Someone posed a great question to me which has turned into a suggestion and now a new blog thread. She wondered if there was or could be a “best of” quotes from patriocentrists for those who are overwhelmed at the huge amount of information online regarding the patriocentrists. (This blog alone has nearly 21,000 comments, many of which address this issue and it is only one of many commenting on the same topic.)
To that end, I am beginning a new thread on this blog that is for direct quotes only, along with links to the quote in context if online or a few lines surrounding the quote along with a reference if it is not available on line. I believe this idea is a good one. The most effective way to refute wrong teaching is with the real words of real patriocentrists.
Let’s also refrain from discussing those quotes on this thread and instead if you want to discuss them, bring your comments back over to the current running thread on here, listing the quote number you are talking about. I am in the process of going back through all the comments myself and will be posting quotes that fit the criteria. Please feel free to do likewise.
Another note: I will be removing any attempts to discuss the comments on this thread and if there is an error, please drop me a note and I will correct the original post. I want to make this as easy as possible for wanderers who want to understand all the uproar over patriocentricity!
November 24, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“If a church that calls women to teach and hold office over men, pushing them into positions of authority across every ministry of the church except elder, is simply a church I ‘disagree with,’ then I’m a lunatic who needs to learn to stop and smell the roses. Like big time.”
http://www.baylyblog.com/2009/11/tim-wthanks-to-a-bunch-of-people-today-the-more-successful-designers-are-the-ones-that-try-to-bridge-the–gap-between-the.html
November 24, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Doug Phillips’ “lifeboat argument” against abortion in the case of ectopic pregnanies:
“What shall we think of Susie? Shall we bless a mother who kills her own child to save herself? Are we proud of such a woman? Shall we sing of her virtues? Perhaps we should just chalk-up her decision to feed her son to the sharks as ‘an unfortunate, but necessary evil.’ After all, she was just acting in self-defense. It was either the mother or the child. One would live and the other would die. Who could blame Mama for wanting to fight for her life, even if it meant that her son would be torn to pieces in the darkness of night?”
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/why_the_life_of_the_mother_is.aspx
November 24, 2009 at 2:35 pm
David Bayly:
The young man who pursues marriage enters a foreign land where he wages war. On the hinges of that battle lie happiness or shame.
But though a potential bride may be deeply loved, she’s also at some level the foe. To achieve victory the young man must not only win her, he must defeat her and her family, snatching her from their bosom, converting her to himself, breaking her natural bonds with father and mother, brother and sister, nurse and friend, dog and home. There’s little that’s tender about it. …
It is war, and the quicker our children understand this the better. It is war against sin. It is the breaking of families and established orders. It is secession and union all in one, penetration and insemination, not merely lacy ruffles and Pachelbel canons but velvet-gloved violence. All this courtship conceals. But it will out—in marriage if not before.
http://www.baylyblog.com/2007/11/wooing-as-warfa.html
November 24, 2009 at 7:09 pm
“God creates man’s sex organ to penetrate and deposit sperm where it can fertilize an egg, but man covers his organ with rubber and refuses to make the deposit. God creates woman’s sex organs to receive man’s deposit and provide a safe environment for that sperm to fertilize one of her eggs, but woman uses a pill, a plastic obstruction, or a chemical poison to stop the sperm and egg from uniting and becoming a living child. God creates breasts to feed babies but both woman and man turn them into erotica. The beauty of the breast is its fruitfulness, but women avoid pregnancy so their breasts won’t stretch and sag under the weight of their newborn’s milk and lose their erotic appeal.
Again, the principle: Man refuses to use the gifts God has given us to worship Him, and instead we take and use them for our own selfish purposes. We spend the money He gave us but refuse to tithe. We make love with the woman He provided as our helpmate but refuse to allow that love to be fruitful.
I can hear the objections: “‘Be fruitful and multiply’ doesn’t mean being irresponsible with the gift. My wife and I shouldn’t spend her womb into penury. Where are we commanded to have as many babies as possible? The earth is filled already–are you suggesting we live in bondage to this command? If we allow our lovemaking to be fruitful without limits, our bed will become bondage and we’ll end up doing less for the Kingdom of God. We believe each child should be given a certain amount of attention and training in order to grow up whole. How can we provide for our children’s spiritual and emotion health when we’re frazzled trying to keep up with the most basic duties of caring for a family of ten or fifteen?”
Our basic orientation is clear: Lovemaking is mostly about mutual gratification and only occasionally about being fruitful and multiplying. We have no pangs of conscience separating what God commanded be joined together–the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual union.
Remember the parable of the talents? When the master returned and found that one of his three servants had dug a hole and buried his talent there, he rebuked the servant. The servant explained his faithlessness by placing the blame on the master rather than owning it himself. As Jesus told the story,
And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, “Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.”
But his master answered and said to him, “You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.” (Matthew 25:24-28)
What a perfect picture of Christians’ stewardship of the womb today. Walking by faith is risky and it’s clear that God will hold us accountable for the instruction and discipline of our children. So out of fear we block the womb, sheath the rod, and claim we’ve done it all for our Master.
The ironic thing is that no people across history have been blessed with the wealth God has poured out on us, but no generation of the Church has been more stingy in its use of that wealth for fruitfulness and multiplication. Twenty-five hundred square foot homes that are heated and cooled; food in the dumpsters behind our supermarkets that would make our ancestors shake their heads in disbelief; automatic washers and driers; stoves, refrigerators, and freezers; educational opportunities unheard of across history; disposable diapers, high chairs, and car seats; what more do we need?
But we look at prior generations of Christians and shake our heads in disbelief. “Susannah Wesley had fifteen children. Can you believe it? The poor woman.”
Poor woman nothing. God blessed her with children and those children were her glory, each of them being a gift from God. We stand gazing at her with our own children holding their soccer trophies and SAT scores in their grubby hands, and we dare to claim we have been fruitful, too? We have helped in the multiplication and filling of the earth?
No, we have hidden our lights under a bushel; we’ve buried our talents in the ground. Instead of asking God to pour out His blessings on us, we’ve asked Him to overlook our stinginess, to spare us from stretch marks, to deliver us from the evil of a fruitful womb.
Our wives plead with us for more children but we’re the boss and we know the meaning of responsibility and good stewardship. “That’s it honey, we’re done. No more rewards. No more blessings and fruitfulness. We’re going to do something for ourselves. Finally we’ll be able to get ahead and save for our retirement. I’m tired of messy diapers and kids crying at night. Our last will be in all-day kindergarten soon. You’ll be able to get a job and help out with setting up their college funds. Call the doctor and set up an appointment for me to have a vasectomy, would you? Won’t it be nice to make love without worrying about an accident?”
God made her a woman and dignified her sex with His statement, “Woman shall be saved through childbearing” (1Timothy 2:15). But you’re a practical man, aren’t you?
When the Master returns, though, what exactly will you say to Him to explain the fact that during by far the largest portion of your lovemaking through the years, your sword was sheathed, scrupulously kept from your lover’s womb?”
http://www.baylyblog.com/2006/10/the_fruitful_wo.html
November 24, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Voddie Baucham
““A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that.””
November 25, 2009 at 2:37 am
Douglas Wilson: http://www.reformedsingles.com/not-where-she-should-be-douglas-wilson
[A husband] may be distressed over [his wife’s] spending habits, television viewing habits, weight, rejection of his leadership, laziness in cleaning the house, lack of responsiveness to sexual advances, whatever. But however the problem is manifested, what should a husband do? …
First, the husband in his capacity as a private person should confess to God his own individual sins as an individual which have contributed to the situation…
Second, the husband as a “public person” should begin confessing the sinful state of his household before God, assuming full and complete responsibility for the way things are. …When a wife neglects her duties, the guilt of the sin is hers. The responsibility for her negligence is her husband’s….
The husband should confess, on a daily basis, the sinful status of his household before God, and his responsibility for it, until it changes. A “problem wife” cannot be worked on like a car that has broken down. …
…After he has acknowledged his responsibility, and his failures to exercise it properly, he should then make clear what his expectations are for her in the future. He should also make clear his complete unwillingness to step in to do for her what she neglected to do, or to tolerate a lapse into the old way of doing things.
…She can learn on a representative problem. She would be overwhelmed with a requirement that she change everywhere, all at once. If, for example, the problem is one of poor housekeeping, he should require something very simple, i.e. that the dishes be done after every meal before anything else is done.
The first time the dishes are not done, he must sit down with his wife immediately, and gently remind her that this is something which has to be done. At no time may he lose his temper, badger her, call her names, etc. He must constantly remember and confess that she is not the problem, he is. By bringing this gently to her attention, he is not to be primarily pointing to her need to repent; rather, he is exhibiting the fruit of his repentance.
He does this, without rancour and without an accusative spirit, until she complies or rebels. If she complies, he must move up one step, now requiring that another of her duties be done. If she rebels, he must call the elders of the church and ask them for a pastoral visit. When the government of the home has failed to such an extent, and a godly and consistent attempt by the husband to restore the situation has broken down, then the involvement of the elders is fully appropriate.
November 25, 2009 at 3:34 am
Ronald W. Kirk: http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0205/020509kirk.php
“The principle of feminine suffrage adopted by American Heritage Christian Church in Camarillo, California provides a possible solution. Seeking to establish a Biblical polity, the church in the mid-eighties found women’s suffrage properly to be mediate — that is, through men. As an elder-based, congregational, representative, and federal republic, each household cast a vote… It was incumbent upon the masculine head of every household to represent his wife’s rightful interest in the church. For women without husbands or fathers in the church, the elders voted mediately for them. In this view, like the husband of a wife, the elder must speak on behalf of the widow and single woman — truly representing their concerns. The elder must as right listen and take seriously the interests of the single woman.”
November 25, 2009 at 3:36 am
Ronald W. Kirk: http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=748
Judge Deborah assisted Barak, apparently receiving the glory of victory at men’s expense. I draw certain conclusions from such incidents and from the general ability of women, dare I say disposition, to fill spiritual vacuums left by men. While spiritual leadership for a woman is not the Biblical norm, women often rise to the call. We should assign any blame toward men who create such a vacuum of spiritual leadership.
November 25, 2009 at 3:38 am
Rev Brian Abshire: http://christian-civilization.org/articles/biblical-patriarchy-and-the-doctrine-of-federal-representation/
By the 20th century, American Christians saw the “height” of Christian activism as banning alcohol while at the same time affirming a woman’s right to vote. Both ideas were unmitigated disasters; God has not allowed the civil magistrate to outlaw wine and God never gives women the “right” to vote (cf. 1 Tim 2:11ff). But by ignoring God’s law, American Christians both destroyed their own credibility (the Prohibition era is STILL a matter of public ridicule and repealing prohibition set the legal precedence for pornography, sodomy and the acceptance of other moral failures) and the integrity of own families. In regards to a woman’s right to vote; if husband and wife are truly “one flesh” and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.
November 25, 2009 at 8:39 am
Jennie Chancey, co-author of the book “Passionate Housewives Desperate for God” and owner of the Ladies Against Feminism website, as written in an article for Vision Forum on December 10, 2003.
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/jennie_chancey_responds_to_tit.aspx
“What truly amazes me is that Rev. Sandlin can state so confidently that the Bible does not call a woman leaving her God-given, home-based occupation for work outside the home “sin.” While he quotes the first portion of the famous Titus 2 passage, he neglects to carry it through to the final kicker: “that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Tit. 2:5b). I don’t know about anyone else, but my dictionary still defines blasphemy as showing “contempt or disrespect for (God, a divine being, or sacred things), esp. in speech” and uttering “profanities, curses, or impious expressions.” The Greek word used here is blasphemeo, which is used elsewhere to refer to reviling the Holy Spirit. It is interesting to note that St. Paul uses the word in 1 Cor. 4:13 to refer to the way the world reviles Christians, calling them “the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things.” Are Christians to blaspheme or to encourage others to blaspheme God’s Word? St. Paul writes in Col. 3:8, “But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.” I think we can feel fairly confident, then, that blasphemy is sin, whether it is spoken verbally or lived before a watching world.
How does a woman blaspheme the Word of God? This isn’t something we can just brush aside or take lightly as a “cultural thing.” St. Paul evidently believed it would be obvious enough to his readers that he didn’t need to say, “Leaving the home and going out into the workforce is sin,” as Rev. Sandlin seems to think is necessary in order for us to avoid Phariseeism. But do we need such bald statements in order to understand St. Paul? Apparently, blaspheming God’s Word involves doing the opposite of what St. Paul has just exhorted women to do: be “reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things — that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands.” Going to the Greek again, the word for “homemaker” used here is oikouros, which literally means “guard or watcher of the house.” Thayer’s Lexicon renders the meaning “keeping at home and taking care of household affairs.” A woman cannot both “keep at home” (or “guard the house”) and “keep” in a separate workplace. She cannot both “obey her own husband” (emphasis mine) and obey another boss (even if it is one for whom her husband has asked her to work). “
November 25, 2009 at 8:43 am
“Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus,” Moore said. “That’s what our forefathers would have called feminism — and our foremothers, too.”
Russell D. Moore; the context makes it clear that Moore does not think the above is a good thing. http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22161
November 25, 2009 at 11:59 am
Brian M. Schwertley: http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/family.html
But (someone may ask), what should a husband do if his wife refuses to submit to his authority or refuses to repent? If a wife obstinately refuses to obey her husband’s authority and simply refuses to repent of sinful behavior (e.g., Sabbath desecration), then the husband must turn to the church for help. The husband must explain to his wife in a calm rational manner that her refusal to repent of sin will lead to the implementation of Matthew 18: 15-20. The husband needs to confront his wife a second time with a witness. The witness should be a mature believer who is wise and knowledgeable in the Scriptures. If the wife does not respond to godly counsel she must go before the session (the court of elders) to receive admonition. If repentance is not forthcoming, then such a women must be excommunicated. Then if she (the rebellious, unrepentant, excommunicated wife) departs, the husband is free to get a divorce and remarry a Christian woman. It is very important that husbands deal with difficult problems within the context of the local church. The steps of discipline in Matthew 18:15-20, when done in a competent Reformed church, will insure that the husband is being biblical in his dealings with his wife. It will lead either to repentance or biblical justice.
November 25, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Another quote on household voting, from Douglas Wilson: http://books.google.com/books?id=tZ4X-fsowFAC&pg=PT157&lpg=PT157#v=onepage&q=&f=false
When a male head of household casts a vote he does so as a representative. He should only do so having been clearly instructed that he is doing so as the representative of his entire household. In particular, when it comes to the point of voting, he should have heard, understood, and thought through any concerns his wife has expressed to him. [b]She already cast a very important vote when she married him, choosing him as her head and spokesman in the important issues of life.[/b]
November 25, 2009 at 6:23 pm
R. C. Sproul Jr.
http://www.highlandsministriesonline.org/rcclassic.cfm#Wives
46. We must sanctify our wives.
Paul is rather clear in the end of Ephesians chapter 5. He draws a striking parallel between Jesus and the church, and husbands and wives. He calls on husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church and gave Himself for her. And there we tend to stop. Jesus died for us, that we might have peace with God. A godly husband, then, is one who is ready and willing to lay down his life for his wife, if such an occasion should ever arise. A godly wife is one who submits to her own husband. A godly husband, or so we think, is one who is willing to take a hypothetical bullet for his bride. The trouble is, or the good news is, that neither the text, nor Jesus stops there. Jesus does not merely die for the church, but He washes her with the water of the Word, that she might be without spot or wrinkle. Jesus’ work of atonement ended on the cross. But He is far from finished. He is about the business of bringing all things under subjection, and is purifying His bride.
The dominion mandate, wherein we are about the same business of bringing all things under subjection, in turn includes the call to purify our brides. Of course we are but means. That is, it is the Holy Spirit from whence comes the power. It is the Word of God which washes. But husbands are the tools in the hands of God to bring this to pass. Our calling is to wash our brides with the water of the Word.
Our calling here is prophetic. The prophet brings to bear the Word of God to those under his care, calling on them to believe all that God has said. So husbands ought to do with their wives. When our wives face the temptation to grumble and complain, we call on them, as Paul does, to rejoice in all things. When our wives face the temptation to covet, we encourage them to give thanks for all that God has provided for them. The power is in the Word. It has the power to change us.
Our calling isn’t merely to have happy marriages. We are not brought together as husband and wife for the sake of self-fulfillment. Instead, the very center of the garden a man is called to cultivate is his own wife. His life’s work isn’t ultimately making better widgets. It is instead being used to help make better wives. Jesus works for the sake of His bride. Husbands ought to do no less. For anyone who loves himself will love his wife, for the two are one flesh.
A husband set on the sanctifying his wife will realize as well, that because we are one flesh with our wives, we had better be busy about our own sanctification. It is likely that the blots and blemishes on our brides are rather similar to the blots and blemishes on ourselves. In both instances, wash with the Word. And pray that God would be pleased to sanctify us, to make us both, husbands and wives, ever more like our Lord, like our Husband.
November 27, 2009 at 12:26 am
Miss Rebekah Ann S. http://byhisgraceandforhisglory.blogspot.com/2009/11/biblical-case-for-stay-at-home.html
“Let us now consider the role of helpmeet. This is by no means a responsibility that should be taken lightly. It cannot be fulfilled without much training, as each of us is born as a selfish human being who does not desire to truly serve, help, or strengthen others. Nor are we born knowing how to do so! These characteristics of a Biblical helpmeet must be learned and practiced. Therefore, would it not make much more Biblical sense for a young woman to remain at home with her parents, striving to help and serve them and learning to bend her will to theirs, rather than immersing herself in the college and career lifestyle, both of which provide little to no training for how to be a godly, visionary helpmeet? After all, a young woman’s unmarried years are great gifts. For one thing, they prepare her for her future life as a wife, mother, and homemaker. Why, then, do so many advocate a young woman leaving home and preparing for the roles, responsibilites and vocations given to men rather than those given to women? No college or career can prepare us for the offices of helpmeet, mother, homemaker, and submissive, dependent woman. Colleges may offer classes in home economics, but no courses are offered in Godly Motherhood 101, How to be a Helpmeet, or How to Submit to Your Husband. If God desires for women to be helpmeets to their husbands, then it goes without saying that this is something a young woman should plan and prepare for, and the best place to prepare for this role is in the context of the home and family-the sphere where a married woman and helpmeet will spend the majority of her time.
Likewise, as we saw last week and are going to discover in future articles, women are to be under the protection, provision and authority of men. We see that in Numbers 30 and other passages. This, then, would also lead us to say that the place designed for unmarried young women to thrive is the home, under the protection and authority of their fathers.”
November 27, 2009 at 12:28 am
Miss Rebekah Ann S.
http://byhisgraceandforhisglory.blogspot.com/2009/11/biblical-case-for-stay-at-home_20.html
“First, as you can see, a man is required by God to fulfill each and every vow and oath he has made, regardless of how unwise, detrimental, or rash it may have been. Our Savior in His abundant grace and mercy has provided a special blessing of protection and “a way out” for females, however. Women are, simply by nature, more gullible and rash (take the example of Eve, for instance), and so we sometimes find ourselves in uncomfortable and damaging situations due to our rash utterances, agreements, oaths and vows. The Lord is so gracious and forgiving, though! If a daughter or wife finds herself in an awkward or damaging situation due to some agreement or promise she has unwisely made, the Lord has so designed matters that her father or husband can reverse that vow-he is now responsible to the Lord for the oath or rash agreement, and the female involved is now mercifully released and forgiven, for her protector has overruled her-she is no longer required to fulfill that oath. The grace and mercy of the Lord shown forth in this beautiful passage amaze me! Women are more emotional beings, whereas men are more logical. This is how God has so designed us (these characteristics correspond perfectly with our roles!), and in so doing has provided women with a covering-a protection fashioned and ordained by the Almighty Himself! Why would any daughter want to be out from under the precious protection and authority that the Lord has lovingly placed over her and designed especially for her? “
December 1, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Paige Patterson
http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/clergy-abuse-links/abuse-in-the-church/paige-pattersons-views-on-domestic-violence/
“I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.” And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.” And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.” And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.” And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy.”
And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came. And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front. And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.” And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?” And he’s a great husband today. And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis. And remember, when nobody else can help, God can.
And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him. Obviously, if he’s doing that kind of thing he’s got some very deep spiritual problems in his life and you have to pray that God brings into the intersection of his life those people and those events that need to come into his life to arrest him and bring him to his knees.”
December 1, 2009 at 9:43 pm
“I don’t know that a bride’s first sexual experience *should* be velvet-gloved violence – but I know that it *is*.”
“The taking of a maidenhead is no gentle act. If you don’t see that, you understand nothing of men and women, the way of a man with a maid, of marriage, that wooing is costly and necessitates conquering or it is worthless. ”
Kamilla, Bayly supporter
December 3, 2009 at 9:24 am
John MacArthur http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/90-228.htm
Man was made to manifest God’s authority. Woman was made to manifest man’s authority. The woman is a vice-regent, if you will, who rules in the place of man, as it were, or carries out man’s will as man rules in the place of God and carries out God’s will. Man, in a sense, shines with the direct light of God, while woman shines with the derived light from man. She comes along to help man. Man is the image and glory of God. Woman is also the image of God, but she is the glory of man.
December 3, 2009 at 9:57 am
“The very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them;
and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged, or more commonly by becoming passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.”
(After the Fall, women desired to have their own way instead of obeying their husbands “because she’s a sinner”)
“What that means to the man, Ware said, is: “He will have to rule, and because he’s a sinner, this can happen in one of two ways. It can happen either through ruling that is abusive and oppressive–and of course we all know the horrors of that and the ugliness of that–but here’s the other way in which he can respond when his authority is threatened. He can acquiesce. He can become passive. He can give up any responsibility that he thought he had to the leader in the relationship and just say ‘OK dear,’ ‘Whatever you say dear,’ ‘Fine dear’ and become a passive husband, because of sin.””
Bruce Ware, Denton Bible Church, Sunday Morning Sermon, June 22, 2008
feed://feeds.feedburner.com/dbc_recent_sermons
December 3, 2009 at 10:06 am
“I believe the key lies in clarifying the question of responsibility. To whom has God given the children? If I become aware that other people’s children are under ungodly influence, should I intervene? When I have
opportunity, I should gently appeal to parents to train their children in godly ways. But the children are given, by God, as a responsibility to the parents. It would be wrong for me to directly intervene in their
responsibility.
But between a husband and wife, has God given them equal responsibility for directing the family? The scripture indicates “the husband is head
of the wife” (Eph. 5:23). Yet husband and wife are “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Pet. 3:7). Doesn’t this mean they have equal responsibility (and authority) over the children? Apparently not.
Why do the wife and children take on the husband’s name (Is. 4:1)? Scripture portrays the wife as being the “helper” of her husband (Gen.2:18, 20). He needs help fulfilling his calling so God provides a
helper. But it is his agenda, his calling from God, that shapes her calling. One of his highest callings is to build a spiritual dynasty, but he needs help in this. This appears to be one reason why God created
“woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:9). And thus “the heart of her husband safely trusts” a virtuous wife. “She does him good and not evil All the days of her life” (Prov. 31:10-12).
Furthermore, throughout scripture orphans are defined as “fatherless” children. Although God has designed families with two parents, and both are needed, apparently the primary parent is the father.
There are many implications of this, but in the case we’re considering, we can correctly resolve the dilemma by recognizing that God has given the children primarily to the father. The mother is his HELPER in
nurturing and training them, but she is not to over-rule him, even when he is wrong, any more than I am to interfere with my neighbor’s children. God does not intend for mothers to be buffer between a father
and his children. Rather, she is to be an extension of his authority.”
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoldChristianLiving/message/51
December 3, 2009 at 10:13 am
Michael Pearl http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/1999/september/01/abusive-husband/
If you or your children have been hit (other than the children being spanked) so as to leave discernable marks two hours later, and you genuinely fear that he will repeat his battering, you can take legal steps without divorcing your husband. In a moment when he is not angry, calmly inform him that the next time he physically assaults you or the kids, you are going to call the law and have him arrested. You must first resolve in your heart that you are willing to prosecute him and see him go to jail. I visit prisons every week. It is a great place to mull over the consequences of one’s deeds. And I have never met a prisoner that turned down a visit from anyone. Think about it, lady; it is a great time for writing love letters and sharing a three-minute romantic phone call once a week. Guys who get out of prison run straight home to their ladies and treat them wonderfully—for a while anyway.
…
But if your husband has sexually molested the children, you should approach him with it. If he is truly repentant (not just exposed) and is willing to seek counseling, you may feel comfortable giving him an opportunity to prove himself, as long as you know the children are safe. If there is any thought that they are not safe, or if he is not repentant and willing to seek help, then go to the law and have him arrested. Stick by him, but testify against him in court. Have him do about 10 to 20 years, and by the time he gets out, you will have raised the kids, and you can be waiting for him with open arms of forgiveness and restitution. Will this glorify God? Forever. You ask, “What if he doesn’t repent even then?” Then you will be rewarded in heaven equal to the martyrs, and God will have something to rub in the Devil’s face. God hates divorce—always, forever, regardless, without exception.
December 3, 2009 at 10:25 am
Well, I guess Michael Pearl thinks that he’s smarter than Jesus, St Paul, and the Holy Spirit who inspired St. Paul.
For 2000 years the position of the Church has been that in cases where a believer is married to an unbeliever or to an apostate (and you can’t get more apostate than an unrepentant child molestor), if the unbeliever leaves or commits certain other acts, such as adultery, the believing spouse is not bound to the marriage; and the Church has taught that even in the case of two believing spouses, when one spouse endangers the other or their children, separation (but not divorce) is the prefered course of action.
But then, Pearl in his arrogance probably considers Catholics, Lutherans, and any other historic denomination to be part of “The Great Babylon”, or some such ignorant rot.
What can you expect from a man who tells people to forgo the marriage license and the church wedding, in favor of a common law marriage blessed by one of the couple’s unordained FATHERS out in the backyard?
December 3, 2009 at 10:32 am
Bruce Ware commenting on Genesis 1:26, writes:
“There is an intentionality expressed in these words indicating that man, more fully than any other part of creation, will reflect and represent what God is like. Although the heavens declare God’s glory (Psalm 19:1), only man is made in God’s image” (132).
He sums up his point nicely saying, “It is God-like to submit to rightful authority with joy and gladness as it is God-like to exert wise and beneficial rightful authority.” The next two posts will draw out more implications of the Trinity debate on gender issues for marriage, the family, and the Church.”
http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Debating-the-Trinity-Part-I
December 3, 2009 at 10:36 am
“”Man is the image of God directly, woman is the image of God only through the man… Because man was created by God in His image first, man alone was created in a direct and unmediated fashion as the image of God, manifesting then the glory of God in man, that is male man… If male headship is rooted in the image of God itself, then it isn’t just a functional distinction of how we work out. It really does mean we are made in a different way.It may be best to understand the original creation of male and female as one in which the male was made in the image of God in a direct, unmediated and unilateral fashion, while the female was made image of God through the man and hence in a indirect, mediated and derivative fashion. So while they are both fully image of God, there is also a God intended priority given to the man as the original image of God through whom the woman, as image of God, derived from the male comes to be… Identity is rooted in priority given to the male… Her identity as female is inextricably tied to and rooted in the identity of the male… Her created glory is a reflection of the man’s… has her glory through the man. Seth is the image of God because he was born through the fatherhood of Adam. Specifically Adam is mentioned and not Eve. As Seth is born in the likeness and image of Adam, so is he born in the likeness and image of God. Male headship is a part of the very constitution of woman.””
http://www.cbmw.org/Conferences/Building-Strong-Families-in-Your-Church/Male-and-Female-in-the-Image-of-God
December 3, 2009 at 10:46 am
“Let me move from the foundational principle to the practical
application. I frequently have people ask me if my wife homeschools my
children. I understand their question, and recognize they don’t mean
this in any negative way, but this question irks me. My response is,
“No, my wife doesn’t homeschool my children. I do.” The questioner
immediately then assumes that I sit down at the table for hours each day
and conduct lessons. Part of this is due to an almost universal
assumption that the only way to educate students is through artificial
curriculum rather than the more scriptural “discipleship” approach. (For
more on that, you can order my Tape #501 “Homeschooling vs.
Discipleship.”)
But the deeper confusion results from a failure to understand the role
of a helper. I’m not my wife’s helper with her children. She is my
helper with my children. I desperately need help, and am incredibly
grateful for a wonderful helper. But I can’t delegate the responsibility
God has given to me and just forget about it. My wife may carry out more
of the actual parenting tasks than I do, but I am still the one who sets
the direction and pace.
Please understand that I don’t say this to be arrogant or tyrannical.
Like most men, I would love to let my wife bear the parenting burden
while I focus on things with more immediate gratification. But I am, by
God’s design, the leader. My family orbits around me. I don’t orbit
around my family or my wife. I am the center of the home. My agenda and
schedule dominate our lifestyle, not my wife’s nor my children’s. My
wife is not the anchor of our home–I am!”
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoldChristianLiving/message/23
December 3, 2009 at 10:57 am
“I encourage you to allow the Lord to give you grace to see yourself as
your husband’s “helper” rather than his partner. God has given Him a
calling (even if He doesn’t recognize it), and your role is to help Him
fulfill it. Ultimately you are serving the Lord rather than either your
husband or your children. But the way you serve Him is by fulfilling His
calling to aim this service toward your husband first, and then toward
your children.
The next conclusion I must draw from this is very difficult to write,
and probably much more difficult for you to read. But God wants you to
release your children to Him. He is a much better protector of your
children than you could ever be. Please understand that I believe
parents are required by God to protect their children from ungodly
influences. But this is primarily your husband’s role. Yours is a
supportive role in the process, acting as your husband’s “helper.”
Thus, I encourage you to recognize the children that came from your own
body as God’s gift to your husband. They are HIS heritage (Ps. 127:3-5),
and you are HIS helper in caring for these treasures HE is ultimately
responsible for. God goes so far as to say (1 Cor. 11:9), “Nor was man
created for the woman, but woman for the man.” You were created for your
husband’s sake. While children clearly are God’s gift to both parents,
the husband is the one God will primarily hold accountable for them, and
you are simply his helper.
In scripture motherless children were not considered orphans as long as
their father was living. However, fatherless children were classified as
orphans even if their mother was still alive. The primary parent is the
father. You must not contradict your husband’s agenda for the training
of his children any more than you would interfere with your neighbor’s
relationship with his children.
This is particularly hard when you must watch your husband verbally
abusing the children you’ve invested your heart and body into. But if
you show honor, and teach your children to honor, toward your husband,
you “heap coals of fire on his head” (Rom. 12:20). In so doing, you open
a wide door for the Holy Spirit to bring conviction and repentance into
your husband’s life.”
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoldChristianLiving/message/85
December 3, 2009 at 11:33 am
Should Women Play Sports?
by Scott Jonas
“I have read many great articles by Christian men and women regarding the participation of women in the workforce, politics, and in the military. These are activities that most women didn’t participate in until fifty years ago. However, I feel there is one other major activity these writers have not addressed. For some reason, they’ve overlooked women’s participation in sports.
For quite a long time, women resisted the feminist call to play sports, since they just weren’t interested like men were. But this didn’t sit well with the feminists; they felt this was the fault of male oppression. In the name of “equality,” feminist leaders poked and prodded and pushed women to join the games, until women in droves finally succumbed to the pressure. I think this should give us strong reason to pause and consider the question, “Should women participate in sports?”
Over the years I’ve noticed that Christian parents, as much as any parents, encourage their daughters to participate in sports. This is all the rage in our public schools, especially since the passage of Title IX by the feminists. Since most Christian parents send their children to the public schools, it doesn’t surprise many of us that Christians are influenced more by the secular school culture than by the culture of the Church. Worse, the Church itself is being more heavily influenced by the culture instead of the other way around. One of the trends in schools is the participation in sports by women; therefore it shouldn’t surprise us that so many Christian daughters today participate in sports. But is this really all that bad?
For those of us who believe we should train our daughters according to Titus 2, 1 Peter 3, and other Biblical passages, my answer is “Yes, it is not good.” I propose that sports greatly hinders the development of godly, Biblical, feminine character. Parents today expend extraordinary amounts of time and energy taking their daughters from one sports event to another, week after week, even to the point where it exhausts the family and family resources. The fruits we see are that today’s Christian women are often ill-prepared to be Biblically obedient wives and mothers. This brings to mind a couple of questions: “Why do we spend so much time preparing our daughters to play sports?” and “What does it prepare them for in the future?” My answer is that sports prepare women to be more like men. Instead of spending all that time preparing our daughters as the Bible directs, we are training them to be like men so they can better compete with men in traditionally masculine roles – i.e., compete with them in the workforce, in politics, in the military, and in sports.
Actually, I don’t have a problem with women playing recreational sports on an occasional basis, just with them playing competitive sports on a regular day-to-day basis. This rigorous physical and mental training tends to make women more masculine. I think it is prudent to often ask ourselves “Can a woman do this activity and retain a Biblically feminine character?” With sports I think it will be difficult in most cases. Even some of the traditionally more feminine sports like gymnastics and ice skating are now influencing women to be more masculine.
The Bible talks about women developing a quiet and gentle spirit; I think sports fosters anything but that. They instead develop a competitive and contentious spirit that will cause them to have great difficulty in their marriages. I already mentioned that the effort expended on sports will hinder the development of wifely duties around the home; even worse is when a man has to compete against his own wife in the workplace and community.”
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/Hot_Button_Issues_21/Should_Women_Play_Sports_15741001574.shtml
December 3, 2009 at 11:52 am
“When a woman gets old and realizes that there is no man to love and cherish her, it is sad indeed, for she has failed in the very purpose for which she was created.”
Debi Pearl from “Created to Be His Helpmeet” page 58.
December 3, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“Fertility: it is evangelism.”
Kelli Crawford, Generation Cedar
http://www.generationcedar.com/main/2009/04/fertility-it-is-evangelism.html
December 3, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Do you guys realize that there are about 20,000 comments on this blog?
I have been working my way back through them and have read through nearly 12,000!
December 3, 2009 at 4:43 pm
From mom of 9s place:
Let’s put it this way, woman comes to an incomplete man, completes him, and then reaps the benefits. That’s her job-to be the aggressor, to complete man so he can lead her, but he needs woman to start him! How do we do this? Take interest in his job…not just the paycheck..learn ask questions…let him know how important you feel whatever he does is. Does he like sports? Whatever he enjoys act interested. Be supportive. If he catches a 6-inch fish, say “wow that is a whale. hehe
Of course there isn’t a “women’s libber alive that sees any truth in what I’m trying to say here. Do you know what these women’s libbers are? They are a group of confused women trying to find happiness and failing because they are searching outside of God’s Word and God’s plan. They say, “I have my rights too”. No they don’t-not yet! A woman does not have any right in this world until she’s done this. Check it in the Bible; Always in the Bible she is to be the follower;
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Then in verse 25;
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Who’s supposed to start it? The wives! In Ephesians 6:1 we find,
Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. and then in verse 4, Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
What does that mean? God gives the command first to the follower. He says, “I want the wife to do her job first”. That means He wants the child to obey the first. That means He wants the child to obey even if the dad is never the right kind of dad. To obey regardless! Now lets look at another example from the Word of God,
Eph 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
and then in verse 9 the masters are exhorted to be good masters. God always puts on the follower the burden of having the initiative and the being aggressive. Wives, you do it first. Children, you do it first. Servants you do it first.
He wasn’t made to help you in the home, but if he does that is an added blessing, but it is not part of God’s plan. You were made for him not the other way around. Man’s main business is outside the home, woman’s in. It’s our domain, our castle. So he doesn’t clean, give you the attention that you crave, well the Bible doesn’t say he’s supposed to do that. You be what you ought to be so you can make your man to be what he ought to be to you.
At this point right here I would love to address how we should raise our daughters…but that is for another page (smiles). Let me just say here that we should be setting an example that says to our girls…I am in the will of God…show them how to spoil their dad, so one day it will come natural to be the help meet that God intends them to be.
http://www.momof9splace.com/purpose.html
December 3, 2009 at 4:56 pm
More Mom of 9’s wisdom:
The Lord chose to compare a family with the Trinity. In so doing, He called the head of the family, the man, after His own name, Father. Then He likened the children in the family to His own Son. The second named person in the trinity. So, we have in the family a person who represents God the Father, and we have a person who represents God the Son. By process of elimination, we come to realize who represents the Holy Spirit in the family. There is only one person left, and that’s the lady. That means that you-the woman, wife, mother—represent the Holy Spirit. If you would like to find your duties in life, just find in the Bible what the Holy Spirit is supposed to do. He comforts; so does Mother. He teaches; so does Mother. He instructs; so does Mother. He leads; so does Mother. Think of all the ministries the Holy Spirit has in the world. He’s the unseen One; so is Mother. He is the one who gives the others attention; so does Mother. If you want to know what your duties are in the family, all you have to do is find out the duties of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, for you are the Holy Spirit of the home.
http://www.momof9splace.com/women.html
December 3, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I just had to unlurk on this one.
“When a woman gets old and realizes that there is no man to love and cherish her, it is sad indeed, for she has failed in the very purpose for which she was created.”
Debi Pearl from “Created to Be His Helpmeet” page 58.
(bossy mommy hand on hips) Well I would answer:
He that has begun a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus ..
More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of Knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ..
…guess Debi thinks she knows better than God. I truly had to read this several times because I thought I surely was mistaken. OK I feel better now, please return to your previously scheduled program.;)
December 4, 2009 at 9:56 am
” Only a rebellious woman, who deliberately disobeys the Word of God, would wear pants. It is clear from these unsaved singers why women should not wear pants. Pants on women are adulterous in nature, and cause men to lust and sin. Jesus made this clear in Matthew 5:28, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Women who wear pants deliberately cause men to lust, and commit the sin of adultery. It is this spirit of fornication which has caused tens-of-millions of unwanted pregnancies in the United States, and 48,000,000 abortions in America. Rock-n-Roll, Big Band, and the roaring 20’s are much to blame. Along with these swingy types of music came dancing, one of the biggest sins of all. Billy Sunday was right to preach against dancing, and by the way… ALL dancing is dirty dancing unless it’s between a husband and wife in the privacy of their home.
The average person today scoffs at the idea that Rock-n-Roll, Satanism, and immoral sex go hand-in-hand, but they certainly do. When Rock-n-Roll came to America, so did pants on women become mainstream. Naturally, feminism, witchcraft, abortion, and homosexuality came as well. Rock-n-Roll is straight from the pits of Hell. ALL rock-n-roll women wear pants”
David J. Stewart
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Womens%20Page/pants.htm
December 4, 2009 at 12:36 pm
“Several things are worthy of note: First, a baby is not a willful aggressor. This ends the debate on justifiable homicide. A baby neither intends the harm, nor acts aggressively against its mother. (In fact, if “blame” is to be passed, it should rest on the mother, not the baby, since it was the mother’s body which produced the circumstances in which the baby has found himself.) The Bible makes no provision for executing an innocent party (one which lacks intent to harm) in order to help another.
Second, while the unborn baby in the case of an ectopic pregnancy may pose a threat which could materialize into a harm to the mother, the threat is not imminent in the classic sense, nor is it conclusive that the baby’s presence necessarily will cause harm. All that is known is that it might cause harm. Consequently, the murder of the baby takes place in anticipation of a statistical possibility. Here again, the biblical requirements for justifiable homicide are not met.”
Doug Phillips
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2003/09/
December 4, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“Scripture does give three valid bases for taking the life of another, none of which can even remotely be construed as a justification for “abortion for the life of the mother.” Man may take another’s life in the case of just warfare; man may take another’s life when acting on behalf of the civil magistrate to execute a person guilty of a capital crime; or man may take another’s life as an act of self-defense, or in defense of others where there is a significant and immediate threat to life best remedied with a lethal response.
To conclude, mothers should never kill their babies. There are no exceptions. The Bible condemns abortion and offers no exceptions to this rule. Abortion is not even biblically permissible in so-called “life of the mother” cases. As with all ethical decisions, our approach to the question of “abortion for the life of the mother” must be dictated by Scripture alone. We are not to look to situation ethics, the advice of the medical community, personal opinion, or even “common sense” to help us make life-and-death decisions concerning our unborn children. Nor may a Christian look to their emotions, to human traditions, to majority consensus, to their personal experience, or to a private revelation from God as the basis for their decision-making. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof and for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly equipped unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This is the only source of wisdom for our ethical decisions.”
Doug Phillips
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/why_the_life_of_the_mother_is.aspx
December 4, 2009 at 12:42 pm
“WHEREAS those theories which justify the killing of the unborn child on the basis of the circumstances of conception (as in the case of rape and incest), or even the life of the mother (ectopic pregnancies) are completely false because they are based on unbiblical and humanistic ethics, unbiblical definitions of “self defense” theory, and a rejection of the personhood of the child; and”
Doug Phillips
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/a_declaration_of_life.aspx
December 4, 2009 at 12:58 pm
“The priests and priestesses of the 21st century would have us believe that the most sacred of our cultural holy cows come from the temples of feminism.
One such sacred cow is the notion that truly enlightened, responsible Christian parents should mortgage their homes to send their daughters to the carnival culture of college, to live for four years in co-ed dormitories, and under the tutelage of Babylonian high priests called professors, so that these blood-bought daughters can aspire to become the next generation of independent working women of the world. Another sacred cow is the notion that people either believe in sending daughters to college or they are small-minded, anti-education, woman-dominating bigots.
Incredibly, these mad-cow disease-infected sacred bovines of modern feminism have left the dung fields of their secular temple culture and have migrated in herds to the living rooms of our Christian community. There they dwell—mooing, snorting, and wreaking havoc on the peace of the Body of Christ. ”
Doug Phillips
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2007/09/
December 4, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“It is obvious at this point that we are on the brink of contradiction—suggesting that a woman may hold a position of leadership and fulfill it in a way that signals to men her endorsement of their sense of responsibility to lead. But the complexities of life require of us this risk. To illustrate: it is simply impossible that from time to time a woman not be put in a position of influencing or guiding men. For example, a housewife in her backyard may be asked by a man how to get to the freeway. At that point she is giving a kind of leadership. She has superior knowledge that the man needs and he submits himself to her guidance. But we all know that there is a way for that housewife to direct the man that neither of them feels their mature femininity or masculinity compromised. It is not a contradiction to speak of certain kinds of influence coming from women to men in ways that affirm the responsibility of men to provide a pattern of strength and initiative.”
John Piper, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, pp. 50-51
December 4, 2009 at 3:31 pm
A woman’s submission to her husband is rooted in the word of God, calling her to be—for the Lord’s sake, for the Lord’s sake—submissive to him. Which means she always has a higher allegiance, namely to Christ.
Therefore Christ’s word governs her life. And Christ has many words besides “Be submissive.” “Be submissive” is not an absolute, because her Lord has other things to tell her, so that if the husband tells her something that contradicts what the Lord tells her, then she’s got a crisis of, “To whom do I submit now?” And clearly she submits to Jesus above her husband. The reason she is submitting to her husband is because of her prior superior submission to the Lord.
So if this man, for example, is calling her to engage in abusive acts willingly (group sex or something really weird, bizarre, harmful, that clearly would be sin), then the way she submits—I really think this is possible, though it’s kind of paradoxical—is that she’s not going to go there. I’m saying, “No, she’s not going to do what Jesus would disapprove even though the husband is asking her to do it.”
She’s going to say, however, something like, “Honey, I want so much to follow you as my leader. God calls me to do that, and I would love to do that. It would be sweet to me if I could enjoy your leadership. But if you ask me to do this, require this of me, then I can’t go there.”
Now that’s one kind of situation. Just a word on the other kind. If it’s not requiring her to sin but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, and she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church.
Every time I deal with somebody in this, I find the ultimate solution under God in the church. In other words, this man should be disciplined, and she should have a safe place in a body of Christ where she goes and then the people in the church deal with him. She can’t deal with him by herself.
So the short answer, I think, is that the church is really crucial here to step in, be her strength, say to this man, “You can’t do this. You cannot do this! That’s not what we allow. That’s not what Christ calls you to be.”
I can’t go in to all the details, but I would say to the woman, “Come to a church that you feel safe in. Tell them the case. Let the leaders step in and help you navigate the difficulties.”
http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-pipers-ignorance-is-killing.html
December 5, 2009 at 1:21 pm
The meaning of masculinity:
“AT THE HEART OF MATURE MASCULINITY IS A SENSE OF BENEVOLENT RESPONSIBILITY TO LEAD, PROVIDE FOR AND PROTECT WOMEN IN WAYS APPROPRIATE TO A MAN’S DIFFERING RELATIONSHIPS”
John Piper, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, p. 36
The meaning of femininity:
“AT THE HEART OF MATURE FEMINITY IS A FREEING DISPOSITION TO AFFIRM, RECEIVE AND NURTURE STRENGTH AND LEADERSHIP FROM WORTHY MEN IN WAYS APPROPRIATE TO A WOMAN’S DIFFERING RELATIONSHIPS).”
John Piper, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, p. 46
[Printed just like this, in all capital letters, in the book.]
December 5, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“So the question should be put: what kind of influence would be inappropriate for mature women to exercise toward men? It would be hopeless to try to define this on a case-by-case basis. There are thousands of different jobs in the church and in the world with an innumerable variety of relationships between men and women. More appropriate than a black-and-white list of “man’s work” and “woman’s work” is a set of criteria to help a woman think through whether the responsibilities of any given job allow her to uphold God’s created order of mature masculinity and femininity.
John Piper, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, p. 51
December 6, 2009 at 9:45 pm
“So, was Eve Adam’s equal? Yes and no. She was his spiritual equal and, unlike the animals, “suitable for him.” But she was not his equal in that she was his “helper.” God did not create man and woman in an undifferentiated way, and their mere maleness and femaleness identify their respective roles. A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God.”
Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr.; Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood; p. 102
December 7, 2009 at 8:55 am
“Yet consider now, whether women are not quite past sense and reason, when they want to rule over men. In a word, it is madness. For, were men made for women? It is true that today men are as channels through which God causes His grace to stream down upon women. For, from whence does labor come? From where do all the most excellent things and highly esteemed things come? To be sure, it all comes from the men’s side. So God is well pleased for men to serve the good of women, as experience shows. Yet St. Paul has an eye here to the beginning of the creation, where it was said that it was not good for the man to be alone, and that he needed someone at hand who would always be ready to help. Since God was thinking of the man, it certainly follows that the woman is only an accessory. And why? Because she was only created for the sake of man, and she must therefore direct her whole life toward him. She must confess, “I am not supposed to be without direction here, not knowing my purpose and station. Rather, I am obliged by God, if I am married, to serve my husband, and render him honor and reverence. And, if I am not married, I am bound to walk in all soberness and modesty, cognizant that men have the higher rank, and that they must rule, and that the woman who disregards this forgets the law of nature and perverts what should be observed as God commands. This then the place to which St. Paul brings back women.”
Men, Women, and Order in the Church: Three Sermons by John Calvin [Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1992], pp. 3536
December 7, 2009 at 10:02 am
Don’ts for the Feminine Manner:
1. Don’t use your hands in a stiff, bursque, efficient, firm, or strong manner.
2. Don’t walk with a heavy gait or long strides.
3. Avoid the following qualities in the voice: loudness, firmness,efficiency, boldness, dullness,mumbling, monotonous, singsong.
4. Don’t laugh loudly or in vulgar manner.
5. Don’t use facial expressions that suggest anger,coldness,bitterness,resentment, disgust, or stubbornness.
6. Don’t indulge in conversation that is harsh, bitter, critical, impatient,crude, vulgar, or unrefined.
7. Don’t pick your nose, scratch yourself or blow your nose in public. (Wiping your nose is ok.
8. Don[‘t stroke your husband’s back in public, caress his hair, or fondle him.
9. Don’t slap anyone on the back.
10. Don’t talk loud,whistle, or yell.
11. Don’t roar at jokes.
12. Don’t gulp food or eat noisily.
13. Don’t drink by throwing your head back.
14. Don’t sit with legs apart or one leg across the other.
How to Acquire a Feminine Manner
1. Hands
2. Walk
3. Voice
4. Laugh
5. Cooing and purring
6. Bewitching Languor
7. Facial expressions
8. Conversation
9. Refinement
Helen Andelin in Fascinating Womanhood, pgs. 267-268.
December 7, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“Put plainly, piercing is normally an act appropriate only for women and, in some cases, male slaves.
Delicacy is difficult here- and I want to avoid a charge of misogyny- but the fact is that woman, by her from-the-creation role in the marriage act, is a piercee. Within marriage, of course, no stigma at all attaches to this, but outside of marriage, Scripture often refers to it as a humbling (Dt. 21:14; 22:24; 22:29). (In this regard, too, childbirth is woman’s triumphant vindication- consider this when exegeting 1 Timothy 2:15.)
Obviously, piercing for a woman need not involve sodomy or lowering. She was made a woman, for man, a fact to which her body itself testifies.
Man, however, was not made a woman nor was he made to abide piercing. It is still a universal that he is not expected to. The 1997 attack on a Brooklyn prisoner provides a tragic case in point. The Associated Press reported: One of the police officers charged with torturing a man by sodomizing him with a stick bragged about the attack, saying he had to break a man who took a swing at him. Officer Justin Volpe also told fellow officers I had to bring a man down tonight.
Piercing may or may not bring a woman down, depending on many factors. But piercing always brings a man down. That piercing bespeaks a relational subordination is implicitly recognized even in our American culture, yet often below the surface. To the astute it appears dramatically when considering the vocabulary of popular curses (as in humiliating phrases, not maledictions). The most common two-word curse in English, the one we want our children never to use, is simply a wish for someone to be humiliated through being pierced. To be pierced, for a man, is necessarily to be lowered.
For in the view of Scripture, piercing is a token of being under the dominion of another. (Even the unique piercing of Christ was a testimony of His total submission to the Father: Isaiah 53:5,10; Philippians 2:8; see also Psalm 40:6-8.) Since woman was created to be under the loving headship of her husband, piercing can be seen as consistent with that calling. Hebrew men, however, were called to be directly under the authority of God (see 1 Cor. 11:3).”
Steve Schlissel
http://www.messiahnyc.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?id=247
December 8, 2009 at 12:23 pm
28. Do you think that women are more gullible than men?
First Timothy 2:14 says, “Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” Paul gives this as one of the reasons why he does not permit women “to teach or have authority over a man.” Historically this has usually been taken to mean that women are more gullible or deceivable than men and therefore less fit for the doctrinal oversight of the church. This may be true (see question 29). However, we are attracted to another understanding of Paul’s argument.
We think that Satan’s main target was not Eve’s peculiar gullibility (if she had one), but rather Adam’s headship as the one ordained by God to be responsible for the life of the garden. Satan’s subtlety is that he knew the created order God had ordained for the good of the family, and he deliberately defied it by ignoring the man and taking up his dealings with the woman. Satan put her in the position of spokesman, leader, and defender. At that moment both the man and the woman slipped from their innocence and let themselves be drawn into a pattern of relating that to this day has proved destructive.
If this is the proper understanding, then what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:14 was this: “Adam was not deceived (that is, Adam was not approached by the deceiver and did not carry on direct dealings with the deceiver), but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (that is, she was the one who took up dealings with the deceiver and was led through her direct interaction with him into deception and transgression).”
In this case, the main point is not that the man is undeceivable or that the woman is more deceivable; the point is that when God’s order of leadership is repudiated it brings damage and ruin. Man and women are both more vulnerable to error and sin when they forsake the order that God has intended.
John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, pp. 72 and 73
December 10, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“And does it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will NOT use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother?”
Brian Abshire
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/biblical_patriarchy_and_the_do.aspx
January 19, 2010 at 10:26 am
“It’s a son’s task in life to spread the fame and the glory of his father in the same way that the Lord Jesus Christ spread the fame and the glory of His Father in heaven.”
Scott Brown, director of National Center for Family Integrated Churches
ttp://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2005/10/1294.aspx
January 26, 2010 at 8:51 am
Gabriel Anast, Rebekah Pearl’s husband.
from your context it is implied that she no longer can give “duty of marriage”… maybe because of an accident, maybe some other disability. In this case, a husband must (as I understand it) continue to care for her till he dies. To avoid fornication, he may also take another. On the other hand, if she simply refuses… it is defrauding, and should be handled as such… see I Cor 6, Luke 17, Matt 18, etc
And what if a man be impotent, and arguably defrauding his wife? (There are some that contend that this condition is not physicochemical, but mental.) Remembering that charity suffers long and is kind, how long should she wait to file?
Until need so require. It is not complicated here. Under the law, he had to give her duty of marriage. If he cannot, then she is free to go find another man. It is as simple as that.
This does not mean that she must leave… some women would be happy to stay with an impotent man because he is a good provider, and cares for her. She may stay. But if she needs sex… it is her right to leave.
Nevertheless, if a woman is defrauding, let it be defrauding. Let her be put away and let him marry another. There is no need to take by force that which another will give willingly.
From this thread:http://wwwDOT7xsunday.net/forum/index.php/topic,25482.0.html
January 26, 2010 at 9:03 am
Gabriel Anast answering a question:
Question: no i am married but living with another man
Answer by GA As I see it you are now the second man’s wife. This means that you cannot go back to the first man… indeed that this would be “abomination” as God sees it:
Deu 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that [is] abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.
Question: Her husband committed adultery & then she left him.
Answer GA: First, it is not established that he was with a woman that was currently married to another man. I know that the modern definition of adultery is fairly indefinite, but in the Bible it seems to me to be quite descriptive specific: it is a man having a relationship with a woman who is married to another man.
The above links describe in some detail my understanding of Biblical adultery. So, he may not have been in adultery.
But, for argument’s sake, let’s say he was. If he were a believer in a functional body, he would be put out of the congregation until he repented. This would not obviate the marriage as long as he repented from the adultery. If he did not, obviously it would be seen as him putting his wife away for another. In OT Israel he would just have been stoned to death (he and the adulteress both).
On the other hand, if the second woman was not married… and he was a believer and not an elder and not a deacon… well. You know my thoughts on that.
From the thread: http://wwwDOT7xsunday.net/forum/index.php/topic,24812.0.html
January 26, 2010 at 10:27 am
From http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/men_and_women_and_the_creation_1.aspx
(2). Woman is created after the man and from the man. The fact that the woman was not created at the same time as the man and is created in a completely different manner is one of the most striking elements in the entire creation account. There is a definite reason for this difference, and it is recorded in the Word of God for our instruction. It indicates a difference between the roles and responsibilities of men and women by God’s design. A man does not occupy the position of a woman, and a woman does not occupy the place of a man in the creation order. At the fundamental point of their origin, man and woman are clearly distinguished — and the issue is not merely biological reproduction, but essential nature, position, and function.
It is significant that the woman is not created directly from the ground like Adam. Instead, the biblical text states that she is made from one of Adam’s ribs. This indicates that she derived her physical being from the man. Furthermore, the biblical text does not say, as it did concerning the man, that God breathed into her nostrils the breath of life. The import of this difference is not explained in the text, but it may show that she also derived the immaterial aspect of her life from the man. If this be the case, then it means that she received both her body and soul from man by divine design and through God’s creative power (i.e., the principle of life being first implanted in man by God and now extended to the woman through the man by God’s power).[1] The woman’s origin is, literally, from the man.
Why did God create the woman from the man? By so doing, He established the complete unity of the human race through common descent from Adam. Adam is the father of us all. In a unique way, even Eve comes from Adam. Therefore, Adam is able to serve as the federal head of all mankind, including the first woman (Rom. 5:12). In addition, the creation of the woman from the man establishes the proper relationship between man and woman. It indicates the positional priority of the man over the woman, and the essential dependence of the woman on the man.
February 2, 2010 at 9:45 am
“I believe one of the greatest crutches in the church is the nursery. Parents who have neglected to train their children have very little encouragement to do so when there is a place to hide them. The father who should be up in arms by the time he gets home from church because of the embarrassment to which his child subjected him ends up going home with a clear conscience while the nursery worker takes a handful of aspirin.” -Voddie Baucham
as quoted by Kelly Crawford on Generation Cedar: http://www.generationcedar.com/main/2010/02/childrens-nursery-at-church.html
May 28, 2010 at 6:25 pm
“If you marry the wrong man, you’ll have to put your kids in daycare one day. Do you realize as soon as you get married, you are saying, “I am ready to have a child because I will probably get pregnant on my honeymoon.”…If you marry the right guy, you can do your dreams AND take care of your children. But if you marry the wrong guy, you’ll have to put your kids in daycare.”
Preached by Heath Stoner to students at Teen Mania’s Honor Academy
As quoted on http://www.recoveringalumni.com/2010/03/worst-marriage-advice-ever.html (there’s even more!)