Skip to content

The Pressure Of Corrupted Ministry

January 10, 2013

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. (2 Corinthians 2:17)

The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us. (Micah 3:11)

Last time, I wrote of Sheila Gregoire and her resistance to interpret 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 correctly. As well, I agreed with Dalrock’s observation (*) about the erratic nature of what Sheila Gregoire writes. By the necessity that has been put on her ministry to make money and create demand for her personal services, her products, and her web sites, she is required to draw people in and please them in order to make a purchase. As I indicated last time, the reason she is discussed here is not because she is a woman or a feminist or anything else of that nature. It is because she contradicts the word of God. This may not warrant the attention of three bloggers (the ones I’m aware of) who have addressed it alone, but as Dalrock writes:

This is astounding because Sheila isn’t just another blogger; she and her husband hold Christian marriage seminars and she has written five books aimed at women on the topic of Christian marriage. In fact, she not only considers her work a ministry, but she teaches other women to start their own ministries as well. She has been doing all of this for many years, yet there is no consistency in her writings on the core topics she claims to be an expert on. Some of her advice sounds fairly good one day, but then not long after she comes along and directly contradicts herself.

Ultimately she is nothing different than the average pastor, who has machinery to run and keep up. So her goals are as the other Churchian pastors out there: 1. Increase attendance. 2. Increase offerings. 3. Provide an appearance of “spirituality”. The plan she has to accomplish these things seems to be well established, since the pattern was discernable after a number of her posts on core topics of her ministry. There are things that she holds dear to her feminist sensibilities that she won’t compromise, but it seems she has found that she has to muddy the waters and provide enough sweet sounding words to scratch the ears of her customers to keep people buying and keep people thinking that some good truth rests with her.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Corinthians 14:33)

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)

As you may recall, Sheila started out by claiming 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 to be a “hard question to wrestle with God” (really rebelling against God). In light of that alone, we can find that she is following her feminist self in using her tradition, reason, and experience over Scripture. In doing this, it is no wonder she is so erratic, as well as rebelling against Scripture. But in using this tactic, she gets the chance to send all her readers away with something that itches their ears. If this passage is not clear-cut in her mind it is because she chooses to make it so:

1. “Do Not Deprive” Means Sex Can’t be a Weapon

I would argue the same thing applies when it comes to our sex life. This isn’t something that is optional in marriage. And it isn’t something that should be minimized or used as a weapon, either. This is something that is part of an “abundant life”.

Playing this “hard question” game gives her cover when her real positions are questioned as they come out. They are obvious to those who follow her enough, but for the uninitiated, her or her adherents can point to this post and say “see she saying to not use sex as a weapon right here!”. The problem is that she argued much more forthrightly in the last part than this one, and many of her other posts are consistent with that part. Hence, the amount of discussion here that centered on her first part and not the other two. Continuing:

A healthy relationship is only possible when both spouses believe that sex is important.

And what of Sheila Gregoire herself and her adherents that believe sex isn’t important, and for whom sex is not mutual with their husbands? That is the first step towards sex as a weapon. Next, point #3 really melds into point #4:

If sexual release were the only need, and if sex had nothing to do with anything else, God could have designed a different way for us to get that release. After all, our other physical needs can be met on our own: we breathe on our own; we can eat on our own. And it is possible to obtain sexual release on our own! That, however, is not what God designed us for. That’s what God designed marriage for.

This is a restatement of her men physical, women emotional meme, ultimately wrapping back to an argument parallel to the Cheetos one. She states here that sexual release (the physical) plays a part here, but claims no such thing in other places. No “come get me hubba-hubba” tells me that she is physically repressed. She simply doesn’t seem to relate to physical sexual desire.

Moving to part 3, Sheila Gregoire spends about the first half of the text talking about how people are different. This may have some bearing in her mind, but it is ultimately wasteful for her position:

Our response to this problem must always be to look at God, not to try to change our spouse. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that we should demand our rights if we’re not getting what we deserve. That’s why “Do not deprive” should never be used as a weapon; it goes against everything Scripture is for. Scripture focuses on servanthood, not on tyranny.

It is another restatement of part 1, establishing sex as a weapon in the hands of wives. Coupled with the standard Churchianity line in Marriage 2.0, where a woman has the perfect right to change her husband at every opportunity and not respect him in any way, she is literally again advocating for use of sex as a weapon. Holding to this position gives the wife complete and full license to sin against her husband without repercussions. Sure Sheila suggests in a very slight way that it doesn’t justify not changing, but given her other writings it holds no force in a world where women are not held to account for their sins against God.

To assess the parts of her final position in bold:
1. Looking at God will cause you to see the imperfections in yourself as well as those around you.
Especially when husbands are being sinned against, as Sheila teaches wives to do in this case.

2. Sheila treats the issue of sin in terms of “getting the rights we deserve”.
As has been pointed out, the issue of unconditional sexual access is part of the marriage vows made in the sight of God. He sets out this condition of marriage in 1 Cor 7:1-5 and is implied by Genesis 2:24. To not follow Scripture is to sin, and sin has redress in Scripture:

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matthew 18:15-17)

3. Sheila Gregoire teaches the women of her audience to sin!
Sheila Gregoire views the use of Scripture in the life of a Christian towards a wife as a weapon, and holding a wife to Scriptural dictates as “tyranny”. So in her mind, rule of the family by Scripture is tyranny, so in essence, Christ’s rule is tyranny to her! When she writes “servanthood not tyranny”, she is talking the servanthood of the personal Jesus and the butler Father, and her supplicant husband to her. Scripture clearly speaks of servanthood but to Christ or God and not to her personal Jesus:

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:10)

Marriage 2.0, woman worship, and feminist Churchianity are only out to please men and are not servants of God! We know clearly where Sheila Gregoire stands.



(*) – I include links to this post so much in this part and the last because it brought up statements that Sheila used in Part 1. As well, it has much discussion involving that part, including several comments from me and others I wished to reference here.

29 Comments
  1. Have you read the book, “This Little Church Went to Market: The Church in the Age of Entertainment” by Gary E. Gilley? It’s an excellent work that covers a number of the issues that Ms. Gregoire and her ilk have thrust upon the church.

  2. Thanks for the reference. I’m always on the look out for good texts when I can get them that explain the culture of the church well. In fact, I’ve wondered about popping a link with my bookshelf at the top for things such as this.

    Personally, the best thing I’ve run across explaining what is outwardly going on in the church, besides The Feminist Gospel (which I have 2 posts with a summary up – need a 3rd sometime), is this presentation by Robert Klenck. It’s a long one, but he points out the overarching problem with the current version of Churchianity well. As the Feminist Gospel explains it, this version of Churchianity is the fruit of the feminist mindset:

  3. Sis permalink

    Lack of sexual submission is not a sin, it is a lack of trust. Women naturally find their worth in sexual chastity and men naturally find their worth in sexual conquests so when the two marry, there is a battle. The woman might think he shows his love to me through sex so anything not gentle and loving and on my terms is a sign that he doesn’t love me. The man might think she doesn’t want/accept my touches so she must not trust me, therefore she doesn’t respect me.
    Complete sexual submission is like jumping off of a cliff for a woman, she can be completely rendered worthless or she can completely be delighted in….she doesn’t know which one will happen and probably both will happen sometime in their marriage. So there are only two reasons a woman would give complete sexual submission to a man
    1. She doesn’t value or respect herself
    2. She finds her self-worth somewhere outside of her husband. (Hopefully in Christ)
    (notice that both of these have nothing to do with the husband.)
    I know that it is insulting for a man to think that sexual submission has anything less to do with how amazing he is in bed, but that is not what it’s about. A woman loses herself (her worth) through sexual submission and her husband isn’t enough for her to regain herself back. Only Christ is.

    this is an area where I like to think that the only way of living is to lose your life, the only way for a successful marriage to happen is for both spouses to lose themselves, women through sexual submission and submission in general and men in other ways. But once life is lost, then true life and true blessings begin to grow.

    Sheila is not telling women to sin, she is very vocal about encouraging women to have active sex lives with their husbands. Her only flaw is in not telling women to jump off the cliff because she is trying to protect women. Women will stay safe on the mountain, but that isn’t how marriage is supposed to work, it’s not safe. Sheila shows a lack of faith in God’s promises, not a sinful rebellion. I think she needs encouragement, not condemnation.

  4. Looking Glass permalink

    @Sis:

    I’ll admit I had to read what you wrote a few times, because on a first read I was hoping to live in that Reality in your first few sentences. I think some of your breakdown is incorrect, but this needs a bit of parsing. So, I’m going to summarize a bit.

    – Men want to chase.
    – Women want to be chased.
    – This leads to differential views of attraction/rejection between Husband/Wife.

    I don’t disagree in the abstract, but it’s the next bit that I think runs into some issues. I know of few but the extremely secular that “find their worth” in sex. If they do, we’d normally call them (both male & female) very shallow people. This is where your comment I think runs into its major problem.

    I think tying “worth” and sexual submission (which actually isn’t mostly what Christians are talking about, just where the problems normally show up in) leads to non-functional analysis. Though I do find the part about life in Christ to be correct, which just makes the comment a bit more confusing to analyze. So I would appreciate a bit more extrapolation.

    On Sheila, though, I think I see the issue you’re missing. Due to her erratic nature of proscription, you can find whatever you want her to say in her writing, but while I will grant she’s generally in the “have more sex” category, the structure around that “have more sex” teaching is the critically important failure in her work. It’s not from a “follow Christ” view point but from a “use Sex as a way to control your Husband” view point. There’s a world of difference between the two.

  5. sunshinemary permalink

    @ LG
    I could be wrong, but I don’t think what Sis is saying about women is that they like to be chased (though we do). I think what she is referring to is how scary it is to let one’s husband lead in the bedroom. You have to be able to trust that he isn’t going to hurt you (physically or emotionally) or lead you into sin. Women can be mistrustful of men’s sexual intentions, and it’s fine to mistrust the intentions of other men but not one’s own husband’s.

    Although it’s scary to let go of control, she must. It’s a faith issue; she has to trust that even if her husband makes a mistake and hurts or upsets her, God will take care of her. It will be okay. If she doesn’t submit to her husband everywhere, including in bed, it implies a lack of faith in God. It’s like saying, “The Bible tells me to submit, but I can’t trust my husband to do what I think is right, so I won’t submit.” But that’s wrong. If she obeys the Bible, God will take care of her and see her through even if her husband occasionally makes a mistake.

  6. I see it this way: Without trust (in God, through Christ, expressed in the husband), there can be no true intimacy. Without trust and intimacy, sex is not what it was meant to be. So, yes SSM, it is a matter of control. I think this is especially hard for women who have been successful (esp. in their careers) by being control freaks (because they can’t trust anyone else to do it RIGHT) This control issue, this lack of faith that God has your back even if your husband isn’t doing things like you want him to (i.e. that you could do better) is a fight I have been engaged in for quite some time.

  7. Looking Glass permalink

    @SSM:

    I don’t disagree, I’m just not sure that’s what Sis fully meant, which puts me in a hard place when responding.

    And, while I can sympathize with the issue on a theoretical level, at the practical level, my response is: tough cookie. A man always has more to lose in a marriage (even in the pre-1900s) in the Western Tradition. In the current environment, it’s pretty much a huge risk with very little net upside (unless you get lucky in wife selection), while at the same time women still *choose* their husbands. So, while it is “hard”, the truth is women select their husbands, so that they would still hold onto, with a vise grip, something that agreed to give to the man (at considerable cost to the man) is just pride and greed, at the end of the day.

    Which is why I was hoping for Sis to further flesh out her thoughts.

  8. Sis permalink

    Okay, I’ll give it another try.
    Submission is a gift, not something that can be demanded. Just like giving our lives to Christ, he gives us a choice, we have free will in the matter. Ie. the church (wife) and Christ (husband), it must not be forced. Just like a man’s protection and wealth is a gift to his wife and should not be demanded.
    How would Christ go about getting the church to submit? He would love her and assure her she can put her trust in Him, never demanding. This is a wiser way for men to approach their wives and women in society. They should assure their wives that they are trustworthy, will protect her and will fill their sexual lives with great blessings because of the choices she is making. Assurance and gentle guidance during sex instead of demanding, feelings of rejection, and anger are the path to a woman’s sexual submission. This is what married submission should look like, Christ and the church.
    Problems arise because men are sinful, they will fail to protect, love, or cherish her at some point in their marriage. Women know this, so they choose to protect themselves instead of trusting. This is where Christ comes in to fill the gap. God has set marriage up with the man leading and the wife submitting, therefore God is saying that man is worthy of submission, worthy of leadership, worthy of our giving our very lives into their hands and where man fail, God will step in with His promises to protect us, to fill our needs and to work ALL things for good. If God says we can trust and submit to our husbands, He won’t leave us unprotected and alone. No matter what happens.
    Women don’t understand these ideas because Satan is doing his best to convince women that they should listen to their fears and protect themselves, they should have equality in marriage in all ways and they can’t trust men with their bodies. But God is at work in us to show us His ways so men can have hope and we intimately know that it takes a lifetime to learn to walk with God, love always starts with patience.

  9. userdand permalink

    LG, gotta disagree on the self-worth issue. Sex may not be how we should determine our self-worth in or out of a marriage, but, IMO and anecdotal experience, that is definitely not how it works in the secular and churched world. Just today I commented to a woman cheated upon who was asking “why wasn’t I enough” in regard to her husbands cheating. I have read comments where wives say that their husbands “admit” the OW was a lousy lay and they take some solace and pride in the fact that they are better at sex than their competition. They are definitely finding at least some self-worth in their sexuality even if they suspect their husband is only saying it to apease them. Sex therapist and psychologist David Schnarch call this a “reflected sense of self-worth.” We draw our value and sense of worth from what is relected back by those who matter to us and, sadly, even by those who should’t matter to us. He points out that this is not healthy, but is typical. This fact may offend your sensibilities and awareness of how things should be, but it is, never-the-less, how things are for the vast majority of couples out there. Under those circumstances, we are obliged to acknowledge it, deal with it, and correctly attempt to change it in time. I think when Sis says “worth”, she is really talking about that reflected sense of self-worth and just used an unfortunate shorthand term and that is at the core of some of the confusion here.

  10. userdand permalink

    Sis, I totally agree with you on the trust before submission point, especially as a result of our free will. To put a cap on it. Out of free will, I choose to accept Christ’s invitation as offered to all, though not accepted by all, to have fellowship and sonship/daughtership with God. All do not accept this invitation, which requires submission and desires obedience, because they do not KNOW the living God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That which they do not know, they do not trust, therefore they do not submit. As the church must trust (have faith in) Christ, so must the wife have trust in her husband and his position of agency with Christ. One might want to argue that God commands obedience to the directives in the Bible so submission is required without need of trust to be in compliance with God’s divine plan and will; that to not so submit is sin in defiance of God’s will and as such places one out of God’s favor. If God wishes us to submit to someone on Earth in a relatiohship of direct agency with Him, He will require that person to be in submission to Him. That would require that the husband exhibit to his wife Christ-like behavior and attitude. When she trusts in her husband’s confession of and comittment to faith, she can then willfully and obediently submit to him. Hopefully I haven’t misunderstood you position and misrepresented it, Sis.

  11. Excellent post, and thanks for the linkage.

    @sunshinemary

    I could be wrong, but I don’t think what Sis is saying about women is that they like to be chased (though we do). I think what she is referring to is how scary it is to let one’s husband lead in the bedroom. You have to be able to trust that he isn’t going to hurt you (physically or emotionally) or lead you into sin. Women can be mistrustful of men’s sexual intentions, and it’s fine to mistrust the intentions of other men but not one’s own husband’s.

    Although it’s scary to let go of control, she must.

    I would say 99% of the problem is since Christians are generally embarrased by the Scripture on submission there isn’t a focus on this prior to marriage. Submitting to a man is frightening, and as I explained in this post it should be. But the time to decide isn’t sometime after the wedding.

    @Sis

    Okay, I’ll give it another try.
    Submission is a gift, not something that can be demanded. Just like giving our lives to Christ, he gives us a choice, we have free will in the matter. Ie. the church (wife) and Christ (husband), it must not be forced. Just like a man’s protection and wealth is a gift to his wife and should not be demanded.

    If only we had a way for a woman to decide for herself if she wanted to submit to a man, and if so which man. If we did this, then we could publicly celebrate the decision by having a big party. The woman could dress up in a special costume and declare to the world that this is the man she freely chooses to submit to. Likewise the man could signal at the same time that this is the woman he freely chooses to take the responsibility to protect and support.

    What we need is a set of vows the man and the woman could take while everyone is watching, so there is no question that they are ready for biblical marriage.

  12. Feminist Hater permalink

    Yo Yo Sis, if you didn’t get what Dalrock meant, I suggest looking up ‘marriage’. Anyway, if submission cannot be demanded then neither can the wife demand that the man provide, love or protect her at all, never ever, ever never. So, in order to make this new found Sisdom, euphemism for wisdom, come about I suggest women stop getting the government involved when they don’t like the fact that the husband is not performing his marital obligations. Oh, such a bother that!

    Once again, men have obligations, teh wimmenz have ze rights!

  13. sunshinemary permalink

    @ Dalrock

    I would say 99% of the problem is since Christians are generally embarrased by the Scripture on submission there isn’t a focus on this prior to marriage.

    Yes, you are right no doubt. Those of us who were not Christians when we married never even considered the concept of submission, though, and have had to figure it out afterward, which is less than ideal but still necessary and worth pursuing.

  14. @sunshinemary

    Yes, you are right no doubt. Those of us who were not Christians when we married never even considered the concept of submission, though, and have had to figure it out afterward, which is less than ideal but still necessary and worth pursuing.

    Understood. For those who become Christians after marriage they need to decide if they are going to be faithful to biblical marriage. Even here it is a question of accepting the Bible or rebelling against it, but it is a slightly different question. What Sis and leigions of others are arguing is that Christian wives have the opportunity to marry first and decide if she will honor biblical marriage later. This is nonsense, and no more valid than a husband declaring that his wife has no right to demand his sexual fidelity. There is a time for choosing if you will accept the obligations of marriage, and this time isn’t some time after the wedding. If Christians were clear on this it would help large numbers of women avoid the heartbreak which comes from marrying a man who isn’t fit for marriage.

  15. @Sis

    I won’t try to address too much of what you wrote here myself since Dalrock has a post in honor of what you wrote. But the more specific parts I want to address:

    Lack of sexual submission is not a sin, it is a lack of trust.

    Sheila shows a lack of faith in God’s promises, not a sinful rebellion. I think she needs encouragement, not condemnation.

    it’s is like saying “no it’s not red, it’s red.”

    And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)

    Sheila is showing a sinful rebellion because (in your words), she is showing a lack of faith in God’s words. No faith in God’s words exists without obedience to God’s words. As for Sheila, she has gotten her warning from her dealings with Dalrock. I say warning because she is not only wayward before God herself, she is teaching other women to be wayward before God.

    A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. (Titus 3:10-11)

    She has received warnings from numerous other sources than myself, and she has chosen to not repent. Given that she is a Master’s Degree holder in Women Studies and has her entire ministry wrapped up in the feminist agenda, I would probably not expect her to do that. The only thing left to do is to warn those who care about true Biblical marriage that rapacious wolves such as Sheila Gregoire exists seeking to trap them into Marriage 2.0. This warning is incumbent not on the fact that she is wayward, but that she is leading other women into sin.

    As I wrote over here, women seem incapable of understanding commitment as it relates to marriage. Perhaps if a woman is incapable of accepting and performing the Biblical dicates that God has laid upon the marriage covenant, she has no business being married. Same goes for the men on this one – but for the most part men do accept and act on their commitments, unlike women.

    Sheila is not telling women to sin, she is very vocal about encouraging women to have active sex lives with their husbands.

    That she is, but not in a Godly way. Sheila is encouraging women to use sex as a lever to gain dominance over their husbands. Sheila is encouraging women into dominating men by willfully refusing 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 and then demonizing them when they turn to porn. Sheila is encouraging women to substitute “ewww sex is icky and disgusting” with deviant (to God) sexual behavior (femDOM). Sheila is encouraging women, with the help of the Churchian authorities and government agencies to institute Marriage 2.0 in their homes. Sheila is encouraging women to turn their marriages into abominations in the sight of God.

    And the funny part of this? You’d think a radical feminist such as Gregoire would love 1 Cor 7:1-5 as written since it is easily one of the most egalitarian Scriptures that exist as written, where the husbands are under the same obligations as the wives.

    Submission is a gift, not something that can be demanded.

    Yes it’s a gift given via covenant in the sight of God through the wife’s marriage vows. Same goes for her unconditional sexual access. She said yes I agree to both when she got married. Pushing someone to live up to their words when they breach them is rightful. Typical Marriage 2.0 heresy.

    How would Christ go about getting the church to submit? He would love her and assure her she can put her trust in Him, never demanding.

    He also says to the Church, “with me or against me”. Those who are with Him and love Him keep His commandments in faith. Those that rebel are cast into the lake of fire when His mercy tires out. God puts away those that do not honor Him in the covenant by rebelling against Him. Husbands used to have a similar power before the feminists and Churchians stripped him of it and before Churchian doctrine convinced husbands to lay down the rest of their headship authority.

    Assurance and gentle guidance during sex instead of demanding, feelings of rejection, and anger are the path to a woman’s sexual submission.

    In other words, ignore her sins and her blatant rebellion against both God and him, ignore justice in the grievous wrongs that she brings upon him and allow wickedness to take hold, and in other words take a bite of the apple. Any man that truly fears God will listen to Him before he listens to his wife and does this. More Marriage 2.0 junk, especially since the same speakers (yourself included) will say that all of these are perfectly justified in the hands of women. Women have rights and privileges that absolutely must be met come hell or high water. But men have nothing but obligations. Marriage 2.0 all the way.

  16. sunshinemary permalink

    There is a time for choosing if you will accept the obligations of marriage, and this time isn’t some time after the wedding. If Christians were clear on this it would help large numbers of women avoid the heartbreak which comes from marrying a man who isn’t fit for marriage.

    OK, I understand what you are saying.

    It would also help those who come to faith after already marrying if the headship and submission issue could be explained straightaway. It’s funny you mention sexual fidelity. My pre-Christian marriage was characterized by my lack of submission and HHG’s lack of sexual fidelity. Our post-Christian marriage was characterized HHG’s new-found sexual fidelity but my continued lack of submission. I would say I was even less submissive after becoming Christian because I stopped fearing losing him to another woman once he became faithful. I went from merely being a mouthy b-tch to being a horrible, unbearable mouthy b-tch. Thanks, Church!

    God be praised for showing us a better way despite the useless church.

  17. Assurance and gentle guidance during sex instead of demanding, feelings of rejection, and anger are the path to a woman’s sexual submission.

    I should clarify what I wrote above. Most men in fact do take this tactic at the start of their attempts, but when it doesn’t work, what then? Most of the time when men go to demanding, being rejected, and anger it’s after a protracted period of a wife’s willful sexual refusal. In the current Churchian environment, men have no recourse against their wives for such things and are left to burn in obedience at the hands of their wives or turn to an affair or porn. This is all by design to gain the submission of the husband to the wife.

  18. I take no credit for this, counting it to grace and my father’s example. When we married, my husband was an unbeliever, and I was a lapsed, backslidden, faithless Christian.

    Although it took several years for me to repent and fully commit to submitting to God and by extension my husband’s leadership, I understood that in marriage I was to follow my husband’s lead. He somehow understood as well the dynamic that was supposed to be at play. That he was leading the dance. I hesitate to call it natural law, but that is the only phrase I can conjure up presently.

    It takes a heart full of rebellion for a woman who has been regenerated by Christ to reject wifely submission.

  19. Lemuel of Masa permalink

    @sis
    Women naturally find their worth in sexual chastity and men naturally find their worth in sexual conquests so when the two marry, there is a battle.

    The only worth a woman has in chastity is that she is saving it for her husband. Her chastity only has value when she is sexually active with her husband. A woman who finds any worth in her chastity even within the context of marriage is frigid, not chaste, and not worth very much.

  20. Sis permalink

    Hi Ballista74,
    Thank you for taking the time to respond. I’ll agree that non-submission should be called sin.
    Submission to a man is somewhat equivalent in my mind to giving your life to Christ, promising to obey Him so it makes sense to me that love from a man should be the response and not condemnation. We are to love non-believers into Christ. I know that they made the promise when they got married so this shouldn’t be necessary, but that’s not true in most marriages. One spouse usually fails the other in a major way and the other spouse has to turn to Christ and love the other spouse into a deeper relationship with Christ.

    It is good to call out sin in Sheila if she won’t listen.
    Love is not ignoring, it is the tool Christ used to win the world. To change a person, you have the choice between using love or fear as weapons. Many people will tell you to use fear, but isn’t it better to have a wife submitting out of love than submitting out of fear. Love seems to be the way God shows us over and over again.

  21. Looking Glass permalink

    @Sis:

    “All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God”; “For the wages of sin is death”. I think God has the market cornered on the “Fear” aspect, actually.

  22. Sis permalink

    @Looking Glass, yes but the bible gives very few commands to husbands specifically, and the major one is to love, another is to cleanse, and God compares husbands to Christ, not to God. Christ died for us (loved us) while we were yet sinners, while we were in rebellion, while we were unsubmissive. The power that Christ chose to use was love. Husbands are to be Christ, wives are to be the church. Rarely in the bible has the church been obedient. The example of Christ and the church isn’t supposed to glorify us, it’s supposed to glorify Christ and what better way to do that than show the struggle of sin and love. Unconditional love.

    We shouldn’t try to sin, but it happens and we are rebellious. We need Christ.

  23. @Elspeth

    It goes to show the importance of a proper example when being raised. I was talking with someone who was complaining about how he couldn’t count on anyone in church to do anything. It’s not so much remarkable in and of itself, but it happens after they commit to doing whatever that thing is. And this is more common than not within this particular church org. I realized in the course of the conversation how much my parents impacted me in that regard.

    But the idea of commitment seems lost on most – I remember a day (as a child) when people made handshake agreements over thousands of dollars with nothing more than their words holding them to it. Now it takes lawyers and contracts, and even then one party will always push it to the point of having to go to court (if they have the lack of morals coupled with the means) before they fulfill their words.

    Marriage has turned out to be no different. Ecclesiastes 5:1-6 comes to mind in such matters. In reading Scripture, God seems to care about the agreement above as much as those made in vows before Him like marriage. That Scripture will be fitting to dig into another time as it is very relevant in this overarching topic, but it seems the universal take-away out of all of this is that people fear God much less than they should.

    @Sis

    Thank you very much for responding, especially since you have come under the criticism you have.

    Submission to a man is somewhat equivalent in my mind to giving your life to Christ, promising to obey Him so it makes sense to me that love from a man should be the response and not condemnation. We are to love non-believers into Christ.

    Again this is false doctrine being expressed. What is lost in the libertine attitude towards Christ is that love involves seeing a wayward path and warning against it. In other words, sin is not treated with the seriousness that it holds, but is ignored to the peril of all those involved. You don’t love unbelievers into Christ (in other words accepting them just as they are sins and all). All that does is court disaster and puts their blood on your hands. You warn them of their behavior and the consequences of their behavior if they don’t repent. This even goes for believers.

    Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. (Proverbs 27:6)

    Churchianity has gone to this point to gain the acceptance of the world and court the wrath of God as the true Gospel is not a feel-good thing, it’s a very pride destroying thing. Christ in His true form is a very offensive thing to those who are not in Him. His mercy only comes after repentance, and that repentance comes after recognizing you are worthless of yourself and placing yourself under Christ in true discipleship out of faith of His salvation and that He will work it in you.

    His love gives us the chance at discipleship, and it’s His love that recognizes that His imperative is to not just justify us before the Father, but to not keep us in our sin. Since this is the case, it is dangerous for a husband to forget or forbear sin in his wife since it is doubly his responsibility if he does not do so. Love that does not recognize sin and push for its repentance is not love from God. Love from God recognizes how great this gift is and shares knowledge of it with the world in the fullness of His truth. This truth includes the depraved state each and every one of us are in of the flesh, and the recognition of the fear of God (and this concept is all over both the Old and New Testaments, this is how far afield the church has gotten from the true Gospel).

  24. Dave permalink

    Sis wrote: Submission to a man is somewhat equivalent in my mind to giving your life to Christ, promising to obey Him …

    Paul I think concurs: Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the LordEphesians 5:21-22

    Sin is not submitting to the Lord and part of that submission is submitting to His delegated authorities including and especially to your lord husband (1 Peter 3:6). Submission is rarely easy; the flesh is in rebellion to authority. In 1 Peter 3:1 the apostle references Christ Himself as one of two examples of wifely submission. But “likewise” does not refer only to the example of Christ who perfectly obeyed His Father even unto death, but also to a slave with a harsh master.

    The Bible commands/demands wifely submission, it also requires the marriage bed to remain undefiled (Heb 13:4) by not defrauding or robbing a spouse of sex 1 Cor 7:5. ANY teacher or psychology that does not first bow the knee to the crown rights of Christ and obey His revealed will as recorded in the Word is likely to be the kind James warns of: This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. James 3:15

    A wife has no excuse for her sins of non-submission (rebellion), sexual defrauding or fear of her estate. God and therefore in rebellion against Christ, His authority (Lordship) and in seeking to find excuse she is in rebellion against His grace. Christ does not justify sin, only sinners.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. - A prayer vigil and some links | The Woman and the Dragon
  2. Indwelled by God?
  3. We need a ritual. | Dalrock
  4. Marriage Is a Grievous Commitment Taken Flippantly | The Society of Phineas
  5. Evaluating Marriage Ministry | The Society of Phineas

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 99 other followers

%d bloggers like this: