ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, March 04, 2014

The Churchian elevation of sin

Leave it to the Female Imperative-worshipping feminists to not only turn Biblical doctrine on its head, but actually find a sacred and holy purpose to female sin:
  1. A poor excuse for a man and husband does something (often something mysterious) to make his wife unhaaappy.
  2. As a result, the wife lashes out, very often in a way that threatens the family.
  3. Her sinful actions, while of course not sanctioned, turn out to be just the ticket required to shake her complacent husband into attention and get him to seek out God.
  4. His seeking out God, (triggered by her lack of submission), fixes their marriage, makes him a better man, and brings them both to God.
I'm pretty relaxed about women who are unwilling to submit to their husbands, for much the same reason I'm relaxed about atheists who are unwilling to submit to God. First, because they will inevitably reap the consequences of their foolishness. Second, because they don't have to answer to me concerning their stubbornness, they have to answer to God.

That being said, actively teaching women that being rebellious in marriage is a good and divinely sanctioned act is downright evil. Stay well away from any church or wolf-in-sheep's-clothing who perverts the Bible in this manner.

The answer to the purported dilemma often raised is absolutely simple. Christian women not infrequently to ask: "Do I have to submit to a husband who [insert various moral failing or perceived flaw here]." Yes. Next question.

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
- 1 Peter 3: 1-2 

I understand many, perhaps most, women don't like that. I don't like the fact that I can't split the skull of everyone who annoys me either. But I don't make the rules. If you don't like them, then follow the example of Lucifer and take it up with the Rulegiver.

Labels:

376 Comments:

1 – 200 of 376 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Michael Maier March 04, 2014 1:11 PM  

It's simply unfathomable how many men get this wrong in the face of pretty simple text in their Bibles.

That and the whole idiotic "Mutual Submission" BS...

Add the Prosperity Gospel and the Purpose Driven Life being pushed by Churchians and I have to wonder just how much of God's work ever manages to see the light of day in most churches.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 1:15 PM  

but but... servant leader!

Blogger SirHamster March 04, 2014 1:24 PM  

Hrm.

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?"

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 1:26 PM  

Another way to put this...

Girls... if your man isn't living up to your expectations... the answer is to treat him like he already is the man you want him to be.

He will see that in you... and he will strive to live up to that image.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 1:29 PM  

Question for VD and the Ilk.

What if a husband commands his wife to do something sinful?

a:) she refuses because God overrules her husband
b:) she complies, and it is held against him because of his authority over her.

but but... servant leader!

but but... servant leader!
I also wonder where this term came from. Would someone from a 100 years ago have heard the term? Is it a new churchian thing to emasculate male leadership? Is it humility with a new name? Our church group just started a study on parenting that uses the term and I have been hypervigilant to make sure this isn't feminist hogwash.

Anonymous Anchorman March 04, 2014 1:35 PM  

Want to see how a man would react to submission?

Watch how he treats his dog.

Do the majority of men react with abuse and harsh words toward a dog showing submission and contentedness? Or do they treat those dogs above their natural station?

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 1:37 PM  

Servant leadership was the fad about a decade ago, basically telling guys that the only way to lead was to be a servant because Jesus washed feet.

It's coopting submission and masculinity to the feminine imperative.

Blogger Tiny Tim March 04, 2014 1:38 PM  

To have most women in charge of a family is to have a 6 year old in charge a few days a month, a 12 year old a few days a month, and an 18 year old a few days a month... hopefully there is an adult in charge at least half the month...

Blogger buzzardist March 04, 2014 1:41 PM  

Yes, because God commanded that we not confront one another directly when we see someone sinning, but instead engage in passive-aggressive sinful behavior ourselves in order to subtly try to force the other person into submission.

Sounds like a perfect recipe for blowing up any marriage.

To any woman attempting this sin-to-fix-my-husband strategy, I'd ask this: To whom are you trying to get your husband to submit, to yourself or to God? (Hint: If your husband is lacking in submission to God, God has ample power to deal with him. If you're the one trying to force the submission, it doesn't matter to whom you pretend your husband would be submitting; you're ultimately getting him to submit to you. Which is to say, you're trying to pervert God's order and plan for your marriage. You're becoming a Judas, betraying Jesus because you think that doing so will spark the confrontation with the authorities that Jesus will turn into an earthly revolution.)

Didn't they teach people in kindergarten that two wrongs don't make a right? Seriously, what do they teach kids in school these days?

Blogger RobertT March 04, 2014 1:41 PM  

If you look at Young's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek lexicon, you'll find that the words for sexual sins in the Bible are feminine, at least all those that I have looked up. At some point, probably in a fit of political correctness, the general meaning became either/or. But even today there are people and groups out there that consider sexual sin a distinctly feminine sin. A few minutes of googling will provide results.

Anonymous Zion's Paladin March 04, 2014 1:42 PM  

I also wonder where this term came from. Would someone from a 100 years ago have heard the term? Is it a new churchian thing to emasculate male leadership? Is it humility with a new name?

I suspect that it originated from when Jesus, the leader of the group, once washed his disciples feet. If that's the case, then the key word they're missing is once. I cannot recall off the top of my head any other circumstance where Jesus behaved as the servant of anyone besides the Father.

And the thing is, I certainly don't get how "servant leader" could be pulled from that. A leader should work for the benefit of those he leads to be sure, but that doesn't strike me as being a servant.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 1:42 PM  

The problem with the "but what if he tells her to sin" objection is that it's about as common as rape/incest abortions.

Most of the time, the sin women are complaining about is simply him wanting to have sex with her. Which of course is not actually sin.

Wake me up next time a husband commands his wife to sacrifice a virgin goat or something.

Anonymous Jimmy March 04, 2014 1:47 PM  

The article is depressing because the advice given is simply wrong. The denial of sex and the ultimatums are an escalation, not a correction. You can't just come back from denial of sex or the attention getting from moving out and adultery. The wives who are told to do this should use their brains and refrain. Don't make it worse than it already is. He probably thinks everything is fine. If wives get it into his mind that things are horrible, he will most likely accept the separation since this is the natural conclusion.

The denial of sex already signals something is wrong. She is probably doing this already and does not need to be told to do it to get a man's attention. To change a man is probably the intention, but it is likely she will get a man change.

Will women actually reap the consequences? The funny thing is when people think they are right, the consequences are irrelevant. Any penalty is the cost they will accept in doing the right thing, even if it is wrong biblically. The only cost they will regret is not getting a new man to marry her. They can pretty much get everything else as that is guaranteed by the courts.

Women value status, then the relationship. If the relationship sours, the status is cashed out. Little do they know that marriage is much more than just money. Just in, Mel Gibson's ex was denied entrance to an after Oscar party (via TMZ).

Anonymous ZhukovG March 04, 2014 1:48 PM  

While a good leader is a servant to his subordinates, it does not change the fact that he is the leader and that his lawful orders must be obeyed.

Anonymous Daniel March 04, 2014 1:48 PM  

Are you sure I can't claim the occasional skullsplitting of the annoying as a means of ensuring my personal feelings of safety? I mean, who isn't owed a safe space?

Blogger Tiny Tim March 04, 2014 1:49 PM  

If you deserve to be in charge your wife will place you there herself because she doesn't want to lead.

If the man doesn't deserve to be the leader he will have a rebellion as no vacuum will remain void. She will assumed your rightful place and nothing good comes of that.

Anonymous Krul March 04, 2014 1:50 PM  

Josh - Wake me up next time a husband commands his wife to sacrifice a virgin goat or something.

Oh, so an experienced goat isn't good enough for you, is that it?

#slutshaming#wowjustwow

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 1:52 PM  

I suspect that it originated from when Jesus, the leader of the group, once washed his disciples feet. If that's the case, then the key word they're missing is once. I cannot recall off the top of my head any other circumstance where Jesus behaved as the servant of anyone besides the Father.

The passage it was pulled from in this study was Philippians 2:

5In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very naturea God,

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

7rather, he made himself nothing

by taking the very natureb of a servant,


I don't think that extrapolates out to "servant leader" either. I think it is theological background telling us that Jesus, who is Divine, meekly took our sin to the cross. It was necessary to humble himself to accept our sin.

being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

by becoming obedient to death—

even death on a cross!


Anyway, that is exactly what I'm interested in, Biblical justification for "servant leader" It is an oxymoron.

As it pertains to wives, they are to "submit to their husbands as unto the Lord". The relationship is to be like that of our relationship to Christ. Anybody want to claim He is our servant?

Blogger SirHamster March 04, 2014 1:54 PM  

but but... servant leader!

I also wonder where this term came from. Would someone from a 100 years ago have heard the term? Is it a new churchian thing to emasculate male leadership? Is it humility with a new name? Our church group just started a study on parenting that uses the term and I have been hypervigilant to make sure this isn't feminist hogwash.


I grew up with it, and my understanding is that it's based on things like Matt 23:11.
"The greatest among you will be your servant."

I understood the term as contrasting the wordly way of doing things with Jesus' way. The worldly way seeks leadership and power for the benefit of themselves, but Jesus' followers are to use it in the service of other's interests, just as God uses his power in ways favorable to us.

So I don't see a problem with the concept, just that the execution can get confused because what the followers need isn't necessarily what they want.

Anonymous Krul March 04, 2014 1:54 PM  

From the article:

“What will it take to get your attention?” In the book The Meaning of Marriage, authors Tim and Kathy Keller relate how Kathy got Tim’s attention by lining up some of her good china, and as soon as Tim walked in the door, breaking it with a hammer. She got his attention!

What is it with women and *attention*, anyway? Are they like imaginary creatures that disappear if their existence isn't continuously acknowledged or something?

Anonymous Daniel March 04, 2014 1:57 PM  

Wake me up next time a husband commands his wife to sacrifice a virgin goat or something.

Rare indeed, although I knew a woman who stole for her husband.Very submissive. Submission was not the cause of the theft. Her own greed was the temptation that was satisfied. Submission served as cover for the crime.

"But, but, what if a fallible King orders me to fight in an unnecessary war? Then do I submit my sword?" asked the idiot knight.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 1:59 PM  

If you deserve to be in charge your wife will place you there herself because she doesn't want to lead.

If the man doesn't deserve to be the leader he will have a rebellion as no vacuum will remain void. She will assumed your rightful place and nothing good comes of that.


I don't disagree, but the time to sort that out is before the "I do's". Because we downplay submission today, women don't realize they are supposed to be choosing someone who will lead them and men aren't ready for the responsibility. Then we teach mutual submission and servant leader and no wonder things are screwed.

Anonymous Daniel March 04, 2014 1:59 PM  

Kathy wouldn't have gotten my attention if she had taken the hammer to her own face.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 2:03 PM  

"If you deserve to be in charge your wife will place you there herself because she doesn't want to lead.'

deserve has nothing to do with it.

read what Vox wrote again.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 2:07 PM  

deserve has nothing to do with it.

Yes, that too.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 2:09 PM  

"While a good leader is a servant to his subordinates, it does not change the fact that he is the leader and that his lawful orders must be obeyed."

False.

A good leader is not a servant of his subordinates. He is a servant of the group. He acts in the best interest of the group... but only in terms of achieving the goals of the group.

Anonymous Jeanne March 04, 2014 2:09 PM  

"Mutual Submission". Yuck. Just the sound of that is distasteful. I can promise you that if my husband started acting in a "mutually submissive" manner toward me, I would lose a lot of respect for him.

But I have zero problems with the Biblical commandments regarding the structure of the family. Mine is to obey, not to understand and/or agree...

Blogger Marissa March 04, 2014 2:11 PM  

Would someone from a 100 years ago have heard the term?

I, too, had never heard this term until people in this area of the internet complained about it. I did a Google Book search of the term prior to January 1, 1950 and no results are returned. The "Churchian" understanding of it is pure feminism, though I do agree with the poster above who appreciates the real meaning of it (leadership in service to others).

Anonymous Salt March 04, 2014 2:14 PM  

A good leader is not a servant of his subordinates

A good leader holds a position of stewardship, like a shepard, towards those he leads.

Anonymous bw March 04, 2014 2:21 PM  

often something mysterious

!!!! That's as far as I got without commenting. Ok, I'll go back and force myself to read the rest now.

Anonymous jay c March 04, 2014 2:21 PM  

4. Husband seeks God, straightens himself out, and attempts to straighten out his house as well. Wife sees perpetually beta husband beginning to take charge, has an affair and files for divorce, accusing him of being abusive and controlling.

Anonymous SlackAttack March 04, 2014 2:21 PM  

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”

Why?

Because of an indicative. The husband is the head of the body as Christ is the head
of the Church. An imperative and an indicative.

Submit to your husband. Why? Because of who God says he is.

“No, I am not going to submit to him.”

Why?

“Because I disagree with God. God says he is my head. However, he may have met God’s qualifications for my submission. But he hasn’t met my qualifications for my submission. Therefore, God, I out rank you which means I am violating the First Commandment because there is another God besides you and that God is my standard.”

Therefore, God, I out rank you which means I am violating the First
Commandment because there is another God besides you and that God is my standard.”

You have got a worship disorder. You are in sin. You are a blasphemer. Oh. You are an idolater.
And unsubmitting wife is guilty of idolatry. Who is her idol? Look in the mirror.

- Healing for Hurting Marriages - Voddie Baucham

Great pastor, Great Sermon. Unapologetically defending biblical truth. If anyone knows of someone like him, let me know.

Anonymous Alek Hidell March 04, 2014 2:25 PM  

Nate March 04, 2014 1:15 PM

but but... servant leader!


Just like a Cop and other Govt workers!
There seems to be a pattern here...

Blogger JartStar March 04, 2014 2:25 PM  

Kirk Cameron has a lot to answer for thanks to Fireproof.

Anonymous jay c March 04, 2014 2:27 PM  

If you deserve to be in charge your wife will place you there herself because she doesn't want to lead.

Of course she wants to lead. And she doesn't. Just part of the curse. Genesis 3:16.

Anonymous Zion's Paladin March 04, 2014 2:27 PM  

@Giraffe Ah. I'd always understood it to be from the foot washing, but I see how it could be drawn from there or from the verse SirHamster quoted above.

@SirHamster Especially since a leader who tries to cater to his subordinates whims is either a puppet or will quickly find himself replaced.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn March 04, 2014 2:28 PM  

Wake me up next time a husband commands his wife to sacrifice a virgin goat or something.

Considering the common knowledge that the NSA regularly intercepts private transmissions, I shall wake you the next time a fellow demands his wife send him nude photos of herself.

I now await your explanation as to how exposing herself before other men is not sin, and that even so, it is her fault and not his.

OpenID cailcorishev March 04, 2014 2:31 PM  

What if a husband commands his wife to do something sinful?

We beat this idea around until it was good and pulpy over at Sunshine Mary's a while back; I don't recall the thread, but if she posts here maybe she can link to it.

It would be nice to say there's some limit, that a woman should be able to draw the line and say that God's command not to do X takes precedence over God's command to submit to her husband at that point. The only problems with that are: A) there's no scriptural basis for that; the commands on submission don't say, "except when he's clearly commanding sin," which they easily could. In fact, 1 Peter 3 says it even applies to non-believing husbands, who presumably might command a sinful thing or two. And B) when you start actually considering possibilities, it's easy to see how that line could get hazy very quickly. Maybe you say she's not required to submit if he commands her to kill their child, for instance. Sounds reasonable. But what if he tells her to bring the child along on a trip she thinks is dangerous? What if he tells her to feed the child foods she thinks are harmful? What if he insists on public school, which she thinks will rot the kid's brain and soul?

As soon as you give her any veto, you've essentially made her the arbiter over everything, because she has to decide for herself where her veto applies and where it doesn't. You're right back to her being the ultimate boss and deciding when to let him make decisions.

So my conclusion was that submission only means something if it's absolute. If some command comes along that she feels she can't submit to, she's saying she wants out of the Christian wife role. That's why it's critical that she marry a man she trusts in the first place, and that she pray for help submitting and for guidance for him in his headship.

Of course, as Josh said, this is pretty much an academic exercise. Men married to Christian women, who are the only ones who care about this, aren't going around ordering their wives to abort their babies, rob banks, or have threesomes. The average Christian wife is probably no more likely to be presented with such a situation than she is to be struck by lightning, so it's interesting that she will fight tooth and nail to give herself an escape route from it. It's almost like she really has other things in mind.

Anonymous A Visitor March 04, 2014 2:34 PM  

Do the majority of men react with abuse and harsh words toward a dog showing submission and contentedness? I use harsh words. I've been soaking in everything re: game at Alpha Game, Dalrock, and Just Four Guys. It's had some interesting results to say the least. What I can say is in the Catholic Church, there's still recognition that sin is sin. Just because a husband pissed his wife off does not give her license to sin. Slightly OT, but Lent starts tomorrow! My best to all Catholics and all our Protestant brothers and sisters! May it be fruitful for all!

Anonymous bw March 04, 2014 2:34 PM  

4. His seeking out God, (triggered by her lack of submission), fixes their marriage, makes him a better man, and brings them both to God.

Translation: She desires her will be done, (therefore says !fuck you!, enabled by the anti-Christ system), rules the "marriage", him submitting to her (just like in Genesis), and he now worships and is ruled by his goddess.

This shit is sooo easy...

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 2:35 PM  

That being said, actively teaching women that being rebellious in marriage is a good and divinely sanctioned act is downright evil. Stay well away from any church or wolf-in-sheep's-clothing who perverts the Bible in this manner.

I went round and round with Zippy (among others - all Catholic) about this. Of course the topic was polygyny. I am a woman who believes everything means everything and no exception clause is given that releases a woman from obeying God's call for her to submit to her husband. Naturally I get asked all the time "what if what he tells you to do is sinful." I was told in that thread that wives must determine what is and is not sinful and not submit to my husband and do sinful things. That this is the exemption from what God calls for me to do. That I am "in effect arguing that God commands evil."

Anonymous Shutterbug March 04, 2014 2:38 PM  

First, thank you for posting this, Vox. I've been reading 1 Peter 3 daily for several weeks now and praying for our Lord to keep working with me because I want to have that gentle, quiet spirit that is so precious to Him. I've been that rebellious wife that almost blew up the family. I simply didn't know what to do about my husband's rage episodes (he didn't rage until about 7 years into the marriage due to job stress he says. You want to know how he treated the dog? He kicked her down the basement stairs and injured her. We eventually found another family for her). Everyone, including my mother, told me to leave him because I "have a right to be happy." They were shocked when I told them I don't have a right to be happy, especially at the expense of my family. But I didn't know what else to do. I was too angry and in a rage myself to submit to my out of control husband. I felt like I'd been treated to a bait&switch. Being compliant made him worse. I was stuck. And I used it as an excuse to start long phone conversations with an old male high school friend. No, I didn't have a sexual affair, but I felt justified in allowing this man in my life. I became an out of control wife.

Even though my behavior was more out of a lack of skills and letting anger rule me, it doesn't make it less sinful. I'm so ashamed. This was about 5 years ago. He still has rage episodes, but they're diminishing in frequency. The kids are older and are now telling him that it needs to stop because its hurting his relationship with them. I just leave for a while when he loses it rather than take him on like I used to. He's making an effort and has come a long way in improving how he handles job stress. I've grown up and decided I will stay with this marriage no matter what. I'm not first woman in a less than awesome marriage. It's important for women to remember that they have to bring good things to the marriage as well.

I beg the prayers of the Ilk. I want so much to be that Proverbs 31 woman. That woman with the quiet and gentle spirit. I want to please God and so much to submit to my husband. Part of the 1 Peter 3 verses talk about doing what is right and to not give in to fear. I fear submission because my husband just grinds you to dust if you displease him. Yes, I'm giving in to fear. Pray for Jesus to help me with this.

Sorry for the long, very personal post. You really hit home with this one, Vox. And you're so right.

Blogger JartStar March 04, 2014 2:40 PM  

Shutterbug,

Praying for you. The right thing to do is rarely the easiest.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 2:41 PM  

Shutterbug... ya know in the old days a few men from the town would pay your husband a visit... and these episodes would stop.

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 2:43 PM  

Kirk Cameron has a lot to answer for thanks to Fireproof.

I had a female recommend Fireproof to me. Said, “it changed my marriage” or its “life changing”…something to that effect.

Anyway, LOL, I watched that damn thing. It was terrible, horrible acting, stupid story, almost unwatchable (even my wife thought it sucked) and we went into the thing as Christians biased towards liking it!

And it was this life shaking experience for this other gal.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 2:44 PM  

You're in my prayers Shutterbug.

Anonymous Shutterbug March 04, 2014 2:45 PM  

Nate, after the last big episode my son and I spent the weekend at his older brother's home. His older brother had a "visit' with him and so far he's behaving much better. I don't have a father he would answer to or I doubt this would've gone on for so long.

Anonymous ZhukovG March 04, 2014 2:48 PM  

@Nate

Shutterbug... ya know in the old days a few men from the town would pay your husband a visit... and these episodes would stop.

That reminds me of something my Mom mentioned from her childhood:

The only time she ever saw the KKK burn a cross on someone’s lawn it was a white man who was a drunk that wasn’t supporting his family. She said, within a few years that man was head Deacon of the First Baptist Church.

Shutterbug, you are in my prayers as well.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 March 04, 2014 2:49 PM  

Guys, it isn't that bad. I mean, the divorce rate among Christians is only 38%. We should be celebrating the fact that 62% of all Christian women are willing to put up with us men.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 2:49 PM  

@cailcorishev
Well said.

@Shutterbug. Sorry. Will do.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 2:51 PM  

Praying for ya shutterbug

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 2:52 PM  

For some hope, Shutterbug, get a hold of Phil and Kay Robertson's full story as well as Machine Gun Preacher.

OpenID cailcorishev March 04, 2014 2:53 PM  

The phrase "servant leadership" is fine in that it reflects the fact that any leader, in a sense, serves his subordinates by providing them with leadership. You could say an officer leading his troops into battle "serves" them by keeping them organized and moving according to plan to maximize their chance of success. A husband "serves" his wife by providing her with leadership and correction and provision in obedience to his vows.

Where people go wrong -- usually intentionally -- is by reversing the emphasis and saying he can lead by being a servant -- that by serving her he will inspire her to follow him -- which usually winds up something like this:

Husband: Hey, babe, I'm ready to lead you.
Wife: Here, you can start by leading this trash out to the curb.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn March 04, 2014 2:54 PM  

So my conclusion was that submission only means something if it's absolute.So my conclusion was that submission only means something if it's absolute.

Splendid. Pay all your taxes, do not expect to know when your daughters have abortions, and stop preaching against homosexuality. It is the law. Submission to authority only means something if it is absolute, after all.

What? Context? What is that? Surely you cannot mean to say that any given passage from your Scriptures must be viewed only through the lens of the whole of it. That would be damned inconvenient to the fellows who desire to be gods themselves...

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 2:54 PM  

Shutter... this is a nasty fallen world. No one has a right to happiness. In fact... its bloody insane to even expect to find what modern people describe as "happiness".

You're wise to recognize that.

Peace is what we should be hoping for. A peace that comes from the contentment of knowing that the reward comes after the race is run.

Blogger Lud VanB March 04, 2014 2:55 PM  

Another wonderful pearl of wisdom from one who once stated there's no such thing as rape in a marriage.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 2:56 PM  

"The only time she ever saw the KKK burn a cross on someone’s lawn it was a white man who was a drunk that wasn’t supporting his family. She said, within a few years that man was head Deacon of the First Baptist Church."

used to happen like that quite a bit.

OpenID cailcorishev March 04, 2014 2:58 PM  

We should be celebrating the fact that 62% of all Christian women are willing to put up with us men.

Why is your assumption that the women have to put up with the men? Do the men get any credit for putting up with the women?

Anonymous David of One March 04, 2014 3:00 PM  

On a related vain ... it appears that a number of "churchian" Christian healthcare sharing plans have been growing steadily.

One of the requirements appears to be that all applicants abscribe to certain behaviors such as "regular church attendence" ... no mention of having accepted Christ as One's Savior or being "Born Again". Just regular church attendence.

I've not explored these healthcare sharing plans in detail so as to determine how the application requirements may vary plan to plan ... but, for me, it is interesting that regular churchian attendence appears to be a more important criteria than actually being a member of the Body of Christ.

I do intend to research this more

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 3:00 PM  

"Another wonderful pearl of wisdom from one who once stated there's no such thing as rape in a marriage."

That's not a rebuttal hoss. That's what the book says. Again... take it up with the book.

Anonymous Shutterbug March 04, 2014 3:01 PM  

It helps to remember that your spouse is just as fallen as you are. And I did buy Phil Robertson's book. Miss Kay is an inspiration. I so admire that lady, and I certainly do take her and Phil's story to heart. I also am learning from Phil, who finally decided to try God's way (when his fish were being stolen) rather than his own way. God help me submit and to do it Your way.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 3:01 PM  

Perhaps a good analogy for a role of husband would be a shepherd. He is in charge, but he is looking out for the sheep instead of himself. He finds the lost ones, he makes sure they are fed and safe. He tends to their needs, even though there might be other things to do that are more fun. That is the nature of his sacrifice. It is better to lead your sheep gently than to be rough with them. He is measured by the quality of sheep he produces.

Another wonderful pearl of wisdom from one who once stated there's no such thing as rape in a marriage.

Brings to mind an admonition about pearls and swine.

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 3:01 PM  

What if a husband commands his wife to do something sinful?

a:) she refuses because God overrules her husband
b:) she complies, and it is held against him because of his authority over her.


Obviously (b). It makes no sense to sin out of a desire to not sin. (a) is false, barring God actually stepping in and overruling the husband.

I was too angry and in a rage myself to submit to my out of control husband. I felt like I'd been treated to a bait&switch.

It's completely understandable. But, as you've come to understand, it's still wrong. That's why Christianity isn't described as "the broad and easy" way.

Anonymous kh123 March 04, 2014 3:02 PM  

"Another wonderful pearl of wisdom..."

If I can break you away from your important geochem duties for a moment:

You know how the saying goes with this and swine.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 3:02 PM  

"One of the requirements appears to be that all applicants abscribe to certain behaviors such as "regular church attendence" ... no mention of having accepted Christ as One's Savior or being "Born Again". Just regular church attendence."

maybe because they aren't baptists and therefore don't expect people to get saved twice a month?

Blogger Matamoros March 04, 2014 3:02 PM  

SirHamster: "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?"

Just to show this rebellion afflicts men also, the above quote made me remember this one:

Martin Luther: Sin Boldly — “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day”

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 3:04 PM  

Cail, I think he was being sarcastic

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 3:05 PM  

"It's completely understandable. But, as you've come to understand, it's still wrong. That's why Christianity isn't described as "the broad and easy" way."

and yet...

Come to me all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matthew 11:28-30

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 3:09 PM  

Shutterbug,

There is a middle ground here. Don’t take the BS around here too literally. There’s a gulf of difference between “he made me mad so I’m going to go have an affair” and “he is flying into uncontrollable rages, so I am leaving till he gets control”.
Fucking idiot should quit his job if he can’t handle it, it’s a fucking job. Sheez, talk about having your priorities screwed around.

Anyway, hang in there, I will pray for you and don’t put yourself or your children in harms way, you need to get out of there if he is out of control and stay out till he gets control.

There are other options besides divorce or having an affair. My sister went through a LONG separation from her husband (he was having an affair), but she refused to divorce him when almost everyone was telling her she should, she stuck it out and they came back together and have a pretty solid marriage today.

Blogger JDC March 04, 2014 3:10 PM  

Another wonderful pearl of wisdom from one who once stated there's no such thing as rape in a marriage.

I believe he said it more than once.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 3:11 PM  

"Fucking idiot should quit his job if he can’t handle it, it’s a fucking job. Sheez, talk about having your priorities screwed around."

I would argue he should just grow the fuck up. But then... getting your teeth kicked in by a 4 or 5 guys... with a stern reminder that it will be worse next time... tends to help that.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 3:12 PM  

Obviously (b)...

(a) is false, barring God actually stepping in and overruling the husband.


I agree for the most part.

A case could be made for B where it is something prohibited in Scripture. Meaning He has already overruled the husband. Say a husband tells his wife to sleep with another man. We have "Do not commit adultery" in conflict with "Wives submit to your husband"
She's sinning either way.

Anonymous Zion's Paladin March 04, 2014 3:15 PM  

Shutterbug, I'll be praying for you too.

Reading here reminds me that as much as I think I may have learned about the Lord, there is still much more to learn.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn March 04, 2014 3:15 PM  

(a) is false, barring God actually stepping in and overruling the husband.

I am glad to see that past is past, and only new and personal revelations apply when the will of man desires aught.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 3:20 PM  

I meant a case for A could be made.

Granted, the dilemma is resolved if B is true, and I think that it is.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 3:22 PM  

"Granted, the dilemma is resolved if B is true, and I think that it is."

I think trying to determine things like this is largely a waste of time. Its a fallen world. people are fallen.

Anonymous Zion's Paladin March 04, 2014 3:23 PM  

@Giraffe The same could also be said of masters and servants. But Paul warned Philemon that masters would be judged on how they treated their servants.

Besides, that strikes me as a false dilemma. I can't imagine any husband ordering his wife to sleep with another man.

@Nate I imagine the warning could be summed up as "Knock that shit off or we'll knock your block off."

Blogger Akulkis March 04, 2014 3:24 PM  

I think the best example of an accurate, workable meaning of the term "servant leader" is what the army teaches new NCOs. A team/squad/platoon/company leader serves subordinates by way of getting them the things (resources, access, etc.) they need to accomplish their mission. But at NO TIME is that leader taking orders from privates, or caving into resistant bullshit, whether it be overt or passive-aggressive. The leader is the one making the decisions about how to accomplish the mission, and then the privates execute those decisions. If the subordinates need something, they make their needs known.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 3:26 PM  

The entire question is a red herring.

The focus is to shift the conversation and put those who preach submission on the defense.

Like asking Akin about rape and abortion.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 3:32 PM  

I think trying to determine things like this is largely a waste of time. Its a fallen world. people are fallen.
Yeah, probably. But it is a common objection women have to submission. Doesn't hurt to have an answer.

Besides, that strikes me as a false dilemma. I can't imagine any husband ordering his wife to sleep with another man.

A wise man once said, "Its a fallen world. people are fallen"

I think it has been answered satisfactorily, so I'll drop it.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn March 04, 2014 3:32 PM  

I can't imagine any husband ordering his wife to sleep with another man.

You have never heard of the "hotwife" fetish, I take it?

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 3:37 PM  

A case could be made for B where it is something prohibited in Scripture.

No, it cannot be made. That's the entire point! That sort of foolish reasoning is precisely where Churchianity is given an inch and takes a mile. There is no exception "submit except if you happen to think you can interpret Scripture in such a way as to justify your disobedience".

Abraham didn't say to God: well, it says "thou shalt not kill", so take a hike, mate. You're just trying to provide an out where none exists. The woman makes her choice when she takes her husband. That's why it is such an important choice.

It's pretty simple. If a woman doesn't want to submit, she should not marry. Of course, if she is too proud to submit to a husband, chances are very small that she's going to submit to God.

Anonymous MrGreenMan March 04, 2014 3:42 PM  

There's a saying that, once I realized it had been inverted in modern American thought, everything made so much more sense. I forget the exact phrasing, which was more artful, but an ancient legal premise was - the corners of the law are not the law. In other words, we should not be led by extremes.

The (rhetorical) question - what if the husband orders her to sin? - is being an extremist and being governed by extremes.

Corollary: Because they're so fearful, women and effeminate men are constitutionally predisposed to be governed by the extremes, hence, since we're now under the curse of being ruled by women and children, we're governed by extremes.

Corollary 2: The media only reports extreme examples because so much of the marxist agenda has been advanced by extremes that they know they can effectively scare the electorate into compliance - e.g., we upended a health care system that 85% of the nation was happy with allegedly to help a group of the extremely sick. I can't tell you how many people screamed at me over Obamacare with examples of children born to die before adulthood, and the heavy medical bills, and when I asked - why don't we just raise a fund to pay those bills? - I got told I was evil and would put them on welfare and so stigmatize them. They don't even realize they are extremists because fear shuts down the higher level thinking.

Husbands living with their wives with understanding can quickly figure out their limits and what they are bad at, and then to cultivate them as good team members, can push them toward improving themselves to be better helpers. I remember the idea of "servant leadership" from Booker T Washington's life - where the white northern woman who runs the school showed him how to properly clean and manage the building, instead of just shouting at him to do it - and that's far removed from the emphasis on servitude and servility replacing leadership for churchians today. I've always taken Christ's original intentions of "servant leadership" as having meant to say - lead from the front, especially if you have to get your hands dirty.

The problem with too many women today - they think they're born equipped for everything and they think that God happening to use a bad situation as a teachable moment is license for them to create bad situations. The idea that submission to their husband, especially one who takes his role seriously, might have them doing things they don't enjoy but growing as a person and a Christian. Men do it all the time in all sorts of fields where they shovel shit and bite their lips, including how men must submit to Christ in a manner most repellant to the natural man.

Anonymous Zion's Paladin March 04, 2014 3:42 PM  

@Giraffe I agree. Though it's always refreshing to discuss such matters with other Ilk.

@Loki Guess not. Don't really see the appeal of it myself, but as a wise man said, "Its a fallen world. people are fallen."

Anonymous Ugh March 04, 2014 3:44 PM  

Besides, that strikes me as a false dilemma. I can't imagine any husband ordering his wife to sleep with another man.

Creepy-ass FBI man and traitor Robert Hanssen did exactly that. He even wanted to film his buddy banging his wife.

She wouldn't go for it, though.

OpenID luagha March 04, 2014 3:45 PM  

A great book on servant leadership is 'The Top Ten Mistakes Leaders Make' by Hans Finzel. He goes through the basics of flipping the organizational chart so the chief is at the bottom, carrying, and uses the top ten mistakes to elucidate what a 'servant leader' does.

Of the great things he emphasizes are:

1. The leader's purpose is to remove blockages from his employees so they can work fruitfully, whatever it takes. Usually this involves the standard things that intelligent people in business would assume but people outside of business don't understand: stuff like knowing what everyone is doing so you can allocate resources and direct people in need to the help they require; training your replacements in this knowledge; setting the goals clearly and communicating them; and being the person people can come to for direction and assistance. (He makes the point that the leader is the one whose job it is to move boxes at 3 am on a Sunday when there is nobody else to move those boxes at that time; no matter how foolish it is that someone of the leader's resources and abilities is the one moving boxes.)

2. Servant leadership only works with loyal employees committed to the groups goals. It does not work with traitors in the organization. That requires a different management style.

I thought the group here would enjoy that point 2 is made.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey March 04, 2014 3:48 PM  

I remember the old days when my dad and a few other paid a "visit" to a fellow brother who was drinking and getting rough with his wife.

I wonder if a few wiser women of the church would take it upon themselves to lay the smackdown on some shameful young women. My bride was ready to wup some ass the other day, and she's got enough pregnancy hormones coursing through her veins that she might have done some permanent damage had I not held her back.

Anonymous MrGreenMan March 04, 2014 3:48 PM  

Or the far shorter version of my comment:

Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, period. The husband is commanded to submit to his local church elders and to Christ, period. We assume our Lord may command us in ways we do not understand to do things we do not want, but we accept he is a good Lord. Therefore, since we expect that marriage is a perfecting institution, and it makes both husbands and wives better, are we not to assume that the husband is generally a good husband? Therefore, let us not be extremists and let us not make a structure of the wife having a constant knife at the husband's back to judge or not judge his action, and to imagine things into the text that are not there, because we might imagine a bad husband or a husband who the wife thinks is bad; this is imagining an evil extreme and using it to attack a real, normal, and average good.

Anonymous damntull March 04, 2014 3:49 PM  

"(a) is false, barring God actually stepping in and overruling the husband."

Ridiculous! If a husband orders his Christian wife to sacrifice her son to Molech, it is her duty to refuse. There is no circumstance or overriding duty that can make sacrifice to Molech a morally legitimate action.

Blogger ajw308 March 04, 2014 3:50 PM  

The Hamster has been ordained!!

Blogger ajw308 March 04, 2014 3:53 PM  

My bride was ready to wup some ass the other day, and she's got enough pregnancy hormones...
Congradulations!!!

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn March 04, 2014 3:54 PM  

There is no exception "submit except if you happen to think you can interpret Scripture in such a way as to justify your disobedience".

Any woman who would twist such vague bits of Scripture such as "thou shalt have no other gods before me" to mean "thou shalt keep my commandments no matter what authorities bid you do otherwise" is clearly a wicked, willful creature trying to come up with an excuse to have her own way and not fit for marriage.

It is best for a woman not to marry.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 3:55 PM  

No, it cannot be made. That's the entire point! That sort of foolish reasoning is precisely where Churchianity is given an inch and takes a mile. There is no exception "submit except if you happen to think you can interpret Scripture in such a way as to justify your disobedience".

Abraham didn't say to God: well, it says "thou shalt not kill", so take a hike, mate. You're just trying to provide an out where none exists. The woman makes her choice when she takes her husband. That's why it is such an important choice.

It's pretty simple. If a woman doesn't want to submit, she should not marry. Of course, if she is too proud to submit to a husband, chances are very small that she's going to submit to God.


Well said.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 3:58 PM  

Loki is a WGTOW/MGTOW?

Blogger Me Guerrero March 04, 2014 4:00 PM  

"about atheists who are unwilling to submit to God. First, because they will inevitably reap the consequences of their foolishness. Second, because they don't have to answer to me concerning their stubbornness, they have to answer to God"
Yeah, Guatemala or Brazil are pretty religious and submitted to god and look in what state they are...

Anonymous damntull March 04, 2014 4:02 PM  

Don't feed the Guerrero troll!

Blogger Lud VanB March 04, 2014 4:02 PM  

"That's not a rebuttal hoss. That's what the book says. Again... take it up with the book."

At the risk of repeating myself, your book also says the earth is a 6000 years old flat disk coiffed with a window equipped solid dome standing on a pillar in the center of the water universe...your book was written by idiots and you re all idiots for believing it.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 4:04 PM  

Cite where the book says those things, lud. Chapter and verse.

Or retract.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 4:05 PM  

Unfortunately its not nearly as easy as Vox makes this out to be. oh sure...when you're talking about sex or whatever its easy.

When someone starts talking about submission and child abuse... particularly sexual child abuse...

well now its different isn't it?

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 4:05 PM  

Pay attention Ladies! License to rebel:

Ridiculous! If a husband orders his Christian wife to ________________________, it is her duty to refuse. There is no circumstance or overriding duty that can make__________________ a morally legitimate action.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza March 04, 2014 4:06 PM  

Submit and respond; he says I love you, she'll respond or is that backwards either way its, men lead, women follow.

Women have no place in any authority over men in church or at home.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 4:10 PM  

well now its different isn't it?

A Christian woman in full submission to her husband is likely reading her Bible. Esther had a way about her, didn't she? So did Abigail.

Anonymous Zion's Paladin March 04, 2014 4:11 PM  

@Josh No, he's a AGTWO. Or a JGTWO.

@ThirdMonkey Congrats.

Anonymous RationalAgnostic March 04, 2014 4:12 PM  

our first Gay Pope will fix this problem

Blogger pilgrim4life March 04, 2014 4:12 PM  

"On a related vain ... it appears that a number of "churchian" Christian healthcare sharing plans have been growing steadily."

What is churchian about Christian healthcare sharing ministies?

The church attendance requirement (at least for the one I joined) is fulfilled as long as you have fellowship with other believers, which could be a house church or bible study with like-minded believers, if you prefer. No one needs to attend a mainstream church and be inundated with feminism.

I encourage you to keep researching the issue. Healthcare sharing ministries are a creative alternative to Obamacare and traditional insurance.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 4:14 PM  

"Pay attention Ladies! License to rebel: "

its not rebellion in the case of abuse.

its self defense.

Blogger Me Guerrero March 04, 2014 4:14 PM  

Damntull, so now trolling is debating with actual facts? or you didn't know that both Guatemala and Brazil have high rates of Protestantism (and also Catholicism, nevertheless both are very devout) ? I felt as a mechanism defense to legitimize my Agnostic views, as a proud irreligious I see those Latin countries don't get benefits from worshipping a god, I am aware the success of people is more related to their IQ.

Anonymous damntull March 04, 2014 4:16 PM  

Giraffe -
Nice binary thinking, as Vox is so fond of saying.
The worship of other Gods is by its very nature idolatry and objectively evil. There is no circumstance that can make it morally acceptable, even the command of a husband. If you can explain how a husband's command can override God's clear scriptural instruction, go ahead.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn March 04, 2014 4:18 PM  

I wonder if a few wiser women of the church would take it upon themselves to lay the smackdown on some shameful young women.

((Titus 2 says that's even their job.))

Ridiculous! If a husband orders his Christian wife to sacrifice her son to Molech, it is her duty to refuse. There is no circumstance or overriding duty that can make sacrifice to Molech a morally legitimate action.

Oh, but that could never, ever happen. Who could imagine such a thing?

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 4:26 PM  

If you can explain how a husband's command can override God's clear scriptural instruction, go ahead.

God commanded her to submit to her husband. No exceptions. That is the clear scriptural instruction that is paramount for her. You're just trying to rationalize a failure to submit. You appeal to Moloch, but what you really have in mind is not cleaning the house.

Anonymous revrogers March 04, 2014 4:29 PM  

For consideration with regard to the extent of submit:

1 Pet. 2:13-14 NASB
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

The word for "submit" is the same one used in the wife passages. So, how would this apply with regards to how one critiques the government?

Anonymous Randy M March 04, 2014 4:30 PM  

First, I like the point that the edge case does not make the law. But...

>"No, it cannot be made. That's the entire point! That sort of foolish reasoning is precisely where Churchianity is given an inch and takes a mile. There is no exception "submit except if you happen to think you can interpret Scripture in such a way as to justify your disobedience"."

There is also no exception to "Thou shalt not murder," either. What do you do when the unstoppable force and immovable object meet?

Say a woman and her son convert from Islam to Christianity, and the husband, enraged, orders his wife to gather stones so he may stone the son. There is one thing to be said for being a martyr, for not resisting evil; I cannot fathom that God should will she assist him in martyring another.

"But no exceptions!" The rest of the book is the exception.

Now, might the wife be wrong, interpret an edge case as license to do as she please? Yes, and she would answer to God some day for disobedience. As she would if she obeyed a sinful order.

The Abraham-Isaac example does not apply, since the specific always overrules the general; in the case of the wife, both are general (commands to all people). But if there is a specific prohibition on an action, that would take precedence over a command to obey the husband generally.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 4:32 PM  

"You appeal to Moloch, but what you really have in mind is not cleaning the house."

No.

What I have in mind in child abuse.

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 4:36 PM  

I cannot fathom that God should will she assist him in martyring another.

I don't care what you don't fathom. We are to judge by the fruit. There is NO problem with excessive submission leading to stonings and child sacrifice. There is a MASSIVE problem with women refusing to submit.

You strain at a gnat and swallow blue whales. No exceptions. You're not going to get the inch so you can grab the mile.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn March 04, 2014 4:36 PM  

Loki is a WGTOW/MGTOW?

Is not this very teaching "men getting their own way"?

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 4:36 PM  

The word for "submit" is the same one used in the wife passages. So, how would this apply with regards to how one critiques the government

Not at all. First Amendment. Critique away.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 March 04, 2014 4:37 PM  

Why is your assumption that the women have to put up with the men? Do the men get any credit for putting up with the women?

Sorry, there was no HTML tag for sardonic statements. Not even in HTML5.

Anonymous damntull March 04, 2014 4:39 PM  

"God commanded her to submit to her husband. No exceptions. That is the clear scriptural instruction that is paramount for her. You're just trying to rationalize a failure to submit. You appeal to Moloch, but what you really have in mind is not cleaning the house."

What nonsense! God forbids the worship of other gods. No exceptions!

Don't pretend to know what I have in mind. I've been explicit with my argument. The worship of other Gods is objectively evil in and of itself, and no man's command can make it morally legitimate. You're just flat out wrong on this Vox - guilty of the binary thinking that you say traps so many others.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 4:40 PM  

Nate,
According to Childhelp.org, this would be the mile taken once given the inch you give:
Any attitude or behavior which interferes with a child’s mental health or social development. This includes yelling, screaming, name-calling, shaming, negative comparisons to others, telling them they are “bad, no good, worthless” or “a mistake.” It also includes the failure to provide the affection and support necessary for the development of a child’s emotional, social, physical and intellectual well-being. This includes ignoring, lack of appropriate physical affection (hugs), not saying “I love you,” withdrawal of attention, lack of praise and lack of positive reinforcement.

Blogger Outlaw X March 04, 2014 4:42 PM  

A good leader is not a servant of his subordinates. He is a servant of the group. He acts in the best interest of the group... but only in terms of achieving the goals of the group

I have found the best way to lead anyone or any group of people is to make them think your Ideas was their idea and then let them have the credit and leave the ego in the closet.

Anonymous revrogers March 04, 2014 4:43 PM  

"Not at all. First Amendment. Critique away."

What about mockery? If citizens are to submit and wives are to submit, is the mocking of the one submitted to allowed by God, a higher authority than the first amendment?

How should Rom. 13:7 (Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.) be factored in when one talks about President Obama?

I am not fan of Obama.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn March 04, 2014 4:46 PM  

There is a MASSIVE problem with women refusing to submit.

This, of course, proves your interpretation to be absolutely correct.

The ends will always justify the means.

Anonymous Jamsco March 04, 2014 4:50 PM  

Forget Inflation/Deflation. This is a debate I'd like to see Vox and Nate take on.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn March 04, 2014 4:57 PM  

According to Childhelp.org, this would be the mile taken once given the inch you give

How odd, the idea that someone with an agenda might twist the meaning of something into a means to gaining power over another.

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 4:59 PM  

What nonsense! God forbids the worship of other gods. No exceptions!

Nor is an exception being granted. If the woman sins at her husband's command, she is not to be held responsible. He is. That's what "responsibility" means.

You're just desperately trying to find an excuse for women not to submit.

Anonymous Randy M March 04, 2014 5:00 PM  

>"You strain at a gnat and swallow blue whales. No exceptions. You're not going to get the inch so you can grab the mile."

Nah. I'm not giving a sermon, I'm discussing the topic dispassionately on a blog, where one is allowed to admit both the rule and the logical (and not just logic, but divine proscription) ends of the rule.

I really don't want the mile; I'm the patriarch of my home. But I can entertain the idea of their being husbands not like me, so I will discuss the possibility of the inch exisiting.

You go out on limbs a lot, VD, and frequently find that they can support your weight; that doesn't mean it is wise to jump upon the smallest branch without inspection.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 5:02 PM  

'You strain at a gnat and swallow blue whales. No exceptions. You're not going to get the inch so you can grab the mile."

hardly.

Jesus Himself declared infidelity to be grounds for divorce.

Thus clearly there are exceptions to the ALWAYS SUBMIT! rule.

Anonymous damntull March 04, 2014 5:03 PM  

Vox, please provide a scriptural basis for your assertion that the husband is responsible for her choice to commit idolatry in this hypothetical case.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 5:04 PM  

A husband is fallen... and a husband's sin alone is not sufficient to grant a wife the right to rebel. However... the right of self defense is an absolute right. The right of a woman to protect her children is an absolute right.

If a woman abuses that right... she is answerable to God.

Blogger Outlaw X March 04, 2014 5:05 PM  

How should Rom. 13:7 (Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.) be factored in when one talks about President Obama?

Remember the Tautological answer Christ gave the Pharisee's.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and render unto God that which is God's."

It could have many meanings

What is Caesars? What is God's? Is everything God's because he created it all or do some things belong to Caesar? Does God Command "Thou shall not Kill? Does Obama support abortion? Now who's word should one honor and who should one speak against, God or Obama? I think you haven't thought through your question?

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 5:06 PM  

The way I look at it, if it's grounds for biblical divorce, it's also grounds for refusing to submit.

So adultery and maybe abuse. But actual adultery (not "he was looking at the pr0n") and actual abuse (not "he yelled at me this one time" or "he stopped me from hitting him with a skillet").

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 5:07 PM  

"So adultery and maybe abuse. But actual adultery (not "he was looking at the pr0n") and actual abuse (not "he yelled at me this one time" or "he stopped me from hitting him with a skillet")."

This.

Banging the neighbor is adultery.

Beating you with a 5 iron is abuse.

questions?

Anonymous Randy M March 04, 2014 5:07 PM  

"If a woman abuses that right... she is answerable to God. "

This seems to be the dividing line. VD thinks that women are only answerable to God inasmuch as they deviate from legitimate male authority. That "I was only following orders" will in fact excuse any transgression. This is not logical, nor moral, so he will need pretty explicit biblical grounds to be convincing.

Anonymous damntull March 04, 2014 5:16 PM  

I doubt any explicit biblical grounds will be forthcoming. It's quite obvious that the command for a wife to submit to a husband does not carry the same weight as the universal command to worship God alone.

Anonymous kamus March 04, 2014 5:17 PM  

If the husband does not submit to the Elders/Christ etc, then doesn't that void the hierarchy? What if he's submitting to Satan or Atheism? Obviously it can't be left to the wife to decide but she does have a right to bring the case to the Church and then they must make the decision right?

Blogger Rabbi B March 04, 2014 5:17 PM  

RabbiB

This post couldn't have hit home more. Nearly three years ago now, my sister-in-law packed up my brother's 9 kids and headed 300 miles north to supportive, bible-believing, Christian friends who have not only continued to provide financial support, but within two weeks had convinced her to hire a lawyer and divorce my brother. After all, in their words, he needed a wake-up call, and what better way to fulfill one's Christian duty than to ruin him financially, issue a restraining order (although no charges of abuse or even threats of abuse were ever voiced - only that she was afraid of what he might do - the order has been renewed 3 times, though in all that time he has respected the order), and demonize him to any and everyone who will listen to the sob story of such a courageous and noble woman who dared to stand up to him and save her family from his evil clutches. I wonder if the kids knew how much daddy needed to wake up.

For my brother's refusal to show up in court, pay alimony, child-support, or respond in kind whatsoever, et ad infinitum he is now, of course, a deadbeat dad whom the system has rewarded with a suspended driver's license, an outstanding warrant for felony contempt charges, and if he wants to see his children he can pay to visit the so-called nurturing center for supervised visits over 300 miles away.

He loves his family (and his wife) more than anything, but wonders what kind of example he would be to his children if he were to submit to their demands and compromise all that is good and right and reject the very values he instilled in his children by submitting to a system that has absolutely no business meddling in an institution established by G-d and not the state.

So, to the chagrin and outrage of countless well-meaning Christians (including close family members) and other busy-bodies, he has chosen to continue working hard, to keep private the matters that are between husband and wife, to maintain the course and remain naive enough to believe what is written in I Corinthians 7:10-11:

10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

Seems pretty straightforward. My brother's signature does not appear on any document except the one he signed over 15 years ago when he vowed for better or for worse. It certainly could not be worse right now - unless of course he were to submit to their demands and hand everyone his nuts on a silver platter. That would be infinitely worse.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 5:20 PM  

"If the husband does not submit to the Elders/Christ etc, then doesn't that void the hierarchy? "

This logic applies with governments and such with respect to Romans. I'm not sure it applies to husbands and wives.

Its possible its the same and the threshold is just different.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 5:21 PM  

I thought you said this wasn't worth arguing about, Nate.

I guess this is perhaps not black and white, but if we keep in mind we are answerable to God that will go a long way.


Nate, Have you seen the 26 Nosler yet? Looks like a fun round.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 5:22 PM  

The trouble with it is it puts the wife in the position of Judge. She judges her husband and decides if he is worthy to submit to.

This is precisely backwards. She's to submit if he's worthy or not.

That doesn't change the fact that there are actions a man can take that simply void the marriage completely.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey March 04, 2014 5:22 PM  

If an ungodly husband asks his wife to disobey God (sacrificing child to Molech, or whatever exception one imagines), she should obey God AND submit to whatever the consequences of not obeying her husband might entail IN THE LORD. They will both get their reward in eternity, including her choice in husband(s). I've yet to see this happen in an actual marriage.

It's more of the variety of, "I like mayo, but he wants his sandwiches made with Miracle Whip. I heard Beth Moore say that Miracle Whip was made dead puppies, so I'm going to follow God instead." Or other such hamsterizations.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 5:25 PM  

"I thought you said this wasn't worth arguing about, Nate."

Its not... but I'm also not keen to stand by while Vox basically asserts that the wife of pederast should standby and submit while he abuses the kids.

As for the 26.. I am seriously fired up about it. Haven't shot one yet. The other new round that has me all giddy is the 17 Winchester Super Mag.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 5:26 PM  

@damntull

I doubt any explicit biblical grounds will be forthcoming. It's quite obvious that the command for a wife to submit to a husband does not carry the same weight as the universal command to worship God alone.

Submitting to one's husband has nothing to do with worshiping other Gods. Submission is a commandment from God. You are not elevating your husband above God by following God's command to submit.

Anonymous Randy M March 04, 2014 5:26 PM  

"They will both get their reward in eternity, including her choice in husband(s)."

eh?

Anonymous ThirdMonkey March 04, 2014 5:31 PM  

Randy M March 04, 2014 5:26 PM
"They will both get their reward in eternity, including her choice in husband(s)."

eh?

I meant to say she'll be held accountable for choosing to marry the ungodly husband, or husbands, as some churchian women are also serial monogamists. It's not just his fault. She picked the feller.

Anonymous damntull March 04, 2014 5:36 PM  

Giraffe-
We're discussing a specific hypothetical wherein a Christian wife is commanded by her husband to sacrifice her son to Molech. They have very much to do with each other in this context. A wife who disobeys the First Commandment because her husband commands her to do so is certainly elevating her husband above God.

Anonymous Eric Ashley March 04, 2014 5:36 PM  

Approach Vox's statements from an 'in practise' point of view. In practise, few indeed will actually go with the insanity he allows, but this allowed insanity will cure a great evil now present.

I am too much of a literalist to really appreciate this method, but I can guess this is what he has in mind.

Anonymous Randy M March 04, 2014 5:39 PM  

Oh, gotcha. I thought you were saying she would get her choice of husbands in heaven as a reward, and was wondering what slightly off sect of mormonism you belonged to.

Yes indeed, which is why I wouldn't criticize women for being very picky about who they marry. (For having the wrong criteria, sure...)

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 5:46 PM  

"I meant to say she'll be held accountable for choosing to marry the ungodly husband, or husbands, as some churchian women are also serial monogamists. It's not just his fault. She picked the feller."

I don't think picking a bad is something chicks are going to be held accountable for. What with the fact that there is a bunch of advice for wives dealing with this very thing.

Blogger Joshua_D March 04, 2014 5:50 PM  

Nate March 04, 2014 5:22 PM

The trouble with it is it puts the wife in the position of Judge. She judges her husband and decides if he is worthy to submit to.

This is precisely backwards. She's to submit if he's worthy or not.

That doesn't change the fact that there are actions a man can take that simply void the marriage completely.


I think one thing missing in this conversation about marriage is the Church. The husband and wife should be in fellowship with other members of the Church (this may not apply to a non-believing husband). And those members of the Church who know the husband and wife should be able discern whether the husband, or the wife, are actively in sin. If the wife has concerns, she should be able to share them with elder women in the Church, who can share with their husbands, who can keep an eye on the husband and wife and determine if they need any correction, right?

We're not called to fly solo.

Anonymous David of One March 04, 2014 5:52 PM  

pilgrim4life March 04, 2014 4:12 PM

"On a related vain ... it appears that a number of "churchian" Christian healthcare sharing plans have been growing steadily."

What is churchian about Christian healthcare sharing ministies?

The church attendance requirement (at least for the one I joined) is fulfilled as long as you have fellowship with other believers, which could be a house church or bible study with like-minded believers, if you prefer. No one needs to attend a mainstream church and be inundated with feminism. ...


Thank You pilgrim4life! ... I will do my research.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 5:53 PM  

As for the 26.. I am seriously fired up about it. Haven't shot one yet. The other new round that has me all giddy is the 17 Winchester Super Mag.

The 26 will be a barrel burner, but wow, carries 1000 ft lbs to 1000 yards.

As for the 17, I am kinda meh. It is what the .17 HMR should have been and is superior in every way. But now that there are already so many .17's out there, I don't think it will do well. I've already got a several rifles for 'sploding varmints. It is kinda a been there done that for me if you know what I mean.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 5:57 PM  


'As for the 17, I am kinda meh. "

dude.

its a rimfire.

The niche should be obvious. No primer.

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 6:03 PM  

Jesus Himself declared infidelity to be grounds for divorce.

For whom....

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 6:07 PM  

We're discussing a specific hypothetical wherein a Christian wife is commanded by her husband to sacrifice her son to Molech. They have very much to do with each other in this context. A wife who disobeys the First Commandment because her husband commands her to do so is certainly elevating her husband above God.

Don't be ridiculous. She is doing precisely as God has commanded her to do. As a general rule, if you have to leap to an absurd extreme in order to make your point, you are defending a stupid and indefensible point.

Either women have to submit to their husbands or they don't. Choose one. That is your choice. Paul obviously addressed the possibility of women being married to unbelievers and pagans, and he still said they were to submit.

Anonymous jamsco March 04, 2014 6:07 PM  

For whom....

Okay, I'll bite. All married people?

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 6:08 PM  

dude.

its a rimfire.


So is the 17 HMR. I haven't shot mine in 2 years. It will be a fun gun. If you don't have a 17 HMR then I say it is a really cool toy. But it doesn't do anything new, it just does it better, and it is still in the toy category.

Given the Obama stimulus plan for firearms and ammo, I doubt we will see guns or ammo for awhile. When I asked, the dealer hadn't even heard of it. I think it has been out almost a year and nobody has them yet.

Blogger Beau March 04, 2014 6:10 PM  

What if a husband commands his wife to do something sinful?

What if he commands her to do something that's not?

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 6:13 PM  

Its not... but I'm also not keen to stand by while Vox basically asserts that the wife of pederast should standby and submit while he abuses the kids.

I am amused. That is exactly what the sort of women who marry those kind of men will do anyhow. But what does submission have to do with his actions? Barring any direct order from him, she is free to act as she sees fit. I mean, come on. Is he going to give her an order: "don't call the police"? And even if he does, is she still not free to call CPS?

You're taking an inch that will ABSOLUTELY be turned into "I can divorce him if he yells at the kids".

Seriously, how is it possible that you people have learned NOTHING from everything I have pointed out over the years on this subject. "It's just a one percent tax on the wealthy". "It's just this one brick." "It's just in case the Christian wife is married to a Moloch-worshipper." "It's just in case the Christian wife is married to an abusive pedophile".

The exceptions ALWAYS are always expanded to become the rules. That's exactly how the process works. That's why you cannot ever allow any compromise to be fixed in the law, the guideline, or the rule.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 6:15 PM  

Shutterbug,
I'm praying for you to surrender. Surrender all of your fears and all of the angst. I pray for God's peace to enter your heart. I pray that you will forgive your husband and repent of your rebellion to God. When you have surrendered and go forward, obeying God's call for you as a wife, you will submit to your husband, in all things, not because of his worthiness but because of your obedience to God. It is in this surrender you will feel a calming of your heart and your fear subsiding. The New Living Translation of the Bible (not the translation I read most) 1 Peter 3:6 states: For instance, Sarah obeyed her husband, Abraham, and called him her master. You are her daughters when you do what is right without fear of what your husbands might do. It is that translation, those words in bold that helped me most several years ago when I, like you, wrestled with turning from rebellion.

I pray this peace and faith in the absence of fear is seen by your husband, I pray for him as well. That he will surrender. That he may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

As you are realizing this is not easy. It is simple. It is not easy. Stay strong in the Word and be blessed.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 6:18 PM  

"Okay, I'll bite. All married people?"

This is where Vox makes the awkward case that it isn't cheating when men do it.

Anonymous damntull March 04, 2014 6:19 PM  

"Don't be ridiculous. She is doing precisely as God has commanded her to do."

On the contrary, Vox, she is doing precisely what God commanded her NOT to do.

"As a general rule, if you have to leap to an absurd extreme in order to make your point, you are defending a stupid and indefensible point."

You're the one who made the absurd statement that there are "no exceptions." A wife's duty to submit to her husband cannot possibly include performing actions expressly forbidden by God, e.g. idolatry. I'm merely pointing out the obvious - that there ARE exceptions. Could a husband command his wife NOT to submit to him in the future?

Anonymous SugarPi March 04, 2014 6:20 PM  

My mother suffers from Parkinsons Disease, the likely result of blows to the head from my drunken father. She was a Godly, submissive wife who my husband always said most men would kill to have. She chose badly, but he was a Jeckel/Hyde type and eventually well-connected. She cared for him at home while he died of cirrhosis of the liver. There wasn't a simple answer.... He was saved before he died and spent his last days trying to make amends to those he had hurt. I know she will have many jewels in the crown she lays at the feet of Jesus. It's hard to accept, but life isn't fair. I still trust God to balance all accounts.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 6:21 PM  

"You're taking an inch that will ABSOLUTELY be turned into "I can divorce him if he yells at the kids"."

Because I don't give a damn what interpretation is better for civilization. I care about the truth and only the truth.

Anonymous Noah B. March 04, 2014 6:22 PM  

"This is where Vox makes the awkward case that it isn't cheating when men do it."

Sounds like an intriguing argument.

Anonymous damntull March 04, 2014 6:23 PM  

"That's why you cannot ever allow any compromise to be fixed in the law, the guideline, or the rule."

What you're missing here Vox is that we're not making compromises. A wife must submit to her husband's authority - we're merely pointing out to you that no husband has the authority to command any wife to do what God has expressly forbidden her to do. Refusing such a command would not be an instance of failing to submit!

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 6:27 PM  

no husband has the authority to command any wife to do what God has expressly forbidden her to do.

You're also suggesting that she be the judge of which command of her husband's is or is not acceptable, therefore elevating the wife to spiritual leader in the home which is unbiblical. The husband is the head. No exceptions.

Anonymous damntull March 04, 2014 6:32 PM  

@SarasDaughter
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me." Any wife is qualified to judge that a husband has no authority to command her to worship any God but the Father. You have to be entirely obtuse not to recognize that fact.

Anonymous Randy M March 04, 2014 6:33 PM  

VD:"don't call the police"? And even if he does, is she still not free to call CPS?

Oh come one. With that kind of legalistic submission, she's already got the mile!
"He told me to have sex, but he didn't say with him!" "He told me to go to the store and buy food, but he didn't say not to buy $100 of chocolate bonbons!"

If he says don't call the cops, he also means don't call someone who will call the cops.

Blogger Akulkis March 04, 2014 6:37 PM  

"The trouble with it is it puts the wife in the position of Judge. She judges her husband and decides if he is worthy to submit to.

This is precisely backwards. She's to submit if he's worthy or not."



And if not, then she has no business marrying him in the first place.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 6:41 PM  

Any wife is qualified to judge that a husband has no authority to command her to worship any God but the Father.

Husband: We're going to the Packer game Sunday, we have to leave the house at 9AM
Wife: We would miss church then
Husband: Yes, so?
Wife: We are instructed in the Bible to attend, don't you think that's important
Husband: Not this Sunday, we're going to the game
Wife: You are putting football before GOD!!! I CAN NOT submit to this

How many real life examples would you life of a wife discerning for her own self what the meaning of that commandment is?

Anonymous damntull March 04, 2014 6:46 PM  

@SarahsDaughter
"How many real life examples would you life of a wife discerning for her own self what the meaning of that commandment is?"

Wife: I'm pregnant.
Husband: I'm not prepared to support another child. Get an abortion.

What is the wife's appropriate response, SarahsDaughter????

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 6:47 PM  

"How many real life examples would you life of a wife discerning for her own self what the meaning of that commandment is?"

Plenty.

and so what?

I get that you think life is better if Vox's way is correct. That doesn't mean it IS correct.

Self Defense for example is an absolute right. Yet with Vox's insane interpration one can easily see that a wife has given up that right and must instead submit.

We have a word for this.

Its bullshit.

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 6:51 PM  

Why have an abortion, duh, that’s what God commands damntull.

And if a husband decides he wants his wife to allow him to use his children for his own sexual gratification she should submit to his wishes.

Dude, haven’t you read the Bible, this is all very clear.

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 6:53 PM  

You're the one who made the absurd statement that there are "no exceptions."

That is not an absurd statement. It is a factual one. Please provide the specific exception provided or withdraw your claim.

A wife must submit to her husband's authority - we're merely pointing out to you that no husband has the authority to command any wife to do what God has expressly forbidden her to do. Refusing such a command would not be an instance of failing to submit!

You're wrong. Enjoy your Churchianity and the inevitable consequences. I'll take my chances with the nonexistent Moloch-worshippers that concern you so.

Any wife is qualified to judge that a husband has no authority to command her to worship any God but the Father.

And there you go. The wife is "qualified to judge". People like you are exactly why the Church has melted down into feminism. "But no," you protest. "There are limits to what I imagine people will utilize this exception."

Seriously, do you know literally NOTHING of history? The exception always becomes the rule. God knows the human heart better than I do. And I know this. I'm quite confident He does too.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 6:53 PM  

What is the wife's appropriate response, SarahsDaughter????

"Vox, Spacebunny, can you tell me how to get a hold of Beau? I'm praying without ceasing, but really need his prayers as well on this."

To husband: "I understand what you are saying and why. Another child would be another expense. You work very hard providing for us, I am so thankful for everything you do. Is there anything I can do that would make you reconsider? I've reworked our budget and given up several things that are unnecessary, will you look this over and see if the extra money I've saved will be sufficient to cover the costs of another child? Would you be opposed to me working from home to fill the gap? Would you be opposed to me working outside the home on off hours?"

Like I said earlier, I am well versed in the stories of Esther, Abigail and Sarah. Without fear I will proceed as they did.

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 6:53 PM  

(b)Its bullshit.(/b)

A freaking mountain of it.

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 6:56 PM  

Self Defense for example is an absolute right. Yet with Vox's insane interpration one can easily see that a wife has given up that right and must instead submit.

Please. She's much better off if she submits anyhow. Or rather, she's going to submit anyhow once faced with sufficient force. That's what women do. You're looking at this without factoring in female psychology at all.

This isn't a legalistic issue. It is a pride issue. You guys have already lost the argument, as evidenced by your need to argue only at the extremes. But the extremes are irrelevant, as any sick and twisted man will simply break the woman's will and force her submission.

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 6:58 PM  

“No, wife, that just won’t do, I demand you get an abortion, the discussion is over, submit”

What then Sarah, are you trotting off to the abortion clinic like a good Christian wife?

Quit dodging and answer the question.

Would you abort you own child if your husband demanded it?

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 6:59 PM  

And if a husband decides he wants his wife to allow him to use his children for his own sexual gratification she should submit to his wishes.

It amazes me that I have to point this out to you, but a pedophile does not need anyone's permission to use children for sexual gratification. Your desperate reaching is amusing.

"Women don't have to submit to their husbands because Pedophile!"

Brilliant.

Anonymous bw March 04, 2014 6:59 PM  

Please provide the specific exception provided or withdraw your claim.

Anonymous Randy M March 04, 2014 7:03 PM  

"You guys have already lost the argument, as evidenced by your need to argue only at the extremes."

I don't desire to gain any ground other than the extremes, so I only argue for that. Yes, some will take the mile from the inch, but that doesn't mean the inch is wrong.

Vox, are women capable of receiving the Holy Spirit, or are they unable to discern right from wrong?

Anonymous bw March 04, 2014 7:05 PM  

The exceptions ALWAYS are always expanded to become the rules VD

Translation: You're civilization and humanity were over A CENTURY ago, at least, and you think it happened yesterday.

Anonymous Noah B. March 04, 2014 7:08 PM  

I lean toward stomping out anything that even marginally resembles feminism. It has been a disaster of epic proportions. Basically, we shouldn't need to set up rules in advance in order to cover the exceptional cases. The exceptional cases speak for themselves.

Anonymous Churchiantiy Is Anti Christ March 04, 2014 7:08 PM  

Vox, are women capable of receiving the Holy Spirit, or are they unable to discern right from wrong?

that's the purpose of a decent, righteous, Father-fearing man, Dildo...It's a(n) heirarchy of authority...feel free to miss it...
Are you incapable??

Anonymous Alek Hidell March 04, 2014 7:10 PM  

VD March 04, 2014 6:03 PM

Jesus Himself declared infidelity to be grounds for divorce. - Pharisee

For whom.... VD

?????? Easily answered, que??

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 7:11 PM  

Would you abort you own child if your husband demanded it?

My husband would not demand it. Like Vox said, this is something that should be determined before marriage. Just because women are stupid and marry men who would demand such a thing does not in anyway give her an exception to God's call for her to submit to her husband. She should pray without ceasing, do what I've suggested a wife should do, keeping a respectful and submissive tone with her husband and not give way to fear. I've heard more than one story of abortions not happening as planned. Cars breaking down, minds changed, etc. The moral of the story for women, don't marry someone who would kill his own child. Should you happen to be married to that sort of man and become a Christian and are submitting in all things, are not in rebellion and praying without ceasing, accept your lot in life as Job did and carry on in obedience to God. Plead with him, pray for him, go to those he respects and ask for their prayers, delay it as much as possible while being respectful. If all of that fails, and he is still hellbent on killing his child, do you really believe she'll be able to stop him should she rebel against him?

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 7:12 PM  

No, I’m not reaching at all, a supposedly Christian husband demanding his wife have an abortion is common today and I will go on record saying that a Christian women should not submit to that demand, period.

You’ve checked all common sense at the door. Should a women submit to her husband, yes. Are there exceptions, yes. You’ve been given multiple examples of exceptions, but you dodge and twist, because “mile”.

Oh, and it amazes me I have to point this out to you, but there are historic examples of women knowingly allowing their children to be sexually abused by their husbands, for years. But they were just submitting to what their husbands wanted…right?

Meh, super intelligence, not today.

Blogger Longstreet March 04, 2014 7:15 PM  

"In the book The Meaning of Marriage, authors Tim and Kathy Keller relate how Kathy got Tim’s attention by lining up some of her good china, and as soon as Tim walked in the door, breaking it with a hammer. She got his attention!"
He should have taken the hammer and smashed the rest of it. If she acts like a 5 year old she deserves to be treated like one.

I have an aunt and uncle, my favorites. Two incredibly awesome people, but they both have a bit of a temper. They were having some sort of argument in the back yard when she lost her temper, grabbed a potted plant and heaved it against the wall (not at him). He picked up the one next to it and threw it over the fence, turned to her and said "Ya wanna break another one?" She got even madder, went in the house, calmed down and fixed his lunch. He came in a little later to eat, they sat down and talked it out.

This is one of HER favorite stories to tell about their very interesting marriage. She finishes by saying "I never broke another thing", and the look of absolute adoration she gives him while telling it is something to see. He returns the look, but if you know them for 5 minutes you'll have no doubt at all who's the head of that house.

I have watched the elder Robertsons and thought many times how they remind me of my favorite aunt and uncle.

Anonymous Noah B. March 04, 2014 7:15 PM  

"She should pray without ceasing, do what I've suggested a wife should do, keeping a respectful and submissive tone with her husband and not give way to fear."

It would take an almost unimaginably cold hearted man not to be moved by words like yours. I know there are men like that out there, but I believe they are very few.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2014 7:19 PM  

"This isn't a legalistic issue. It is a pride issue. You guys have already lost the argument, as evidenced by your need to argue only at the extremes. But the extremes are irrelevant, as any sick and twisted man will simply break the woman's will and force her submission."

Hardly.

You're taking a general command that is applied collectively and then acting like its a hard fast law for which there is no exception.

There are plenty of exceptions. We already went over adultery.

Look the answer is not to scream "SUBMIT!" at women.

The answer is to bring back the negative stigma and shame of divorce.

Anonymous Josh March 04, 2014 7:21 PM  

The comment thread reminds me of Jesus' admonitions to the.Sanhedrin.

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 7:22 PM  

LOL, this WEAK shift in the argument, well it doesn’t REALLY matter if she submits or not, he will just force he to anyway, so if she did submit and willing abort he own child or worship a false idol its ok because he would just force he to anyway.

Sarah, it’s a yes or no question and still you dodge.

Blogger SarahsDaughter March 04, 2014 7:27 PM  

I am not dodging, I am presenting very real accounts of how wives have successfully appealed to their husbands with respect for his authority. Next up would be to ask that he do it himself. "This is a very intimate issue. I am so fearful of those abortion clinics, I've heard terrible stories about the people who work there and the conditions of the clinics. Would you be willing to kill the baby yourself? We'll just tell people we miscarried."

I'm curious. What would you suggest a woman do in that situation? In what manner should she bow up to him?

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 7:30 PM  

We need only to point out a single exception to show that "no exceptions" is false, and that the Word is not what you say it is.

That is true. And you still haven't found one. Everything you have said is no more meaningful than what the Churchians say.

Blogger Outlaw X March 04, 2014 7:31 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

OpenID cailcorishev March 04, 2014 7:32 PM  

Any wife is qualified to judge that a husband has no authority to command her to worship any God but the Father.

Then her husband isn't the head of the family; she is. They can't both be. If she's not willing to be subject to a man without maintaining a veto over his decisions, she shouldn't marry. She does have that option, after all.

It's quite obvious that the command for a wife to submit to a husband does not carry the same weight as the universal command to worship God alone.

It's not obvious to me how you determine which of God's other commands trump God's command for a wife to be subject to her husband when she judges that they conflict.

Blogger Outlaw X March 04, 2014 7:32 PM  

1 Corinthians 7:12-15

King James Version (KJV)


12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Anonymous VD March 04, 2014 7:34 PM  

Vox, YOU made the claim that there are no exceptions. Please provide the basis for that assertion or withdraw it.

I gave you a clear requirement outlined in the rules and you try to pull that juvenile crap? You're spammed.

Anonymous Giraffe March 04, 2014 7:37 PM  

Oh, and it amazes me I have to point this out to you, but there are historic examples of women knowingly allowing their children to be sexually abused by their husbands, for years. But they were just submitting to what their husbands wanted…right?

Sure there were. But I don't know of a single one where Biblical submission was her excuse. It is more along the lines of her being in denial or she didn't want to lose her husband. Most of the time she is as f-ed up as he is. You aren't providing a valid obejection here because it isn't Christian marriage

OpenID rufusdog March 04, 2014 7:38 PM  

No, you are still (very obviously) dodging, it’s a yes or no. All your appeals have failed, you would either submit to the killing of the child or not, yes or no. I’ll answer your question but you first (frankly yours isn’t a very hard one, this isn’t that hard SarahsD).

1 – 200 of 376 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts