Skip to content

Can This Man Be Saved?

During my absence from posting and commenting, infowarrior1 posted an article with a question. Kieran Dunn wrote an article about how he ended up marrying a feminist. In looking back, this author sees some of the bad signs of what was to come:

I should have known I was in trouble 20 years ago when we went over the wedding vows and my wife-to-be told me “obey” will not be included. As a college educated and “enlightened” male, I laughed and replied “I understand.”

Much of the issue of such feminist women is the issue of selfishness – or in other words, one of pride. Despite how women and other Churchians want to make marriage a one-sided affair where the woman only benefits and the man is put up on a proverbial cross for her pleasure, true marriage 1.0 requires love and sacrifice from both parties in order to fulfill the vows. True marriage requires that no one be selfish.

A good husband.

A good husband.

The issue of keeping a firm view of what is supposed to be when it comes to marriage becomes an incumbent one as you get into it (or any venture). As I’ve illustrated before, the issue is not so much the marriage, but the health and control a man has over his own life. Marriage is frequently a cage for a man in this day and age, where it constitutes a tool of control over a man, much more than anything else. The author illustrates this:

It can’t work. I cannot surrender my masculinity. I am supposed to provide and lead my family but am not allowed to. I am not berated in public or at home. We respect each other.

Now to address some questions raised by the commenters and myself:

What could the man have done differently in selecting this wife?
The author himself looks back and picks out a number of things. As I pointed out, one really can’t rely on any amount of vetting as certain because people change and people very frequently misrepresent themselves. As many will note, it takes a decent amount of time to even find out what a person really is like. Women are especially good actors in this regard, presenting what they want people to see them as instead of who they really are.

However, you can be very thorough in finding out people’s views and acting on them by comparing it against an objective model. There’s a number of views on how to do this, but there’s still no way to tell whether the person is being honest about their views or whether their views will change with time. You can do your best as a man and still fail miserably, but sometimes you can get some good signs if you choose to pay heed to them. The author saw them, but for whatever reason (probably lack of personal validation or societal conditioning) went ahead anyway. Given the legal environment as it is, the cost of failure is too high, so many men are pulling away.

What could this man have done in entering this marriage?
To talk generically, it is a Biblical requirement both to follow the pattern and intent of marriage. As Don Quixote points out, the author married what is in effect an adulterous woman. Secondly, he immediately surrendered proper Biblical frame instead of refusing to have anything to do with this woman, failing a very rudimentary fitness test. It is important to remember the curse given with respect to women:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3:16)

Similar language is used in Genesis 4:7 with respect to sin. So dealing with women is like dealing with sin. Rule both or they both will rule you. Hence, the importance of keeping to the proper Biblical roles within marriage, and how sensitive the balance is before an inversion of roles happens where the husband is the one who submits to his wife. Unfortunately, given the legal system and the traditional feminist patterns, a husband has few options to maintain headship as he enters into marriage as the threat point of divorce is always present.

Can a man come back from this situation?
The problem here is that society and the church doesn’t support Biblical marriage, nor any remedies for rebellion against God. Such a man is told that he doesn’t have any rights and is told that he isn’t being a good Christian for not just taking it and fulfilling his responsibilities. Remember in marriage, he is to not benefit from it in any way, but put himself on the cross joyfully and faithfully for the pure pleasure of the wife. All feelings, all whims, all emotions, and all fancies of the wife are gospel truth, as the wife’s heart is to lead the marriage.

In the end, all a man can do is discover validation in himself (which is really necessary anyway), and stand up for himself despite what others would think. Then from that place, enforce a frame that allows him to stand up for his own existence and wishes without fear of what becomes of the marriage or what others think of him. With the feral women loosed in rebellion against God with the support of the church, if she divorces him she divorces him. If he faces reproach in society, he faces persecution for being a man made in the image of God standing up for God.

Unfortunately part of the societal conditioning men are put under to imprison them is to empty out their selves. Worth is placed in doing and pleasing – he becomes a human doing. He lives in fear of failure of not doing whatever it is that others put onto him. His sole value becomes pleasing others, especially pleasing a woman. He is not allowed to rest, but is chattel for the pleasure of his wife.

Ultimately in facing these dynamics, it shouldn’t be any wonder that men are doing the wise thing in refusing to play entirely.

Oprah 3:16 and the Christian Divorce Machine by BSkillet81

Another repost from the now defunct Christian Men’s Defense Network blog. As I continue to get clicks on my links to these (and have them saved), I figure it might be useful to repost the material, which will not include hyperlinks or comments (unless linked from here). I don’t know what happened to the original author (BSkillet81) after the last two years, so I would have liked to get permission to do this beforehand. If there’s an objection from the author, feel free to contact me and I can take this down.


Christian Men’s Defense Network
Oprah 3:16 and the Christian Divorce Machine by BSkillet81
Posted on July 17, 2012

Dalrock has a post linking to a new article by Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family, in which Stanton celebrates the fact that 38% of marriages by devout Christians end in divorce.

Yes, that’s right. Stanton thinks it’s a good thing that over 1/3rd of Christian marriages eventually fail. Why? Because it is less than the 1/2 of marriages that fail in the broader culture. This is what happens when Christians hypocritically compare ourselves to others instead of to the standard laid down by our Lord.

Jesus Christ gave us the standard that divorce is allowed only in cases of adultery, and His Apostle Paul included that it is permissible if a non-Christian spouse abandons a believing one. Taken together, such reasons constitute a minority of divorce justifications. What’s more, Christians should not ever be cheating on or abandoning their spouses, so if we’re following the Lord’s model, divorce should be essentially non-existent among devoted
Christians.

But there’s more to it. Because the sentimental, subjective personal “Jesus” rules so much of Evangelicalism, the 38% divorce number gets interpreted entirely differently in Churchianity than it should be. Note what reader sunshinemary stated in a comment on a previous post

This past winter, my husband and I participated in a Bible study for married couples that met at the church on the same evening as the men’s divorce care class met. Toward the end of the class, our study leaders invited the divorce care leader to speak to our class about things to do to avoid “ending up in his class” (i.e. getting divorced). I don’t know what I expected, but I was just shocked by this guy. He himself had been the victim of a totally frivolous divorce (that’s my take on it, not his), but he had COMPLETELY internalized all the blame and was now spreading that blame around to the men under his spiritual care. The first thing he did was hand out to all of us a little booklet he had written called, “Cracking the Female Code”… Essentially the book was exhorting men to work harder at understanding women’s feeling and validating them, and basically just following women on everything. He literally said that women’s feelings are good and right.

Her comment certainly describes a common theme in Christian culture. I previously dealt with this same theme in a post regarding Joel and Kathy Davisson. Writes Joel:

In 1994, someone said to me that God has equipped every woman with a marriage manual in her heart. Most, if not all, marriage problems occur because men choose to ignore this gift that God has put into his wife’s heart. … God gave us an instruction manual! It is in our wife’s heart! The marriage manual in a wife’s heart is custom designed to instruct her husband on how to be the husband of her dreams!

This is also how Stanton sees the world. As he stated in a podcast:

…women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally, for various reasons and we could talk about that.

Stanton made similar comments in his book, and it betrays the fact that he, Joel Davisson, and Churchianity in general all approach marriage from the same evangelico-feminist frame: Women are innately good, and therefore all marriage problems are always caused by men.

Thus, when Stanton cheers the fact that 38% of Christian marriages end in divorce, what he means for you to read is, “Only 38% of Christian men are unworthy of their perfect Christian wives.”

This interpretation occurs because Churchians today have added an extra book onto the Holy Bible, the Book of Oprah. They filter Christian divorce through the lense of Oprah 3:16, which reads:

Verily, Oprah saith unto thee, “The woman’s heart is pure and lovely, and no defilement hath entered therein. For it is full of niceness and good feelings and rainbows and unicorns. But the heart of a man is wicked and uncaring, for it is always full of meanness, tainted by porn addiction and XBOX. Thy snowflake princess canst not err, excepting that a man hath forced her to it.
It be-eth not her fault.”

In practice, it works like this: When a divorce happens, the Churchians want a reason. The woman informs them that she was “unhappy” and “unfulfilled.” She might even say she was “emotionally” or “spiritually” abused, because her husband played XBOX too often or didn’t teach from the version of the Bible that includes the Book of Oprah.

Churchians then read Oprah 3:16 and apply the principal: Clearly, the marriage must have ended because “he didn’t love her like Christ loves the church.” What they mean, of course, is “he didn’t love her like the personal ‘Jesus’ loves the Evangelical American Princess.” In other words, he didn’t placate and subjugate himself to her feeeeeeelings.

Oprah 3:16 leaves them no other choice but to interpret divorce this way: If women are innately good and pure in regards to relationships, then it has to be the guy’s fault. Thus, you will find Churchian women saying, “The fact that I felt so unhappy and unfulfilled shows that there was probably a deeper problem in the marriage.”

Yeah, like maybe you’re an un-contented selfish narcissist.

If a marriage is beginning to fail, the Christian marriage “experts” say: “You need to follow your wife’s heart [that is, her emotions], because that is God’s marriage manual for you.” But letting the wife’s baser emotional nature run the marriage–particularly her lack of contentment and her sinful desire to control her husband–inevitably leads to severe marriage problems. It goes directly against God’s stated will for marriage, and God has stated His will for a reason. The inverted nature of the Oprah 3:16 marriage is that men are told to submit to and obey their wives’ emotions.

This inevitably causes a woman’s husband to appear emasculated to her, lowering her attraction to him. It also means the marriage is not anchored in anything solid, like God’s immutable Word, but rather in temporary, day-to-day and moment-by-moment emotional fluctuations. In addition, it removes all moral accountability from the wife, thereby freeing her to disrespect, cheat on, and/or frivolously divorce her husband (for cash and prizes). It’s a recipe for disaster.

When such marriages end in divorce, the cycle starts anew: Churchians ask why it ended. They find the wife was unhappy. They interpret it through Oprah 3:16, and then tell the rest of the men, “Your wives are unhappy because you’re failing as men. Follow her heart or you’ll end up like that guy over there.” More marriages therefore end, and the cycle continues.

I call this feedback loop the “Christian Divorce Machine.” The following diagram illustrates. Feel free to share and post this diagram widely, because the truth needs to be heard. I ask only that you link back to the original if possible.

marriage-diagram4

Book Review: Growing True Disciples by George Barna

Growing True Disciples: New Strategies for Producing Genuine Followers of Christ. George Barna. WaterBrook Press, 2001.

growing_true_disciples_barna

In the course of dealing with the question of discipleship, churches tend to take the matter as an after thought. This is especially true in most modern church cultures, where the focus is “winning the world over to Christ” more than it is “teaching them to observe all things I command you”. People are converted to whatever it is (usually the church organization), and then left to their own agendas. Unfortunately, those agendas often have dangerous outcomes, where someone would come along and teach something different.

This disconnect is what George Barna intends to address with his book Growing True Disciples, which is addressed to church leadership. He points out in the book using the usual surveys and statistics that people are…listless, and then rightly connects that to why the church isn’t transforming the world.

Barna begins his book with this hypothesis: Ignite people’s passion for God and get out of the way. The author then provides a basic lesson on discipleship. After that, he presents the results of his surveys. First, he points out that there is a disconnect between the claims that people make and their willingness to put in the work to make spiritual change happen, noting that most people put many other things ahead of their spiritual growth as priorities. Then he points out that professed Christian believers really aren’t living *that* differently from the world. Barna then discusses some reasons he perceives that churches are dropping the ball when it comes to discipleship. Finally, the author describes what he believes was effective in the churches he surveyed and presents five models as examples of what he believes is ideal.

The idea to focus on people and not the organization (programs/policies/procedures) is laudable, especially since Scripture clearly portrays a Master/Disciple relationship and not organizational tools. Barna’s effort to point out that small groups (the Churchian fad) are ineffective without such relationships is very welcome.
However, Barna’s drift from people back to programs towards the end of the book is sadly predictable. This is doubly so, as I was waiting to hear ideas on how to bring people together rather than policy declarations. Furthermore, Barna’s choice to very generically focus on his five churches without providing specifics behind what they do that he sees as valuable is very disappointing.

Growing True Disciples is very valuable in terms of describing the current state of where people are as professing Christians. However, don’t expect decent answers to the issues at hand.

Rating: 8 out of 10.

Image Source: Amazon.com

The Marriage Bermuda Triangle

One of the interesting things you will always see Churchians pull out when they’re teaching about marriage (there’s many examples) is the old marriage triangle diagram. When they do it usually is presented like this:

triangle_marriage10

While the diagram represents an egalitarian outlook with marriage, it does represent (in a way) the functioning of marriage in the sight of God. The Ecclesiastes passage about the threefold cord not being quickly broken almost always gets brought up in conjunction with the marriage triangle. It’s a good illustration, despite its flaws, of the need of God in a marriage to make it work. Also, it correctly reflects husband and wife in the proper lower places before God.

Now unfortunately, as this blog and others have chronicled, the teachings of the nature of marriage are much different. I created a different diagram to describe this relationship than a triangle, but the marriage triangle idea is apt as well.

triangle_marriage20

In these teachings, the wife is lifted up as co-equal with God. She is given the function of the Holy Spirit through the virtue of her Personal Jesus. The husband is left striving and sacrificing to be worthy of her High Holy Hamster, continually bade to man-up and lead his family without any authority over his wife and children whatsoever. The Church and society support this arrangement all the while.

It should be no wonder that men, upon realizing this arrangement, refuse to debase themselves in this manner. Yet, the beat goes on as the Churchians continue to double-down and expect a different result.

Porn: The Evangelical “Get Out of Marriage Free” Card by BSkillet81

Another repost from the now defunct Christian Men’s Defense Network blog. As I continue to get clicks on my links to these (and have them saved), I figure it might be useful to repost the material, which will not include hyperlinks or comments (unless linked from here). I don’t know what happened to the original author (BSkillet81) after the last two years, so I would have liked to get permission to do this beforehand. If there’s an objection from the author, feel free to contact me and I can take this down.


Christian Men’s Defense Network
Porn: The Evangelical “Get Out of Marriage Free” Card by BSkillet81
Posted on April 9, 2012

[Editorial Note: Special thanks to commenters deti and van Rooinek over at Dalrock for influencing my thinking with his response to some questions I had. Also, thanks to Dalrock himself for the quote that inspired the title, which I shamelessly lifted.]

There is a patently absurd idea that is so popular in evangelical Christian circles today that one might think it comes directly from the Bible. This idea is that a woman is justified in divorcing her husband if he has looked at pornography. This is based on a total twisting of Matthew 5:28. I hope to correct this misinterpretation here.

But first, note that I and these other evangelicals agree on one thing: Lusting after pornography is sinful. There is no disagreement here. I add, however, that for a woman to read romance novels, even Christian romance novels, and to desire in her heart the kinds of self-centered relationships described therein, and to believe that her marriage should be that way, is equally sinful.

I also add that evangelicals do not usually note the distinction between occasional use of pornography, and a full-fledged porn addiction. Evangelicals call it all porn addiction, even if a man looks at porn once or very rarely. But legitimate porn addiction means a man cannot stop constantly looking at pornography. All the time. Daily. This is a state of severe lust and sexual perversion within the man’s heart, and would in my mind indeed be the grounds for a legitimate divorce.

But first, the exegesis. In the Bible, context always determines meaning. With that in mind, let’s Matthew 5:28 in its surrounding context, namely the Sermon on the Mount:

“You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. …

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body,than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

“It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery.” –Matt. 5:21-22, 27-32

The standard interpretation of this is that 1) Jesus said looking at porn is adultery, and 2) Jesus said adultery is a valid reason for divorce. This standard interpretation, if you actually look at the text, is just plain silly for several reasons. One must be willingly blind to reach such a foolish conclusion.

First, note that the Lord’s words about lust parallel His words about hatred in the heart directly before. So if we are prepared to destroy a marriage because a man looked at porn, we must ask ourselves, “Are we supposed to give the electric chair to any person who is unjustifiably angry at someone else?” The answer is that we all have done such things in our hearts. That is the Lord’s point! We all are sinners who need atonement for our sins!

Second, note the order of the sermon. He doesn’t say, “Adultery is the only reason for divorce,” and then “If you look at porn, you’re an adulterer, and therefore your wife is permitted to divorce you.” Rather, our Lord states that a man having lust in his heart is an internal form of adultery, and then that a woman should not be divorced by her husband unless she commits adultery.

The Lord is using different gender nouns in His statement. I am not here arguing for different rules for different genders. I am instead arguing that the Lord, by using these different gender nouns, is not allowing us to draw too strong a connection between these two concepts. In the first section, the man is wrong. In the second section, the woman might be wrong.

Third, the part about divorce is not intended to make it easier for someone to divorce his or her spouse and then re-marry. As pointed out by Christian blogger Dalrock in a post on his blog, this text is commonly being twisted in evangelicalism to make it extremely easy for a Christian woman to divorce her husband on a whim, in order to satisfy her fleshly hypergamous desire to “trade-up” to a new mate because “I was unhaaaaaaapy”:

The fundamental problem is that Christian women are being given get out of marriage free cards while Christian men are being told man up and marry these Christian women. This selective moral softness from Christians combines with our legal system which rewards women who commit divorce theft and creates millions of fatherless children. Your husband looked at porn? Dump him and find another man!

In this sense, the text is actually being used to excuse female forms of lust. But the Lord’s intent here is to make it much harder for a spouse to divorce. In Judaism at the time, it was common for a man to frivolously divorce his wife for any old reason, because the Law of Moses was murky on exactly what was a justifiable reason for divorce. The Lord spoke to make clear that divorce is only permissible in the narrowest of circumstances, adultery. This is why, when the Lord repeats his statement in Matt. 19:3-9, His disciples respond in astonishment, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry” (Matt. 19:10).

Fourth, we must be careful not to read the present back into the text. Pornography, as we understand it, simply didn’t exist in first century Israel. Evangelicals will point out that the Greek word used regarding adultery is porneia, the same word from whence we get the term “pornography,” and this ipso facto means Jesus is referring to pornography. But this is like saying that when a scientist in the 19th century refered to a vacuum (a container or space which is empty of all gasses), he meant our modern electric-powered vacuum cleaners. Silly.

Instead, Jesus is talking about a state of the heart: Lust. He is making clear that adultery, as with all other sins, begins in the heart. So we must separate this text from the very narrow common evangelical interpration of lust = porn.

To do this, let’s actually consider the issue of lust in the heart as it pertains to marriage: If a man is walking through the mall and sees a gorgeous 21 year-old woman who is dressed quite immodestly, and he engages in a moment of impure thoughts about her, are we saying his wife is now at liberty to divorce him? Of course not! All married Christian men are guilty of that sin! No Christian marriage could survive past a few weeks if that was our standard for divorce!

But since we take the Lord’s words about lust, and transform them into a screed dealing only with porn, we justify ourselves in utterly misinterpreting His point. As Christian teacher Ravi Zacharias often says, “Take a [Biblical] text out of context, and you make it a pretext [for sin].” In this case, we are making Matt. 5:28 a pretext for the sin of frivolous unbiblical divorce and female remarriage! God forbid!

Meet Amy, Hamster in Ministry by BSkillet81

Another repost from the now defunct Christian Men’s Defense Network blog. As I continue to get clicks on my links to these (and have them saved), I figure it might be useful to repost the material, which will not include hyperlinks or comments (unless linked from here). I don’t know what happened to the original author (BSkillet81) after the last two years, so I would have liked to get permission to do this beforehand. If there’s an objection from the author, feel free to contact me and I can take this down.


Christian Men’s Defense Network
Meet Amy, Hamster in Ministry by BSkillet81
Posted on June 3, 2012

A reader was kind enough to forward to me a blog post at In a Mirror Dimly that typifies the EAP mentality. This particular piece, part of their “Evangelico-Feminists in Charge” “Women in Ministry” series, is written by Amy Young, who goes to great lengths to blame and shame Christian men for the fact that she is 30 [Correction: Amy is at least 39] and unmarried.

Honestly, I love her post. Not for the content. No, the content is nothing but a whiny tirade by her rationalization hamster. I love her post because it proves that Evangelical American Princesses are not some made-up fantasy creatures like unicorns or fairy god-mothers or Christians who support Biblical marriage. No, the EAP is real.

Exhibit A: Amy begins by extolling the virtues of…. Amy:

“Why are you single?” I don’t know how often married people are asked why they are married, but I have a feeling it is less often than singles are asked the reasons behind their marital status.

It’s often followed up with “Are your standards too high? Have you been hurt? What vibes are you putting out?” Yes, to my face, out loud, these questions come. Sometimes condescendingly, other times in genuine wonder, trying to put together my awesomeness with my singleness.

Yes, Amy is awesome. If you don’t believe me, just ask Amy. As I wrote in my original post on the subject, the second defining characteristic of the EAP is that she is “raised with a focus on their ‘self-esteem,’ resulting in pride and arrogance.”

But her ego aside, why does Amy think she is unmarried?

I am a Christian. I am a woman. I am a leader. Remove any one of those statements and I believe I would be married.

Yes, that’s right. All those Christian men just aren’t man enough to take being married to a ball-busting radical evangelico-feminist strong, independent female Christian leader.

Amy goes on to detail how show was just born to be a leader:

I did not have words to express it as a child, but I knew I was a leader…
…I became a Christian early on, around age six. Even so, I had six years of being a girl and several years of leading in some form by that point.

She then gives a list of credentials that she considers impressive (obviously, I don’t agree): MA in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL). Curriculum Director for a TESL organization focused on China. About these, she writes:

Here I will make two more loaded claims:
1. If you marry before 30 your skills seems less threatening to Christian men.
2. There is a difference between having leadership skills and an actual leadership position.

Yes, she honestly believes that Christian men are threatened by the fact that she has an MA in TESL and that she has a leadership position in an organization that teaches English in China.

Yep. Scares the hell out of me. I could never date anyone who has such strong qualifications.

After all, I might fall asleep out of boredom on our first date.

Amy, of course, simply doesn’t realize the problem. It isn’t that men are afraid of her MA in TESL (as if). It’s that we don’t care. Those of us eligible Christian bachelors with advanced degrees in STEM subjects and/or successful careers in business and industry simply find her MA in TESL uninteresting, not intimidating. It doesn’t bring anything to our future family that we don’t already have, and then some.

But it gets worse. Continues Amy:

Like many choices life offers, I didn’t fully realize what I was saying yes to when I stepped into public leadership at age 29. I now know that I was most likely trading leadership for partnership and that, though still beloved by many, I became threatening to potential “pursuers” because of the heavy and mixed messages sent about gifting, submission, headship, and gender. As my leadership blossomed into spiritual realms I became even more like kryptonite to some (both men and women): scary and powerful.

Thankfully, here a bit of truth slips in. Amy admits–if only tangentially–that her exclusive focus on her career in her 20s caused her to miss out on marriage. She doesn’t get why, however: It’s that there are now far fewer Christian men for her to choose from, and men are biologically hard-wired to prefer women who are in the height of their fertility, not rolling down the slope on the other side at an accelerating pace.

But this brief moment of clarity is overshadowed by her extreme Freudian slip. Amy claims to be “scary and powerful,” and all that Christian teaching on submission and headship is the real problem. These evil Christian men want wives who follow their lead, and she just can’t have that. If only we weren’t so slavish to that Bible thing that was written by a bunch of evil men with evil penises thousands of years before The Feminine Mystique came and set everything straight.

Again, what Amy doesn’t realize is that she isn’t bringing anything to the table that men don’t have in spades.

Scary? We can do that. Powerful? No problem. Strength? We’re men, not “the weaker vessel.”

She finally closes with the obligatory line of man-shaming:

I pray that [her nieces] will stay on the Christian path and that both men and women will be drawn to their giftings and power. And if they want to marry, at whatever age, they will find a man secure enough in who he is to love and celebrate who they are.

It’s all those insecure Christian men who are to blame, not Amy.

But really, this last shaming tactic, coupled with her implied refusal to submit to her husband as God commands, only further illustrates why no one will marry her: It isn’t insecurity. It’s that, were he to marry her, he would come home every night to a controlling, hyper-critical harpy who would never give him a moment’s rest, let alone the feminine emotional tenderness that he doesn’t bring to the table and therefore desires in a wife.

As Amy’s case illustrates, the problem with the EAP in the marriage market place is that she doesn’t believe she should have to bring anything into the equation. After all, she’s “awesome” just the way she is and therefore has no need to foster qualities that might actually be attractive to marriage-minded men. Instead, he should check his God-given desire for complementary femininity at the door, fall down on his knee, and ask her to dominate him for the rest of his life (or until she chooses to leave him for cash and prizes).

Her holy hamster told her so.


[One comment was linked.]

Comment #1397
ballista74 says: June 3, 2012 at 9:28 pm

Leadership isn’t in the least scary, and her credentials are very good; 30 isn’t anywhere near infertile or a reason for men to be hardwired against her.

There’s something that you are missing (probably) as a new-age woman. But don’t worry, all of you seem to miss this. “Credentials” mean nothing when it comes to men. They almost always bring nothing to the table in a marriage to make you a better wife and can often bring negatives into the light. The thing with most women when it comes to genuine consideration for marriage is that they have nothing to offer but think they offer everything. Amy has her experience in China to draw upon as conversation, but she really hasn’t demonstrated any qualities that I see on her blog beyond some SMV that might make her interesting to consider for marriage. That said, given what she shows on her blog, she really doesn’t demonstrate any favorable attributes for being a wife.


If I Wanted to Destroy Christian Marriage by BSkillet81

Another repost from the now defunct Christian Men’s Defense Network blog. As I continue to get clicks on my links to these (and have them saved), I figure it might be useful to repost the material, which will not include hyperlinks or comments (unless linked from here). I don’t know what happened to the original author (BSkillet81) after the last two years, so I would have liked to get permission to do this beforehand. If there’s an objection from the author, feel free to contact me and I can take this down.


This post is a unique one in that it is the only post that I’ve reblogged in the history of this blog (so far). I didn’t use the function, but linked to the post with a short comment. I have pulled the original post since I reposted this now. The original comments appear below:

Usually, when I’m reading, I come across good points, and learn much. Occasionally there’s the post that would almost be a crime to not point out. This is one, as posted on the Christian Men’s Defense Network is about as short and sweet as you can get and a good thumbnail of all the factors out there destroying the sanctity of marriage.

Mark Driscoll, Albert Mohler, Kevin DeYoung and others: If you want Christian marriage to die, just keep doing what you’re doing. It’s already about dead and it’ll go the rest of the way if you don’t repent in sackcloth and ashes and turn to the real problems.


Christian Men’s Defense Network
If I Wanted to Destroy Christian Marriage by BSkillet81
Posted on May 31, 2012

A couple months ago, Free Market America produced a Youtube video entitled “If I wanted American to fail,” detailing all of the energy policies of the federal government that–in their view–seemed designed to weaken the country. The video was gritty and compelling. It quickly went viral.

In that vein, I decided to do the same thing with Christian marriage:

If I wanted to destroy Christian marriage…

…I would constantly shame men from the pulpit into “making a commitment” to a woman, while never discussing the idea of her making a commitment to him.

…I would create an entire industry of Christian marriage counseling whose sole purpose was to give wives ammunition with which to beat their husbands into submission, regardless of who is actually to blame for marriage problems.

…I would produce Christian movies that glorify women for threatening to frivolously divorce their husbands, and for having emotional affairs. I would present the man as subjugating himself to his wife’s emotional whims in order to win her back, thereby tacitly endorsing and glorifying his wife’s sinful behavior. Even though there was no Biblical justification for her threatened divorce, and even though the movie makes clear the real purpose of the divorce was so the wife could trade in her fireman husband for a rich and sophisticated doctor, I would make sure the wife showed no sign of real repentance for her sin. I would make sure that, in the end, the wife got everything she wanted by engaging in sin, with no consequences whatsoever.

…I would produce Christian movies that shame devoted fathers and husbands who have done nothing wrong. I would say I was being Courageous by calling them out.

…I would get Christian leaders all over the world to endorse these movies as models for Christian marriage.

…I would tell Christian wives “it’s not your fault” if your husband cheats, while telling Christian husbands that they are to blame for their wives’ infidelity.

…I would preach about the evil of men cheating on their wives, and never even mention the possibility that wives are capable of cheating on their husbands.

…I would create the myth that the biggest threat to Christian marriage is men looking at porn, while completely ignoring the rising trend of female marital infidelity.

…I would twist Matthew 5:28 to mean that Christian wives can divorce their husbands whenever they want, simply because the guy once looked at porn.

…I would continually shame Christian men for looking at boobiez on the interwebz, while at the same time ignoring or encouraging Christian wives’ denial of sex to their husbands, in disobedience to Scripture.

…I would teach young Christian boys that their masculinity is sinful and dangerous, while teaching young Christian girls that their feminity is always pure and holy and good.

…I would teach young Christian girls that God has a perfect man for her, while leaving it up to her, and not Scripture, to define what a perfect man is.

…I would teach young Christian boys that enjoying the physical appearance of women is sinful lust, while at the same time encouraging young Christian girls to read Christian-ized emotion porn, and to fantasize about the unrealistic and un-biblical view of romantic love contained therein. I would label this lustful female fantasy “love.”

…I would teach young Christian boys that they need to control their sinful pride and arrogance, while at the same time teaching young Christian girls that their biggest problem is not having enough “self-esteem.” I would then feign surprise when these Christian girls run off with confident, masculine, and therefore attractive non-Christian men.

…I would blame young Christian men when these young Christian women run off and fornicate with non-Christian men, conceiving children out of wedlock.

…I would shame Christian men for not manning up, at the same time that I teach them that their masculinity and “machismo” is keeping them from God.

…I would fill Christian seminaries with feminists, and then teach that only people with a Masters in Divinity from these seminaries are qualified to teach the Christian faith.

…I would fill churches across the country with unregenerate professional self-help gurus who knew nothing–and cared even less–about Scriptural teaching on marriage. I would have the audacity to call these men “pastors,” and I would twist Scripture to demand that the men in the congregation submit to their leadership.

…I would change the command to love one’s wife as Christ loved the church, into “make her feel like you love her like Christ loves the church,” thereby removing any objective Biblical definition of love from the context of marriage.

…I would remove any Biblical reference to women submitting to and respecting their husbands, and replace them with “mutual submission.”

…I would eventually re-cast this mutual submission to mean that the husband is responsible for meeting his wife’s moment-by-moment emotional whims.

…I would teach that it is the husband’s duty in a marriage to keep his wife perpetually in a state of emotional bliss.

…I would remove any concept of female responsibility in marriage.

…I would never, ever implement God’s commands in Titus 2:3-5, and I would never admit that the Bible says that failing to teach women their duties in marriage results in God being blasphemed.

…I would remove all moral agency from women for their sexual sins. I would never mention things like sin, guilt, and repentance in the context of women.

…I would teach that divorce is always the husband’s fault.

…I would teach that physical abuse is a biblically justifiable reason for divorce, then I would gradually stop using the adjective physical, and after a number of years I would re-define abuse to mean “whatever the wife doesn’t like.”

…I would always look the other way when a Christian woman in my congregation frivolously divorces her husband and destroys her family, but I would allow my congregation to shame the victimized husband.

…I would teach women that God’s greatest desire is for them to be “haaaaaapy,” and that being “unhaaaaaaapy” in marriage may be grounds for divorce.

…I would claim that the biggest threat to “traditional marriage” in the country is the 0.5% of the nation’s population who want to marry someone of the same gender, while purposely ignoring no-fault divorce, alimony, child-support, false domestic violence claims, and other laws that encourage and enable women to frivolously divorce their husbands, with cash and prizes.

…While doing all of this, I would have the audacity to hold myself up as a great and courageous defender of traditional, Biblical marriage.

In other words, if I wanted to destroy Christian marriage, I wouldn’t change a thing within Christianity today.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers