Wayne Grudem Destroys ‘Mutual Submission’

2 Replies

For some reason I never got around to posting any quotes from Wayne Grudem’s book “Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood”. It’s not the same book that he co-authored with John Piper called “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”. Chapter 7 is titled “The Myth of Mutual Submission as an Interpretation of Ephesians 5:21,” and the whole chapter is a must-read. I will post the best of the best here, but really, it’s best to read through the entire thing. (You can download the entire book in PDF format for free straight from the Desiring God website here.)

Continue reading →

The Subtle and Deliberate Deception of Christian Feminists

1 Reply

It’s been a while, hasn’t it? Figured I’d go ahead and respond to a twisting of 1 Corinthians 7 by the totally-not-complementarian/Christian-feminist Michael Foster.

Archive link: https://tinyurl.com/2wa968m8

Since this is a lengthier tweet, here’s a screenshot of the entire thing.

If there’s one thing Christians are really good at, it’s missing the point about 1 Corinthians 7:1-5. For as crystal clear as it is, there’s just something about our brains that compels us to make it look like it’s saying something else. In this case, however, it’s deliberate and purposeful. Foster says,

Men and women both have these desires. However, this desire is met in similar AND distinct ways. Listen to v. 3 again, “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights (or due affection), and likewise the wife to her husband.” In other words, we should met each other’s particular needs.

That’s not what the verse says, not in other words or in what is actually written. 1 Corinthians 7:3 does not say husbands and wives should meet each other’s “particular needs”. That’s certainly true, but that’s not a synonym for what this verse actually says.

I Corinthians 7:3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.

    The theme of 1 Cor. 7:1-5 is that men and women both have sexual needs and that both husbands and wives should meet each other’s needs. True enough. However, this verse is very specific. It’s stating explicitly that marital sex is a right. It’s something each spouse is entitled to get from the other. The next two verses prove that’s the point being made.

    I Cor. 7:4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    The point being emphasized is that sexual intercourse is not something you’re entitled to withhold, but something your spouse deserves by virtue of being married to you. The verses is translated to say “rights” because the rights of a husband or wife is the subject being discussed.

    So what was the point in twisting the meaning of verse 3 in the first place though?

    …frequent sexual intimacy is promised in the taking of marital vows. Now, conventional thinking says that this is a male issue. That it is men who complain about be deprived of sexual intimacy. That’s simply not true. Women feel deprived as well. This is something the sexes share in common. The issue is that we have a truncated and reduced understanding of sexual intimacy.

    And there it is. Foster wanted to respond to the common complaint that Christian wives frequently deprive their husbands of sexual intimacy. How did he respond? By denying that that’s even happening. Don’t you see- both husbands AND wives are depriving each other! But that’s obviously false. It’s so obvious that even Foster had to try and swap the reality of being deprived of sexual intimacy, and feeling deprived of sexual intimacy. Those aren’t the same thing. The fact he had to say women “feel” deprived instead of simply saying they ARE deprived is a dead giveaway that he’s playing fast and loose with the facts of the matter.

    If we’re talking about sexual intercourse specifically, then wives aren’t being deprived. They’re the ones refusing to have sex with their husbands, not vice versa. Saying “sexual intimacy” is obviously a deliberate maneuver to try and discuss marital sexual problems in a broad manner that isn’t restricted to intercourse itself. That way he can say both parties are deprived, just in different ways. But that’s not what’s being taught in 1 Corinthians 7. If a Christian simply sticks to what is written and not try to slip in broad categories like Foster did (I.E., by saying “in other words”), then this overall point could not be made.

    Had Foster said this,

    Now, conventional thinking says that this is a male issue. That it is men who complain about be(ing) deprived of sexual intimacy intercourse.

    Then he would have had to say that’s true, and 1 Corinthians 7:3 explicitly condemns the wives who are guilty of disobeying this command. But he just can’t do that because his goal was to take a feminist problem in the church and deny its existence. The deception required his twisting of the text and the deliberate conflation of being deprived of intercourse and feeling deprived of something more abstract. In the end, it’s lies all-around. More elaborate, more subtle lies, but still lies.

    As I’ve said in other contexts, being clear and direct is what complementarians strive to never be. This is a prime example of that very phenomenon, and yet another reason you need to watch your back around these guys. They say they aren’t complementarians, but like complementarians, they are ALWAYS waiting to find a way to get some feminist deception in under the radar of naïve Christian men.

    I don’t know if I’ll write anymore posts besides this one. It’s very unlikely. Sometimes though, you just can’t stay silent about stuff like this. This subtle form of deception is evil. It is insidious. It is wicked, it is sinful, and it deserves to be called out and condemned. If only more Christian men would do so.

    Shutting Down FMP – My Thoughts…

    12 Replies

    I have decided to indefinitely/almost certainly permanently shut down this blog. There are many reasons why, but many are personal, and so I won’t be sharing them here. However, since I do not wish to leave as Dalrock did, which left some with the impression that some misfortune befell him, let me make some things clear.

    I have not fallen grievously ill, nor do I struggle with depression or any other debilitating condition that would prohibit me from running this blog. My church has not in any way put pressure on me to cease operations or anything of the kind. Nor has anyone else in my personal life. This is not due to financial difficulties either. This decision I have made is due to a lack of motivation.

    As I’ve said in at least one other context that I can recall, the work involved in running FMP is thankless work. There is absolutely zero popularity to be gained, or money to be made. Not that that mattered, because it was never about that in the first place. This was always about continuing to work in the same vein as Dalrock did- not the least of which was to keep a watchful eye on so-called non-feminist pro-masculinity charlatans who only pretend to love men and care about their needs from a biblical perspective. A lot of that has been accomplished here, but unfortunately, few are willing to listen.

    Those interested in even reading this material, much less read it all the way through, much less like it enough to leave a comment, are extremely few in number. I can only speculate as to why that is the case, but one lesson that is difficult for me to learn is to know when to quit putting in effort and concerns into a project that no one reads.

    It’s not as though this work doesn’t need to be done. Those who have read my writings consistently likely have no idea just how many different articles I’ve drafted but never finished. There is more corrupt anti-biblical anti-masculine content being spewed than ever, but it’s going to have to be addressed by someone other than me. Many men have ceased operating their own ministries in their lifetime, and some have returned to them after reconsidering their approach. In my case, barring some incredible change of circumstances as they are, I will likely make this my final post and eventually private this blog before shutting it down.

    Thank you to my regular readers and commenters for participating in the discussions here. I pray whatever I’ve written continues to edify and sanctify you, and remember- God is great, and he will ensure that whatever needs to be done will be done in His good time and through the persons He has chosen. God bless, and may God love you and keep you.

    –Prince Asbel

    Doug Wilson Can Do No Wrong

    7 Replies

    Reader discretion is advised.

    Eric Conn has a website called ericconn.com, and the slogan is “BIBLICAL MASCULINITY IN A WORLD OF SOFTNESS.” He recently tweeted out some praise for Doug Wilson’s app for Canon Press:

    (Original Tweet – Archive)

    As you can see, the most prominently featured book is the audiobook version of “Ride Sally Ride: Sex Rules“. Part of the Amazon description says the following, “It’s two decades in the future, and a Christian college student named Ace Hartwick has just destroyed his neighbor’s so-called “wife”–actually a sexbot named Sally–in a trash compactor. Soon, Ace will be on trial for murder.“

    That’s the gist of the book. It’s clearly a satirical novel, but the book is not merely an account of Ace’s harrowing misadventures in court. Doug Wilson thought it appropriate to include the details of where Ace’s bizarre tale begins. It wasn’t enough to have Ace discover a female robot and throw it in the trash. Doug Wilson, a Christian author, wrote the following as well:

    Page 20 of Ride Sally Ride: Sex Rules
    Page 21 of Ride Sally Ride: Sex Rules

    If it weren’t Doug Wilson telling this story, we would have no difficulty calling this what it is. It’s inappropriate. It’s not satirical. These are dirty jokes. We would not tolerate them if they came from anyone else. If a teenage boy tells this joke in church within earshot of an adult, he would be in big trouble. I’d argue it’s even worse in this context, because it’s an older Christian brother who produced this book, and even narrated it.

    Is that not repulsive enough, Doug Wilson fans? Is that not inappropriate enough for you to say he’s done something wrong for once? Does the idea of an old man reciting this filth not bother you at all?

    Apparently not. There is no backlash forthcoming from anyone anywhere. It’s not that they don’t know about it, they just don’t care. It’s all well and good, because Doug Wilson can do no wrong.

    Pray for Michael Foster

    1 Reply
    I care nothing more than ur kids not making the horrible mistakes we made

    Michael Foster is typically the target of heavy criticism on this blog. But I would invite any reader of mine to lift him up in prayer. Pray for God to comfort him and lift his spirits in this dark time. Pray that God will give comfort to his family members as well, and that this could be used to bring any who don’t know God as their savior to turn to him for peace.

    She Wasn’t Feminist Enough.

    9 Replies

    The SBC has is experiencing another feminist controversy surrounding the subject of the abuse of wives by Christian husbands. On April 7th in He Was Just… So Angry!, I analyzed an article written by Jennifer Buck about the difficult early years of her marriage to Tom Buck. I quoted sections where Jennifer said several negative things about Tom- namely, that he had an inexplicable anger problem, was controlling, verbally abusive, and had even physically slapped her wrist in a sudden bout of rage. It was, in her words, an ugly time in her life.

    Since that time, an explosion of controversy has erupted over this article. We have people who supposedly obtained a rough draft of Jennifer’s article when she wrote it back in 2018, and who threatened to use it to smear her husband. Here’s some details to keep in mind:

    #1 First Baptist Church (Tom & Jennifer’s church) say that April 1st was when they first learned that this 2018 rough draft had been distributed amongst other people without their knowledge.
    #2 – Jennifer subsequently published the final version of the article on April 7th.

    Continue reading →

    No. Your Wife Doesn’t Believe in Headship/Submission

    11 Replies

    The following is an exchange I had with several women, most of whom are Christians, who say they believe in the husband’s authority over the wife. This is not the case. As you will see, you will hear them repeating the same nonsense they’ve gleaned from Doug Wilson, Mary Kassian, Nancy Wolgemuth, and the list goes on. Read and take note- this is what Christian women in the Christian church really believe about submission. They will never debate it or argue like this in person, but behind a keyboard, this is where you get to see what they truly think.

    All of their names were censored to preserve their anonymity.*

    Woman #1: Shares an image wherein a pastor promotes replacing an occasional Sunday service with a symposium addressing domestic abuse.*

    FullMetal Patriarch: If all this is is a men bad, women victims symposium, then that’s not the kind of thing the church needs. It’s just going to be another event demonizing husbands and fathers for the human scum they are. Another warning to men not to impose their authority over their wives. Because that’s abusive, supposedly.

    Woman #2: Any assumption that only women can be victims is sexist. We absolutely need all resources and education to be inclusive.

    FMP: But who is going to vet these advocates or specialists to ensure they’re not going to tear down the authority of husbands and fathers when teaching on this subject? Nobody will, because Christians believe that that authority is inherently evil and must be torn down. Even though it’s biblical.

    Woman #1: I know plenty of Christians who believe in biblical authority. I think the main difference is application. Is the authority being applied in love and a desire to build others up and keep them on the right path or is it being abused by someone on a power trip? A lot of people, men and women who are in an abusive situation are at their wits end by the time they seek this kind of resource. Any wise counselor or organization will of course vet their counselors.

    FMP: Except that this vetting isn’t so easily done. Anyone can pay lip service to authority, but that’s not the same thing as holding to that and filtering out what counsel you will offer to a suffering marriage. For one, let’s say the husband is in the habit of quoting the Bible and demanding his wife submit to him when she tries to do things her own way. Many Christians will say that’s abusive, and they’re all wrong to do so. Most Christians will say a wife should only respect and obey her husband when he’s being nice, but not when he is sinning. They’re wrong about that too. Those sorts of Christians ought not to be brought in to adjudicate over difficult marriage situations. The first thing they’ll do is tell the wife they’re going to take their husband down in some intervention, because the last thing they want to be accused of is telling an “abused” wife to say in an abusive situation.

    Woman #1: The godly men I know who lead their homes don’t have to “demand” anything. That sounds awful, neither spouse should be demanding things in order to get their way. That will never end in a solid happy home. The husband leads his home in love not law. The same way Christ leads us as believers and loves us through our faults and failings.

    FMP: Which is why Christians just casually throw out the abuse label. A person in authority is in a perfect position to make demands, and Christians hate that. That means the husband is in charge, not the wife. We can’t have that, so let’s just call it “abusive”. Even though the Bible never teaches that.

    Woman #3:
    *FullMetal Patriarch Gospel*

    Jesus: you’re a good dude except you love money to much, go, sell what you have and give to the poor.

    Rich young Ruler: Nah fam… I think I’ll keep my money.

    *Morgan Freeman voice*

    “So Jesus demanded him to submit and had 4 disciples grab different limbs until he said he would do what Jesus asked. Then Jesus spoke the people and said”

    Jesus: this is how the Gospel of my Kingdom is spread, go and do likewise.

    FMP: Jesus said in John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. ” That’s a demand. If you don’t do what Christ says, you don’t love him, and you are not a Christian. This idea that it’s evil for husbands or God to make demands is not biblical.

    Woman #4: demanding your wife’s obedience isn’t Biblical anyway.

    Woman #4: early the use of the ‘if’ makes it a choice of the listener and to equate a husband to the authority of Christ would be highly sacrilegious

    FMP: Except that if you don’t choose to love Christ, you get sent to hell. It’s not optional. And it’s the Bible that tells wives to obey their husbands just like Christians obey God. Ephesians 5:22-24: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

    Woman #4: It is optional, it just is clear that to live a sinful life means hell. Not the same thing at all. It is still a choice whether to obey God. Jesus explaining the path or salvation is not a demand, but a love explanation of the wages of sin and the way to life eternal. To equate the message of Christ as the exact same as whatever demand a man may require of his wife is nowhere in the bible and is your interpretation. A wife is to obey her husband, but he is not to demand her obedience, but to earn it by living a Christ like life and loving her as Christ loves the church and gave himself for it. That does not speak of demanding

    FMP: Nothing you just said is biblical. There is no verse that says husbands are prohibited from demanding their wife’s obedience. If you’re going to say husbands can’t do that, you better have some Scripture to back it up.

    FMP: Not to mention that what you wrote ignores the ultimatum God has given to man. You obey him, and if you don’t, you suffer in hell for eternity. That’s a demand, no matter how you slice it.

    Woman #4: you have no verse that says a man may demand either. And since there is no verse to say either way, then it is open to the case by case situations that occur in marrige

    Woman #4: it is not a demand, it is explanation. You live or you die, but he cannot force you to love or obey him.

    FMP: That’s not true. If you’re in authority over someone, you’re entitled to tell them what to do. Parents, for example, don’t need a simplistic word-for-word sentence that says they can make demands of their children. That just comes with being in authority over them. Same with husbands. They have the right to make demands by default, not case by case, and certainly not before their wife has decided he has earned it. God has given that right to him.

    Woman #4: Untrue, a parent relationship is not the same as a marriage relationship. They are helps to each other with the husband as leader, not dictator.

    FMP: The point is that neither category of authority figures needs an explicit verse that authorizes them to make demands. Besides, Scripture doesn’t compare husbands to dictators. It compares husbands to God himself, who has far MORE authority than a dictator.

    Woman #4: No, it says to obey your husband as to the Lord, not your husband like perfect and without question like God

    FMP: Except it says submit to him because the husband is like God. Ephesians 5:23.

    Woman #5: Submission is a choice to follow ones authority. If a man is living a life against the scriptures a women is not called by God to submit herself to ungodly acts. The fruit of the spirit and the virtues listed by Peter are clear how we as Christian’s are to live and women are not called to submit or be silent in the face of unbiblical behavior. If a man is rude, nasty, foolish with time money etc, demanding his wife commit sins, and not loving his wife as Christ loved the church he doesn’t get to demand his wife accept his behavior and acts. A truly Godly man who lives biblically will have no problem with a Godly women in the issue of submission.

    Woman #4: Lol, that is only pointing out that the husband is an authority figure over a home as God is over the church, not saying that husbands are God-like. They do not and cannot have the same position as sinful men. It is establishing an institution, a structure or authority not attributing God-like expectations to a human man

    FMP: Not the point. It’s talking about why the wife should submit to him, and the reason why is because he is the head like Christ is our head.

    FMP: False. 1 Peter 3:1-2 “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.” You say wives aren’t called to submit to a sinful husband, but the Scripture says the exact opposite. Wives must submit, even to evil husbands.

    Woman #4: but it is not saying that you must obey your husband as you obey Christ because a man is not Christ and may ask for a sinful thing. Unquestioning obedience belongs to God alone and not to men. Hence, God instructions to render to Caeser what is Caesar’s (earthly obedience) and the things of God unto God (Godly obedience)

    Woman #5: That does not mean a wife has to submit to sinful behavior. God does not say “be kind, but if you husband says to be unkind to others better obey!”

    FMP: But it does mean wives must submit even to an evil husband. This idea that a wife doesn’t have to submit because he hasn’t earned it, or he isn’t being loving, or that there’s no simplistic word-for-word verse telling him he can make demands is all extra-biblical nonsense.

    Woman #5: It’s not a “if he hasn’t earned it” a unsaved husband is capable of asking perfect biblical things in a marriage. But if he asked his wife to behave in an unbiblical sinful way she is not obligated to follow that in Gods eyes.

    FMP: Ephesians 5:22-24 literally says to submit to your husbands as to the Lord. You just said the opposite, and that’s been the problem all along. The Bible says one thing, but you say the opposite. And besides, it’s not sinful for a husband to demand his wife’s obedience, so that’s irrelevant.

    Woman #5: If an unsaved husband tells his wife to steal, lie, not go to church, not instruct her children, not care for the sick etc that would be wrong in the sight of God and she doesn’t have to submit

    FMP: It is absolutely biblical to demand your wife’s obedience, so that point is irrelevant.

    Woman #5: As to the Lord! I obey God first and my husband second. If my husband asked me to sin against God I would say no to my husband. Because the Bible doesn’t require me to submit to the point of sinful unbiblical behavior

    Woman #5: God doesn’t call us to sin against him to make sinful men happy.

    Woman #5: Do you really believe that a women if told by her husband, can break all commands in the Bible and sin against God so to obey her husband? No, that isn’t biblical and you’re putting a husband’s authority over God

    FMP: This whole debate erupted over the prospect of husbands simply demanding their wives submit to them. That’s evil, supposedly, but now you’re all backing up and saying, well, a husband can’t command his wife to commit an evil act! No one said he could. But he can demand she do as he says. Ephesians 5:24 – wives must submit to their husbands in “everything”.

    At this point the conversation was censored by Woman #1.

    If Christian Men Want To Get Married, They Have To Be Extraordinary.

    2 Replies

    There’s another topic that Michael Foster touched upon when he appeared on Aaron Renn’s podcast that I want to examine. This won’t be quite so heated as previous posts on Michael that I’ve wrote, but it will contain firm disagreement with him.

    One of the disagreements Dalrock had with Foster was that Foster’s perspective on marriage implied that it should be reserved for elite Christian men. I won’t quote the entire discussion, but here are the comments where they went back and forth under the post Unless the men are *Christian*. Foster commented:

    Dalrock replied:

    Continue reading →

    They Were Basically Buddies!

    6 Replies

    Following their pattern of being unable to keep their story straight, Foster and Bnonn presented an…Interesting perspective on their relationship with Dalrock before he retired from blogging in the Christian manosphere. I saw them as opponents of Dalrock, but the way Foster talked about Dalrock, they were basically polite colleagues. From the transcript of Foster & Bnonn’s appearance on the Aaron Renn show:

    Foster: He didn’t really, and just to be fair to Dal, he didn’t directly attack us, i don’t think, ever. I think he raised some concerns- (it’s?) more like, uh, the Dal-bots is what we call them. Um, the, it’s like Rollo has Rollo-bots. These people that just are fanboys. We interacted with them via email cuz he actually reached out to me once by email, like, hey, is there a problem between us? And so we- I engaged with them and what we basically told’em was that look, you’re good what you do, you’re kind of like a guy that studies cancer, and the cancer of feminism, the cancer of egalitarianism, all the stuff in the church. You understand it more than most do. But, we’re we’re looking for a cure. Right, and so we’re, um, so w-we benefit from you, and really don’t think we should be fighting amongst each other. I, you know, I always try to maintain peace wherever I can. And, uh, and we ended, I feel like we ended that relationship on a a pleasant note, I guess, or agreeable note.

    Continue reading →