Skip to content

Anarchy In The Marriage

The modern feminist concept of mutual submission was brought up in the last post. The idea begs a definition.

Defining Mutual Submission
To start defining mutual submission, the modern feminist assumption that men and women are exactly equivalent is assumed:

In other words, they see men and women as wholly interchangeable, their differences as purposeless accidents that exist without reason, and any God-given hierarchy as something to be avoided. This mindset is otherwise known as egalitarianism. As was mentioned, this teaching came into Churchianity from secular feminism, who sees women as exactly equal to men in some cases and greater than men in others. It then found its voice in a religious expression as all feminist concepts do, from those who are desiring to wed their feminism to any form of Christian expression.

The basis of egalitarianism is discussed here, the concept of egalitarianism is debunked there, and is dealt with here as well. Regardless, Scripture is bent and twisted to the wishes of these feminists to fit their own doctrines, instead of them conforming themselves to God’s doctrine. Simply put, practicing the ideology of feminism is an act of rebellion against God.

God's hierarchy of authority

God’s hierarchy of authority

Now, if we presume an arrangement where rigidly defined gender roles (the feminist’s term) do not exist, then the question becomes how the proper marriage is to be arranged. The answer the feminists hit upon is the idea of mutual submission. The idea of submission, in and of itself, presupposes a hierarchy of authority and hence order. While this does not exist in the feminist world because a role lends to a degree of authority and therefore obligation before God, the weight of Scripture (1 Cor 12:26; Eph 4:10-11; 1 Cor 15:26-27; Eph 1:20-23; Romans 13:1 among many others) indicates much differently. The Greek word (hupotasso) appears in 32 verses of the New Testament, all indicating an authority, and a subject to that authority. Among those is Ephesians 5:21, and Ephesians 5:22. But the feminists would presume a different meaning for these two verses, limiting them. Ephesians 5:21 is grouped with Ephesians 5:22, to avoid the force of the latter verse, and then v21 is subsequently twisted in meaning to mean that husbands must submit to wives and wives must submit to husbands.

If there is submission without authority, then the concept of submission becomes meaningless.

When there is no authority, submission becomes voluntary. So when feminists refer to a doctrine of mutual submission in marriage, they mean:

[Egalitarians] argue that in the marriage relationship neither the husband nor the wife is “top dog.” Neither is the leader of the family. They are both leaders, and they both follow the other as each follows Christ. Their relationship is one of mutuality. For example, decisions must be made together, and mutual agreement is required before acting. No one person holds veto power over the other.

Now practically, this turns into anarchy. This is because if the husband decides to do one thing, and the wife another, then how are things resolved to an action? Ultimately nothing can be done in a marriage where the two disagree. As one would have to unconditionally yield to the other for something to be done (practitioners often rationalize based on ability, but ability does not indicate authority), often the two will then act independently of one another, as one will not have authority over the other. The whole concept is then shown for the irrelevancy it entails.

But wait! Add in the typical teaching to men that they are to honor, love, and cherish their wives, which is far from excepted for men. This is changed in meaning that women are to feel loved instead of be loved. Then add in feminist dogma in the culture that states that women are to be respected, which is patently unscriptural. The result you get is the supplicating mangina who follows after the approval of his wife. If not, there’s always the government willing to step in to enforce its interests.

The whole goal of the concept of mutual submission is to invert the authority and roles of marriage for those who believe the feminist dogma. In the same way, the concepts of servant leadership and headship theology invert the roles for those who are less inclined to claim feminism as a way of thought.

Correcting the Record
As I mentioned above, there are 32 verses in the New Testament where hupotasso (or hypotasso) appears, and many more where subjection and an authority are indicated. The weight of the 30 other verses are ignored.

Then as mentioned, Ephesians 5:21 and 22 are coupled together out of context. Reading the passages will reveal this:

See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. (Ephesians 5:15-21)

If you were going to crib an expository sermon outline out of this, there is no other conclusion to this other than it being addressed to all Christians, and not to the concept of Christian marriage. The phrase “one to another” or “one another” is particularly indicative, as it refers to the whole group. That Greek word (allelon) appears in 94 verses referring to groups of both men and women (a small sample).

So if it means everyone, then it means that everyone is to submit in the fear of God one to another. Our God is a God of order and not of chaos. Parsing the rest of Ephesians reveals God-ordained hierarchies of authority:

5:22-23, 31 – Wives submit to and respect their husbands and are subject to them in everything.
5:25,28 – Husbands love their wives as their own bodies.
5:23-25 – Christ head of the church, church subject to Him, Christ loves the church (marriage is a model)
6:1-2 – Children obey your parents (honor thy father and mother).
6:3 – Fathers do not provoke children to wrath, but bring up in admonition of the Lord.
6:5-8 – Servants be obedient to masters as the servants of Christ doing the will of God.
6:9 – Masters give benevolent regard to servants, know you are a servant of the Lord the same.

Mutual submission does not exist in these other cases.

For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13:6-7)

Furthermore, there are no reciprocal commands (husbands submit to your wives) in any case. As always, there will be those who are defiantly rebelling against the will of the Lord, and creating justifications to believe that they are pleasing to God. Simply put, wives who are rebelling against their husbands are rebelling against God Himself, and storing up His wrath for the time to come. In the end they will find that sowing their rebellion will reap only righteous judgment.

Related:
Mutual Submission?
The Myth of “Mutual Submission”
Complementarianism versus Mutual Submission in Marriage

Sharing Satan’s Plan For Marriage

The latest campaign of feminist hate, #HeForShe, has gotten a great deal of attention, even in the world of religious feminism. Tami Myer uses this (H/T Bee) as an occasion to bring her prescriptions to the forefront. Sadly, though, they do nothing to bring the will of God to light with respect to marriage or sin in general. All it does is bring the same old feminist rebellion against God. Myer writes:

I am cheering for men who will take action against pornography, which demeans women and girls, promotes violence against them, and is life-shredding to everyone involved. I am cheering for men who will take action against abortion, which traumatizes women and kills unborn girls. I am cheering for men who will take action against divorce, which devastates the lives of women and girls.

So in bringing these things up, it seems to confirm the typical feminist biases. Men are the ones that are the source of all sin in the world and women are just innocent victims. In other words, women don’t do anything against the Lord, and men are always to blame. And since men are always to blame, they are always the ones that need to “take action”.

So men need to “take action” against pornography? We know the typical line of the religious feminists is that pornography is a male-only activity. Albert Mohler writes that “Pornography is mainly, though not exclusively, a male phenomenon. That is to say, the users and consumers of pornography are overwhelmingly male–boys and men.” Pat Robertson points out that “a male thing, a boy thing, a guy thing”. Yet 30% of women access visual pornography according to this study. Furthermore, there’s examples of genuine porn addiction, yet women just don’t find recognition of the problem in them.

Teri Meyer's vision of marriage.

Tami Myer’s vision of marriage.

Then let’s continue on and mention all those 50 Shades of Grey books floating around in women’s hands and the Magic Mike watch parties. Then there’s the chick flicks and romance novels. What? No rebuke? I guess women remain uncorrupted by their fantasy world of salaciousness, while men are not? So porn use in women is fun, harmless, and exciting, while porn use in men is horrid and depraved? Seems so. And just men are the ones that need to “take action”?

So men need to “take action” against abortion? These women aren’t being forced to go murder their children when they walk into the abortion clinics. They go there of their own free will. So why is it that men are responsible for this? Could it be feminist rationalization? All these poor women are just being forced into premarital sex by those vicious men, who then force those women to the abortion clinics – this is the vision dancing through the heads of the religious feminists. Poor poor girl to be pushed into doing this by a man! These women know exactly what they’re doing, and are doing all of this of their own free will. So why is it that men need to “take action” at all, when it’s the women doing every bit of this (1% of aggregate being because of rape, incest or the urging of the man)?

So men need to “take action” against divorce? Statistics are fairly clear that women are the ones initiating the divorces, anywhere from 70-90% of the time depending on the study, and almost always for ungodly reasons. Yet this is something that men need to “take action” on? Oh right, the woman was pushed into it because she didn’t “feel loved”, and is totally justified for doing it. Meanwhile, men are sheer villains when they divorce for any reason, including adultery. Witness in Fireproof how the husbands porn use was treacherous to the marriage, while the wife’s courting of the doctor was perfectly fine. So divorce is something men need to “take action” on when women demonstrate again and again that they can’t fulfill their marriage covenant before God?

Women are the ones that need to “take action”, not men!

After calling out men for being the cause of her pet evil in the world, Myer shares her own vision of marriage:

The apostle Paul wrote, “Marriage is not a place to ‘stand up for your rights.’ Marriage is a decision to serve the other” (1 Corinthians 7:4, MSG). A guiding principle for Biblical marriage is mutual submission. A husband submits to his wife’s needs for affection and cherishing. He is for her, not against her. A wife submits to her husband’s needs for respect and support. She is for him, not against him.

As her byline says, she’s not sharing God’s vision of marriage, but Satan’s. She first quotes a passage out of context, using a false Bible, the Message. 1 Corinthians 7:2-6 in most Bibles is about the unconditional access to sex in marriage. As it really appears, using a faithful Bible:

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. [4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Marriage is a place to stand up for obligations freely agreed upon in the covenant before God. But Myer brings out one of the typical feminist gambits: Mutual submission. This is done by taking Ephesians 5:21 out of the previous context (Ephesians 5:15-21) and putting it into the context about marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33).

God’s plan for marriage is that the husband love and honor the wife as his own body, and the wife is to unconditionally submit to and respect her husband. Satan (and Tami Myer’s plan) is for the husband to submit to his wife unconditionally in all things, therefore making her feel loved.

Myer chooses the words “dishonor”, “affection”, and “cherishing”, but her end goal is just the same: The perversion of marriage where the wife becomes the head of both God and her husband, using the device of her Personal Jesus. She does nothing to honor God’s design of marriage or God Himself. She is just like the other feminists who rebel against God, fomenting this rebellion in others, and shaking their fists at God in defiant anger.

What Keeps Men Out Of The Church?

Robert What? writes:

I read that men are leaving the church in droves due to the feminization of the church. Is this true? A couple of ministers I spoke to admitted they were having trouble getting men to church, but I don’t know if this is part of a wider trend.

This is very much true – that the church has been feminized and men are leaving because of it, and has been a trend for quite some time. Leon Podles, in his work The Church Impotent, describes the beginnings of this feminization. This feminization intensified through the lack of presence of men via the Industrial Revolution, along with the feminized limp-wristed pastors. It has only continued from there, as detailed in many posts on this blog and others. As well, David Murrow has written a book called Why Men Hate Going To Church, which details many of the modern effects of this feminization.

It seems there’s just no place for true masculinity in many places. This is of false teaching and is both by design and unintentional. Some of the factors involved:

1. Men are less deceived by false doctrine.

There is a Scriptural injunction which states that women are not to teach (1 Timothy 2:11-14). The reason given is that in the example of Adam and Eve, Eve was the one who was deceived. This is indicative of most cases regarding women.

For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly [Other translations: gullible, vulnerable, weak, idle, foolish, weak-minded] women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3:6-7)

As Barnes writes in his commentary of 2 Timothy 3:6:

Satan began his work of temptation with Eve rather than with Adam, and the advocates of error usually follow his example. There are always weak-minded women enough in any community to give an opportunity of practicing these arts, and often the aims of the impostor and deceiver can be best secured by appealing to them. Such women are easily flattered; they are charmed by the graceful manners of religious instructors; they lend a willing ear to anything that has the appearance of religion, and their hearts are open to anything that promises to advance the welfare of the world. At the same time, they are just such persons as the propagators of error can rely upon.

The central overriding goal of true Christianity is the conformity of the believer to Christ and the departure from the old life of the world and the flesh. This dichotomy has generated a lot of false doctrine through the solipsistic urgings of women throughout the history of the church. But when men confront such things, such as the feminine notion of a personal relationship with Jesus, there’s a revulsion, even if they don’t know any of the doctrine. Much more so when a request to explain the doctrine is met with an inability to answer, a ridiculous answer or hostility. The response: They walk out. Or they desire a clearly articulated doctrine of what Christianity is about and get the same. They walk out.

2. Many church environments favor women over men.

As I wrote here, the numbers of women in an environment can influence it more towards a feminine nature. This is an unintentional factor due to the simple numbers, when left uncontrolled. This most notably comes out in the decorations, but also in preferences for different things, like the kind of music and the way the sermons are delivered. There’s no quicker thing that says “not welcome” to a man than walking into a place decorated with doilies and flowers, and then singing “Jesus I’m So In Love With You”.

As well, women are favored in the typical “religious things”. Prayers are expected to be long flowery affairs. Sermons are even longer affairs than that. Plenty of sitting, and then…more sitting. With little gotten out of it by the time it is done. When these things happen that are more typical for women than men, then women are deemed more religious than men. This result is quite intentional. Women consume the Churchian fare, but are they really better for it in the sight of God? When men are met with long feelings-sharing sessions that they are unsuited for, but are expected to participate in, what is going to be the response? Exactly.

3. Men are typically denigrated in many church environments.

The root of feminism is the heretical doctrine of bridal mysticism, which states that women are more suited to be “brides of Christ” than men. This line of thinking has led to the heretical idea that men are inherently bad, while women are inherently good.

(2013-10-23) feminist-model

Paired with the idea of chivalry, this leads men to be constantly upbraided while women are left alone to do what they will against God. If a husband divorces his wife, he’s a mean wicked person. If a wife divorces her husband, poor dear that she was pushed into it by that wicked man! Or with pornography, it’s okay for women to look at their copies of 50 Shades of Grey, but how villainous that man is for looking at it at all!

When a man walks into church, only to hear Mark Driscoll (or wannabe) screaming at men for fornicating with women. Meanwhile, the women that willfully fornicate themselves are just victims pressed into it by the men (or don’t ever do it at all). Men know what the score is. Or if they don’t, they’ll find out quickly.

4. There’s nothing of value for men to do in most churches.

When most men undertake something, they want to be involved. This is not a passive thing, but an active thing. Actively understand the doctrine, actively live the doctrine. But when it comes down to things in most churches, the message is always sent to men that they are just not needed – the only thing for them to do is show up, sit down, shut up, and pay the Churchian dues (aka tithe).

When a man seeks something to do, what does he find in most churches? Cookie ministries and sewing ministries. The singing ministry in a choir or otherwise, maybe, but more than likely not. There’s always the chance of a scrap of work on the building once in a great while if the leadership doesn’t contract it out. Anything of a Scriptural role? The ordained (and paid) ministers got those things locked up, along with the elders and deacons. In such an ingrown institution as most churches, that’s all that’s really possible. Things get even worse when he finds women in those typical roles (he should leave then anyway) – they signal straight away where men stand. A man could stick around and hope he gets trusted enough by the women. But men tend to go where they’re needed…Most men just aren’t needed in church environments. There’s better places.

In conclusion, there’s a lot that is done that is counter-productive to the cause of inclusiveness of both men and women in the full work and activity in these churches. Much of what is being done obscures the truth of who and what Jesus was. Reading Scripture reveals a much different Jesus and a much different and more active Church than what we see today – it was a priesthood of all believers, each believer that had his/her work for the Kingdom of God before them, ordained from the Lord by grace. In a vibrant church, there is more than enough for all believers to do in service. It’s no coincidence that there is more true inspiration from the US Marine Corps regarding following Christ (for after all, that community was modeled on true Christian community) than in the average church today.

One of the hopes of this blog is to reveal the true Christ and the true nature of the Church before men – that the light may be revealed. Like most would hate to be misrepresented by others, Jesus is very misrepresented by numerous people, including those who profess to follow Him. My urge to those reading this blog is that they seek Him out to learn who and what He is about, and not seek out men. For those that seek Him will find Him and learn the truth that can set them free.

What Is Churchian Love?

When I get feedback lately, it’s usually laughable.  I won’t dignify them by quoting it, but usually the things that are written come in the terms of “anger” and “hate”, and how I’m “unsaved” and leading people astray by my “legalism”. It’s the same kind of “anger” and “hate” that Dalrock received when he called out the denizens of christianforums.com on their view of marriage as not being Biblically sanctioned. It’s the same kind of thing that made Jenny Erikson furious when the pastor “ruined the surprise” she had for her husband – her frivorce.

You can be as bad as you want to be.  I'll still love you and you don't have to change!

You can be as bad as you want to be. I’ll still love you and you don’t have to change!

So what can we learn? Upholding God’s truth, which frees us, has definitely come out of fashion. But it would also seem love is now something else entirely. We are told by Jesus:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:36-40)

So we are to love God first with all heart, all soul, and all mind, first. Jesus goes on to tell us:

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. (John 14:23-24)

So the issue is this:
If you love Jesus you will do what He says.
If you don’t love Jesus, you won’t do what He says.

So can one who loves Jesus disregard His commandments when dealing with another? No! For it is written:

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (Matthew 10:37-39)

So you can’t put anyone else (even yourself) before Him to have life…sounds different than the traditional Churchian practice, doesn’t it? In the previous research, we can see that progressive thought in the church is about the abolishment of dualistic thought – right/wrong, sinful/not sinful. It’s quite “unloving” in the minds of these Churchians to not be tolerant of them. But what is tolerance to them?:

The “tolerance” that the Progressive Left believes in is the “tolerance” of those beliefs that they demand you believe. They are intolerant of other points of view. You are “tolerant” if, and only if, you blindly agree with them. They are not just being intolerant of “intolerance,” but being intolerance of those who do not agree with them.

To be “tolerant” and giving “Christian love” has become the complete denial of truth and the embracing of evil.

To be “Christian” in today’s world involves not only tolerating those who believe differently, but tolerating wickedness of every measure. “Christian love” involves embracing divorce, single motherhood, fornication, rebellion of wives, and general godlessness. These will find a much different reception than they anticipated:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matthew 7:21-22)

God’s love is narrow-minded, and intolerant, for there is only one truth, and one way:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

Love and salvation does not exist without the presence of truth. Unfortunately, there are those who are professing Christ, whose whole mission is one of deception, for it is written:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

What those who seek to change Truth will find is that they will reap their just reward.

If Women Were Honest On Dates

There’s many ways I could go with this in commenting, but I’ll just leave it to you all:

Book Review: The Story

The Story, NIV: The Bible as One Continuing Story of God and His People. Max Lucado and Randy Frazee (Foreword). Zondervan, 2011.

The Story_cover

Are you tired of all those chapter and verse numbers in your Bible? Are you tired of all those sections that are just nonsense to you? Are you confused by all those big theological words? Are you tired of just feeling bad when you run across all those Scriptures where Jesus actually demands something of His followers? Are you tired of all those verses that just get in the way of that perfect personal relationship with your Personal Jesus?

Then, let us be thankful that we have the compilers of The Story to lead us out of the darkness we have been in for 2000 years with the Bible. They took the NIV 2011 translation, and then took out that pesky Scripture that just doesn’t affirm the Personal Jesus and just doesn’t make it read well, then added their own comments to make it better! It reads exactly like a novel, now!

And then they made it even better! Your church can get into the program that many churches have undertaken. You too can take 31 weeks in your church, hearing sermons from this brand new and improved BIBLE! You too can discuss it with your church mates, even with your own FAMILY, as they have teen and children’s versions just for them! Dad, Mom, and the children can literally be on the exact same page for 31 weeks!

Let’s not hear it from just me, let’s hear from some other satisfied customers:

“I have loved The Story series. It has been a great journey for me, for my preaching, and for our members. We have had visitors throughout the entire series and have given over 100 books away… Getting God’s word into people hands is always a good thing!”
Tim Halstead, Senior Pastor, New Life Community Church, Odessa, TX

After all, a busy pastor just doesn’t have the time to rightly divide the word of God, does he? Here’s another satisfied customer:

“We have enjoyed walking through the Bible in a chronological manner. In addition, we have LOVED being on the same page as our parents.” Julie Chors, Director of Children’s Ministry, Hosanna Church, Lakeville, MN

And without ever actually opening the Bible? How cool is that?

You too can experience this phenomenon that’s sweeping the churches today! Finally understand what God wants to say to you without actually having to listen to Him! It’s not the Bible, it’s better! Buy The Story today! And thank us by buying in bulk for your whole church!

Rating: 0 out of 10. (It’s more useful as kindling for your winter fire)

Image Source: Amazon.com


On a serious note, to pastors or anyone else thinking of seriously adopting this: As a teacher or leader, you will be judged more harshly before the Lord for being in a place of teaching authority:

My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. (James 3:1)

The architects of this book have already reaped their just condemnation before the Lord for taking away from the words of the Lord. The Story presents Christianity in a very different light than the Bible, neglecting most spiritual matters, along with the responsibilities of disciples before the Lord. As Scripture says:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 timothy 3:16-17)

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

That this Churchian program has gotten popular is an indictment against those who adopt it. As it is written, you need to:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

Futhermore, we live in a time that is wicked. This time is definitely at hand:

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

The Story gives shelter to those that do not hold onto sound doctrine, and only furthers those things that enrage God and are an abomination to Him. The Story is not sound doctrine. It is not “God’s Word” or “the Bible” as it is adulterated. If you adopt this, pastor or teacher, be sure that you are only scratching itching ears, and only will reap condemnation for yourself.

To God alone be the glory in all things!

It’s All About the Nickels, Baby

This video is a good parody on the whole idea of Churchianity (H/T Hillsongilmio). When it becomes about the idol of the organization, it’s going to become about perpetuating that organization beyond all else, including over Jesus Himself. Instead of being the Lord, Savior, and King, He simply becomes the Personal Jesus, there to suit their own whims instead of serving Him.

Anything for the numbers and nickels.

(Edited)
I should point out that while most churches aren’t as forward as some of the shysters that really are out there to enrich themselves, they still are in this mold if they’re simply just doing the Churchian thing and don’t know any better. Building these palatial empires requires money, along with the accumulation of employees, paying the bills and maintenance. So they have to adopt this kind of attitude to keep things going, along with the pressure in bringing in this kind of money.

For example, the church I am aware of most financially (who posts those things in the bulletins) requires $15,000 per week to maintain what they’ve done. This is not a huge church, but you get the idea of what kind of money is involved with most of these places.

None of them are wise enough to see the treadmill they’ve put themselves on, so they continue more and more into the religion of Churchianity and the religion of numbers and nickels. More numbers means more givers, and more givers means more nickels. So even if these people have the best of intentions, they still get sucked into this scummy theology where “following Christ” becomes warming a seat and hemorrhaging cash.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 99 other followers