, and seeking His presence. Promise Keepers was one of the featherbrained mental crab buckets the church geniuses leaned on the earnest men to jump into instead.
I went to one meeting in 1990-something. 30,000+ at a college football stadium in Boulder, Colorado. Rah Rah. Before I got “saved” I would have said that I was in the midst of a mass psychological conditioning experiment. It disturbed me in ways I had “by faith” renounced the ability to analyze. I left that church a year later after they went hounding after the Holy Laughter Revival.
I’m surprised it took so long for someone to dust off Promise Keepers. I wouldn’t have guessed that the supply of rubes had ever run too low to support it.
Submission is beyond obedience. Obedience can be outward but with a bad attitude – an unsubmitted heart. But to place yourself under another in all things implies a change of heart as well as outward compliance. It is far superior, as much as the Christian’s service to Christ is better than obeying the letter of the Law.
Ken Harrison’s distinction between obedience to political authority and submission of wife to husband is shown to be nonsense also by comparing the texts of St. Paul, who uses that same verb “hypotasso” when he instructs wives to be submissive to husbands in Ephesians 5.22-24 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/eph005.htm) and people to be submissive to the government in Romans 13.1-5 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom013.htm).
Also, did Harrison look a few verses further to Ephesians 5.33, which instructs a woman to fear her husband?
Promise Keepers has ALWAYS been about “slight of hand” — pseudo-spiritual/quasi-scriptural manipulation — even the CORE concepts that the group was founded on. This was all identified and delineated long ago:
The entire basis of “Promise Keepers” is a totally non-biblical, man-made (and woman-serving) doctrine that is contrary to virtually everything that the Bible teaches; and is absolutely heretical versus the Grace of Christ, and renewal via the Holy Spirit… like so many other false “gospels” it entraps men with hubris, a deceitful language that SEEMS so “right” but in fact it utterly and completely wrong: tricking men into binding heavier and heavier burdens onto their own shoulders.
How funny! I literally just taught a couple who got married this week that the vows to “love, honor, and obey” summarized the biblical teaching of wifely submission. Here this guy argues the exact opposite. “No obedience involved in submission!” This is literally dictionary twisting. Good is evil and evil, good.
At the time, Mychael wrote one of the few responses in support of Lori Alexanders debt-free virgin article.
The comments are about 50/50
I see what Dalrock means now. Saying the husband IS the leader is different from saying he “should lead,” because the latter means the husband has to earn his position, whereas the truth is that it simply is his position regardless of his actions.
He is not obeying the police officer? Then why is he doing what he/she says? That is obedience.
That’s a lie. In the military, commanders alone can sign awards, precisely because they alone have the authority to reward obedience. Likewise, Christ alone has the authority to reward a “good and faithful servant” (Matt 25:21, 23; Luke 19:7).
That’s a lie. The word translated “submit” is hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω). It’s definition is:
Now let’s look at the root words, hupo and tasso:
Note the emphasis on obedience, on structure, on order, AKA, hierarchy.
That’s a lie.
The Greek word translated “be subject to” is hypotassesthō (ὑποτασσέσθω), which is obviously a conjugate of hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω). They have the same meaning.
That’s such an obvious lie, that I can only conclude that Mr. Harrison thinks his readers are too stupid to notice.
First of all, does Christ have authority over the Christians? Obviously, yes. Does every Christian always obey Christ in absolutely everything? Obviously, no. So, do we Christians sometimes choose to disobey Christ? Obviously, yes.
Now, go back and read the definitions of hupotassó, hupo, and tassó. Notice all the emphasis on obedience, on structure, on order, AKA, hierarchy?
I’ll admit that there are scriptures that are unclear, or ambiguous. This isn’t one of them. The Holy Spirit, through the Apostles Paul and Peter, in five different epistles, clearly instructed wives that they are required to obey their own (not someone else’s) husbands as part of a hierarchy established by God Himself.
God the Father
That is the hierarchy established by God Himself, explained to us by the Holy Spirit, through Christ’s apostles.
Don’t like it? So what if you don’t like it? No one is asking you to like it.
All I ask is that “Christians” stop lying about it.
Harrison gives us nothing new.
For 30 years I have been listening to sermons on Ephesians 5, 1 Cor 7 and 1 Peter 3. For 30 years, clergy have wriggled out of saying what the scriptures plainly mean. They have been telling me it doesn’t mean what it says it means.
It says the opposite.
In this case, Harrison changes the nature of the word “submission” so it means something else, and “authority” so it means something else.
If pastors complain that men aren’t in church, they only have themselves to blame. Men are quick to spot double-speak, and we’re tired of it.
Correct. I wrote about that here.
It’s my go-to link when I need to explain to lying “Christians” the definitions of the words the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to use to describe the relationship between husbands and wives.
Bolsonaro is one of the good guys. Unfortunately, he is also very much a Trad-Con. He is reinforcing the misandryc Brazilian laws, as Trad-Cons are wont to do. The law requires that “protective measures” be enacted against a man without a hearing, but they should be declared by a judge. Now it has changed, and the chief of a police station (a “delegacia da mulher”, “woman’s police station”, we have those in Brazil because, apparently, regular police stations tried to ascertain whether a woman’s accusation was true, and we can’t have THAT) can do it on his own, without any input from a judge.
Exactly. And what Harrison is doing is even worse. He starts with the assumtption that husbands must lead (derived from Scripture telling us he is the leader), and then claims the husband isn’t the leader. It is nonsense, but most people don’t notice because they came to deduce that leaders have some obligation to lead some time in the past.
The foundation of his argument is that husbands have authority, and his conclusion is that husbands don’t have authority.
I mentioned how theologians like Bart Ehrman claim that most of the epistles of the New Testament are forgeries, especially the ones that mention women’s submission to men.
But even the non-disputed epistles, like 1 Cor, included “added” passages that weren’t in the original letters. And guess what, these are the passages from 1 Cor about women keeping their heads covered and submitting to their husbands.
In 5 or 10 years, every Bible will be the a version of the feminist Bible. The canon will be very different.
This is classic shepherd-ese. So, Christ does not have authority over His bride? …He just leads. And Harrison blows off God’s own words to the woman: “…and he shall rule over thee”? Sounds like authority to me. This dime-a-dozen shepherd blows off respect of the whole concept of authority [that is doing what is right] but only to fear getting caught …which BTW blows off the very being of God.
The church teaches damnation. Don’t be fooled by then throwing around a soft and effeminate Jesus …while ignoring He stomped through the temple with full blazing ‘angry-white-male’ authority, cracking a whip. Isn’t He the model ‘as Christ loved the church’ for the husband? Sure, continue on lying to yourself.
Submit is not obey? Clearly the Greek words translated to submit and obey are from the same root word. Harrison is a blatant liar.
As the church demonstrates its love for Christ by keeping His commandments, so does the wife, by keeping her husband’s commandments …obeying him, submitting to his every wish and whim. Anything short of that is ‘against’ him and Christ made it clear that if we are not for Him we are against Him. Christ is the Lord of the man, not the woman. The ‘lord’ of the woman is the man. Read the words of Paul and Peter. The wife submits to her husband “IN EVERYTHING.” Paul could have left those last two words off and just said ‘wives submit’ …but he notoriously included “IN EVERYTHING” …for if it is not in everything then THE WIFE WOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY. And that is God damned bullshit. That is death walking …as the church wholeheartedly lives this very hour.
Finding this death talk in sermons or books or counseling is as easy as stealing candy from a baby. And God is …well …God damned angry at His people.
Harrison can go to Hell, for he knows better but is playing the game of religion like them all. They are nothing short of Sons of Bitches endorsing the ‘blasphemy of the Word of God’ by endorsing the Illicit Authority of the woman at the expense of the Sanctity of Command of the man. They endorse the murder-suicide of the church. God is preparing to grind those under His heal that will not hear His Word.
And shepherds will be held to the highest accountability …the fools.
In the final analysis, every ounce of theology of the church, when pressed to its foundation, does not worship Christ the Word, but it worships the woman. This is about to come crashing down …as Jesus storming the temple, to cleanse the house of His Father.
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Doubtful. They are already doing what they feel compelled to do. The NIV may continue to push the edges, but that radical of a transformation will not happen, at least not the the truly faithful and God always has truly faithful ones.
Correct. And, one can only conclude that when the Church refuses to follow Christ, it’s His fault. You see, Christ failed to lead perfectly. That’s why the Church refused to follow. Right?
I remember converting to Christianity in my mid-twenties and being taught this feminism-masked-by-chivalry complimentarian nonsense. They also tried to teach me other heretical fallacies too such as Jesus was like a 1960s hippie flower child which they strangely combined with their Kristol neo-conservative RINO politics of open border immigration and non-reciprocal WTO RINO trade. What a load of rubbish! It is no wonder men who break free of the heretical fallacious bullshit describe it in terms of taking a red pill and leaving the matrix. I’m still a Christian but red-pilled. My eyes are open.
Today I see the world as it actually is, not how people tell me it is.
Correct. And, one can only conclude that when the Church refuses to follow Christ, it’s His fault. You see, Christ failed to lead perfectly. That’s why the Church refused to follow. Right?
Well, they shift it around and say “You can’t make that analogy the way you did, because Christ is God — the husband isn’t God, and the wife isn’t supposed to follow him as if he were God! You’re basically saying a wife should worship her husband like he’s God!!!!” Never mind that it’s Paul who makes the analogy, and he isn’t discussing worship, but authority … they’ll still make the case and say that anyone who says that a wife needs to follow her husband as the Church follows Christ is making her husband into a God. To heck with what Paul wrote.
People have trouble with verses like that.
For example: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God. Consequently, the one who resists authority is opposing what God has set in place, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
The early Christians obeyed this, going to torture and execution. Sure, obviously the husband won’t be always right. But whether he’s right or not isn’t your problem. Much like the poor woman who donated her last funds to a Pharisaic institution and it being used as an example of virtue and worthy of emulation.
Fact of the matter is our judgement won’t always agree with those above us. We’re supposed to learn to obey anyways, because God directed us to obey. God’s law obviously trumps man’s law, but we are still supposed to accept whatever punishment issued for following God’s law instead of man’s law.
> Correct. And, one can only conclude that when the Church refuses to follow Christ, it’s His fault. You see, Christ failed to lead perfectly. That’s why the Church refused to follow. Right?
In the Bible, there is a difference between disobedient children, who are punished by their parents, and disobedient wives, who are not punished by their husband. Following that line Christ does not punish his church for her many disobediences, but that does not mean, disobedience is not a thing, neither by the church nor by wives.
> The Bible doesn’t state that husbands have this obligation, the husband’s stated obligation is to love his wife, and the wife’s stated obligation is to submit to her husband.
The lack of a commandment can mean that the husband doesn’t have to do it, it can also mean, that in a situation where the husband loves his wife and she submits to him, lack of leadership usually is not a problem. Especially if you account for laissez-faire-leadership: As long as things are going rightly, there is no need for him to intervene. Even if he doen’t say anything, he is still a responsible and loving husband and father.
You can’t pull something underhanded like reading the actual, entire bible, man.
There is no servant too good for true moral superiors. Why be served by a mere leader when you should have kings for lackeys?
Harrison casts the shadow of a legionary with a thorny crown in one hand and a stick in the other.
OT: seems ‘nature’ teaches us the value of women having children at a young age, instead of after 35.
“Women who delivered before age 18 slashed their breast cancer risk by 60 percent compared to women with a first baby after age 35.”
“This reproduction-breast cancer link is complex, and it is interwoven with other factors — such as age at first menstruation and at menopause — that shape a woman’s lifetime exposure to estrogen, a hormone that fuels breast cancer.”
” Full-term pregnancy triggers the sudden growth of milk ducts, leading to maturation of the mammary gland. When this maturation happens at a young age, it reduces the chance that genetic damage will accumulate in the cells and be copied when they divide, seeding a malignancy.”
Note that the anti-conception pill also contains loads of estrogen.
So far for riding the carousel and settling for a beta after 30 having no repercussion.
“Leadership creates a space for a person to choose whether or not to follow.” Somebody forgot to tell that to the military.
Read evaluation of gender languages in the niv 2011. They are rewriting theology and history so as to deceive the elect as to the truth and right and wrong.
If you were in the military, maybe your experience was different than mine. Here’s a snippet:
A (Clueless Cuck Boomer) admiral once told a group of (Gen X) junior officers that the way to lead is to ask your brilliant-by definition Millenial subordinates what to do…then do it unquestioningly: “These are very smart kids, and it’s your privilege to work with them.”
That was in 2001.
@TheTraveler: Males aren’t lining up anymore to be bossed around by feminists who were EO fast-track promoted over them to send them out to do the actual fighting and dying while the bossy feminists sit in the nice cush jobs back in the rear-with-the-gear. The media blames it all on the economy and men not “manning up” as usual, of course.
That makes me want to weep. For 5 glorious months, Ronald Reagan was my Commander in Chief…and it was all downhill from there.
You’re dead-on. Senior leaders care about “diversity” and “gay pride,” not turning out fighting men and combat leadership. They think “Climate Change” is the biggest national security threat! And the UCMJ no longer has a starute of limitations on sexual harassment (thanks, Obama and Republi-cuck Congress!!)
Yeah, what red-blooded American man wouldn’t sign up for all of that? Lol.
Unfortunately this kind of sophistry is all too common.
Alistair Begg explains our clown world problem in his sermon aired today.
Where are the young men who will stand up and make that commitment? Oh, God, where are they? We’re living in a generation of aimless clowns fed by aimless dads and underpinned by praying mothers.
I hear you loud and clear TheTraveler. Living in denial is never advisable, especially when the safety and security of an entire nation is at stake. Exit denial, embrace reality and hard truth.
Men, you don’t have to subjugate yourself to this radical feminism nor be sent out to kill and die by EO fast-track promoted feminists sitting safe in the rear-with-the-gear. Do what is right for you. If the females want to run the military, then let them also shoulder the rifles in the field without using you as their expendable beasts of burden.
You CAN go Merc and retain your liberty while making a whole LOT more money than an enlisted cuckold being ordered about by privileged feminists. Or start a successful business with some male friends who share a right frame of mind. You have far better options, explore them. And oppose the inevitable push for a draft which the feminists and their cucks will try to implement in the future, as a matter of necessity, to prevent their increasing feminist stranglehold on the military from collapsing as the consequences of reality surface.
locustsplease says: But really you obey your wife so you don’t have to obey the police threat point. Which he is a cop and absolutely does understand this. So you must submit to and obey your wife thru the authority the govt gives her.
Dalrock wrote about this in Threatpoint…. women, wives in particular, use threats of divorce, use physical violence against men, and calling the police to literally intimidate and control men/husbands.
So, yeah… You are correct when you say the wife has all the power in the marriage in America today. She can call the cops and send you to prison for decades, if not life, using a false verbal accusation of r@pe, domestic violence, molesting your own kids, etc. At the very least, you get a lifelong criminal arrest, a Order of Protection and a Trespassing Order against you in your own house until judge decides to lift it (could be never), and lose your legal rights to gun ownership, freedom to travel, and even right to vote.
She can divorce you, take minimum half of your current wealth, assets, retirement accounts, and then tap a huge part of your income for decades through onerous child support and Alimony.
None of this happen by accident or happenstance. This was by design. As Progressive hero FDR said “in politics if something happened, it was planned that way”. These misandrist laws, court decisions, judicial activism, and anti-father, anti-husband policies are by design.
And the point is to make the wife the leader of the household and the husband its pet slave.
As of 10 years ago or so, the Internet made this issue front and center with the rise of MRA (Men’s Rights Activists), PUA, Game, and others. None of this a surprise to men anymore.
Men have a choice here, then. You give the woman all this power by letting her move in with you or marry her. The men give up all his power and authority to the woman voluntarily when he marries her.
But yes, once men marry a woman, have a kid with her, or let her move in with him, she is in charge. She is the boss. And she is on total control and has the police, the legislated Statutes, and the courts 100% behind her and her only.
Iowa Slim says: I went to one [Promise Keepers] meeting in 1990-something. 30,000+ at a college football stadium in Boulder, Colorado. Rah Rah.
IowaSlim, Boulder, CO is the San Francisco of the Rockies. A “lovely” statue of Vladimir Lenin’s adorns the Univ of CO Boulder campus. Ward Churchill, a former professor who mocked and insulted 9/11 victims (dead people) is considered a moderate in Boulder.
The city is mix of rich decadent and corrupt elite and a plutocracy that live in mockery of the average person and the poor who dwell in its peripheries. It is a mixture of aging Hippies who made tons of money during American’s Golden Age, trust fund kids, and the rest who are poor and cannot afford even basic housing.
Just like San Francisco, where the cleptocrats like Nancy Pelosi and tech giant’s CEOs dwell amidst the suffering, poverty, and misery of people all around them. They just get in their gas-guzzling SUVs and private airplanes and ignore the plight of everyone around them, like Feudal Lords of old.
Virtually nothing good comes out of Boulder anymore. I had someone tell me that little Jo Benet Ramsay was lucky to die young and go be with God and not grow up to be ruined by the leftist scum who surrounds her and would turn her to the dark side of life and against God.
The Promise Keepers meeting there should have been a warning sign to every man there to get out while they could.
Ps. I am still amazed PK came back… but then again, this is like everything else in America today: we have nothing new. TV shows from 1970s-1990s being “re-booted”, all movies are sequels (superheroes or Star Wars, for instance) or re-makes (all Disney cartoons, Ghostbusters, etc)…. we have nothing new. Except more nonsense like PK to be back.
I have observed the same about our culture. Perhsps poof that Satan has appropriated pop culture altogether:
– Technically excellent, no new ideas (Satan was a high being, but probably lost the ability for originality when separated from God)
– Everything debased
Traveler, I wonder if this lack of creativity by Hollywood will actually help slow down our cultural decline. The “magic” of Hollywood is waning and that opens up people to new ideas and away from the United States of Entertainment mindset we currently have.
Satan is running the show in our culture today. Everything we put out is degenerated and encourages self-destruction and hurts traditional Christian family values. Kardashains. Reality trash TV. Threatening average people and Christians into “acceptance” of sinful lifestyles.
Not sure if Satan is low on creativity for Hollywood, but the lack of diversity in Hollywood is starting to take its toll. There are virtually no Christians, no Conservatives, no average, Middle Americans anywhere in Hollywood. Their homogenous mindset and enforcement of cultural and political leftism is starting to hurt them. Ad that is a good thing. 🙂
Servant (figurehead) king. I do think much of the reason this meme works is that many divinely appointed kings have over the last two or three centuries beenn stripped of their power, with their own acquiescence to this deprivation. Since everyone knows this has happened and everyone winks at it, is it any surprise that everyone also connives at the practical divestment of the authority of husbands?
There is nothing new under the sun…
Many thought Hollywood was new, but it turned out to just be rehashed stuff in the end.