My Favorite “Iron Rule”

Iron Rule of Tomassi #9
Never Self-Deprecate under any circumstance.

The Iron Rules is the chapter I will recommend people start with when I recommend The Rational Male to their reading. Most people are reluctant to read a book in the first place, so I say if you can’t make yourself read any other part of the book, at least read through The Iron Rules. The ninth rule listed above is easily my favorite, and I want to explain why.

Christian men always self-deprecate. From the pulpit, of course, but in day-to-day interactions too. We act like it’s an indication of virtue on the part of the men who do it. One easy example is a pastor in the pulpit making some unfunny joke about his wife’s only imperfection being her taste in men. That’s a common phenomena, but I see it as even more pervasive than that. Men in the exclusive company of other men routinely cut themselves down. Someone mentions working out, and another man pipes up to inform the group that he would go to the gym, but the boss-man (his wife) won’t let him. Some guy talks about his hobby, and makes sure to tell everyone that his wife loathed it so much he had to make a “man-cave” to pursue his interests. This is typical, unsolicited self-deprecation committed voluntarily by Christian men all the time.

This behavior goes beyond men-bad, women-good, of course. For example, some guy talks about working out, and another man, likely obese and generally unattractive, self-deprecates without even mentioning his wife. “Man, I would work out, but I’m just too lazy, and I just love pizza and ice cream too much! Lol!”

Clearly Christian men don’t think it’s inappropriate to joke about their personal failures in this way. That’s why I think Iron Rule #9 is my personal favorite, because making the conscious decision to live by it gives you light-bulb moment after light-bulb moment in your day-to-day interactions. I can personally attest to this, having been trained for most of my life to see self-deprecation as a good thing. In The Rational Male on page 234, Rollo wrote a couple sentences that make this point especially clear:

The message is ‘women love men who laugh at Men’. Thus, you have to be hyper-aware of it and unlearn it. You have to catch yourself in mid-sentence so to speak. Women operate in the sub-communications and when you overtly admit to a lack of confidence in yourself or your collective gender you may as well just LFBJ yourself.

Page 234 of The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi

Rollo was talking mostly about women in this particular paragraph, but I would extend this to interactions where men are your primary or only audience. You do have to be hyper-aware of it, because catching yourself before you open your mouth takes a conscious, focused act of the will. The action itself is simple; It’s just keeping your mouth shut, basically. But, when you do stop yourself from self-deprecating, you will immediately feel a strong desire being denied its usual satisfaction. You want to make yourself look bad. It’s uncomfortable to not do it. But, it’s an eye-opening moment, because now you’re starting to see your self-deprecation for what it really is. Before you thought it was no big deal, but then you actually implemented the rule, and now it’s clear that it is a very big deal indeed. You really wanted to cut yourself down in front of your friends and family.

Stopping yourself before self-deprecation is good for you. The more you do it, the more your realize how pathetic it was all along. You enjoyed taking the opportunity to advertise what a loser you are. Heck, it gets you cheap laughs, doesn’t it? Relieves a little anxiety, right? Keeps everyone’s expectations low, and you can take comfort in embracing the truth that you’re just a lame, unexceptional dude among many. Stopping and recognizing your insecure behavior for what it really is will only reinforce your desire to keep it to yourself.

To my readers, if this is a lesson you haven’t learned yet, I highly recommend it. Implementing rule #9 yields immediate results. You don’t have to be in denial about your negative self image, but for God’s sake and your own, keep it to yourself! You will instantly see why once you take that simple step. Just because you have a character flaw relevant to the topic of conversation does not mean you should tell everyone about it. Stifle that desire to expose your failings! Your friends and family won’t even know to think less of you if you don’t tell them about it in the first place, so stop being your own worst enemy. You want to know a basic, simply way to improve your own confidence and self-esteem in general? This is the way to go.

If Your Husband is a Godly Man, Submission Will Be Easy!

Such is the message that continues to be preached to Christian women by other Christian women who should know better.

Back in 2010, Nancy Wilson published her book Why Isn’t a Pretty Girl Like You Married? and Other Useful Comments. Earlier this year she published Single and Satisfied: A Grace-Filled Calling for the Unmarried Woman. According to the Amazon description, this new book is actually the second edition of the first book.

This is the second and revised edition of Why Isn’t a Pretty Girl Like You Married?

Any regular reader of mine won’t be shocked to learn that Nancy Wilson delivers the same poisonous lies about wifely submission today that she did ten years ago. The following quote appears in both books, almost on the same pages:

The Bible requires wives to submit to their own husbands, so a woman ought to marry a man that she respects. If she respects him, she will be able to freely submit to him. If he is the kind of man who is eager to please and obey God, she should not have trouble following him. The Bible also requires wives to respect and honor their husbands. So it follows that a woman should marry a man that she can easily look up to. Respect and honor are far more easily rendered to a respectable, honorable man.

Page 71 of “Single and Satisfied: A Grace-Filled Calling for the Unmarried Woman”, and page 73 of “Why Isn’t a Pretty Girl Like You Married? and Other Useful Comments”

Nancy Wilson doubtless has more experience being a Christian wife and mother than your average woman. In spite of all that, to this day, she is still preaching feminist falsehoods, laying the seeds for marital strife in the minds of single Christian women. Paragraphs like these demonstrate why even older Christian women shouldn’t be allowed to teach anyone at all unless they are well and thoroughly vetted by their male spiritual leaders first. Let’s walk through it and explain where she goes wrong:

The Bible requires wives to submit to their own husbands, so a woman ought to marry a man that she respects.

True.

If she respects him, she will be able to freely submit to him.

A. Being able to submit “freely” is not a biblical prerequisite for submission, nor can it be. Slaves couldn’t “freely” submit to their masters, but that didn’t stop God from commanding their submission.

B. Who says a woman can’t submit, freely or otherwise, to a man she doesn’t respect? Those commands of submission in the Bible go out to women across the board. That includes women who are already married, which would include women married to men they didn’t respect. Could they not submit to their husbands then? Is that something they are simply unable to do, in Nancy Wilson’s mind?

If he is the kind of man who is eager to please and obey God, she should not have trouble following him.

Completely and totally false. Incorrect. Unbiblical tripe that no older Christian woman should be caught dead preaching. Remember, this is from Nancy Wilson, an experienced wife and mother, and a woman who has given marital counselling. She has a great deal of personal interactions with women who struggle in this area. Apparently none of it has clued her into the struggles Christian women have in following their husbands.

The desire to disobey your leader is one all humans experience, from young to old. We are sinners that love our sin. It’s an evil, perverse desire of ours that we will experience whether or not the one in charge of us is eager to obey God. That’s our lot in life. Disobedience feels good. We don’t need our parents/bosses to be unbelievers before we experience a desire to disobey them. We’ll want to disobey them with or without their help. A Christian woman will still want to disobey even a Godly husband. She will have plenty of trouble following him because she herself is a sinful human who loves to sin for its own sake. Thus, Christian women will always have trouble following even a man who loves and obeys God.

The Bible also requires wives to respect and honor their husbands. So it follows that a woman should marry a man that she can easily look up to. Respect and honor are far more easily rendered to a respectable, honorable man.

Women should definitely marry men they can easily look up to. No question there. The lie comes from what came before; That obeying, showing respect, etc. will all be easy if the right steps are taken. This is false. It’s never going to be “easy”. Christian women should marry a man they can look up to so they can reduce the intensity of the difficult struggles to come. Nancy Wilson fundamentally denies this. Yes, she does say respect and honor are “far more easily rendered”, but immediately prior to this she was saying that, “If he is the kind of man who is eager to please and obey God, she should not have trouble following him.” There is a basic expectation that a woman’s struggle to obey and honor her husband can be made easy, or even dodged altogether. Again, this is simply false, and it’s something that single Christian women should never be taught. They’re going to have enough difficult obeying their husbands and calling them Lord in the best of circumstances. The last thing we need planted in their heads is the thought that if their husbands are doing their job, they won’t want to undermine him. Rebellious women are already chomping at the bit for excuses to justify their disobedience and disrespect. You think they won’t seize upon teachings like this, when they in their sinful rebellion are looking for some way to tear their husbands down while still appearing to be the good guy? Of course they will.

I’ll do it because I want to, not because you told me too!

If you are (were) a regular reader of Dalrock, then you’re familiar with a particular claim made by complementarians- namely, that husbands are forbidden from demanding submission from their wives. Even the authors that affirm that husbands’ have authority over their wives feel a compulsion to discourage those husbands from ever demanding their wives submit to them. Either they tell the husband to mind his own business (see Dalrock’s article here), or they simply assert that because a wife’s submission should be voluntary, then the husband can’t demand it from her.

Kevin DeYoung is one of the latest authors to fall into this pattern. This past April he released a book titled Men and Women in the Church. He, like most complementarians, understand that husbands having headship over their wives means that he has authority over her.

Likewise, in Ephesians 5 Paul says wives are to submit to their husbands, for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church (5:22–23). Citing the headship of the husband as a reason for the wife’s submission makes little sense if headship implies only source or origin without any reference to male leadership. Kephale, in at least these two instances in Ephesians, must mean “authority over.”

DeYoung, Kevin. Men and Women in the Church (p. 44). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

But because he is a complementarian, Kevin can’t leave it at that. He must undermine headship in some manner:

Because of these two realities—the headship of the husband in the created order and the analogy of Christ and the church—the wife should freely submit to her husband.

And don’t miss that word freely. The command is for the wife, not the husband. The man is never told to submit the wife unto himself. Instead, the woman is told to submit herself unto her husband. It is a submission freely given, never forcibly taken.

Kevin DeYoung, Page 66 of Men and Women in the Church Paperback – April 6, 2021

One might simply reply with, “Says who?” This passive-aggressive warning to husbands is never backed up with Scripture. Let’s say a husband wants to, in Kevin’s words, forcibly take his wife’s submission? If that’s a sin, then why is there no verse in the Bible that teaches that?

This should strike complementarians as very odd, considering that men living in ancient times had all kinds of legal justification to compel their wives to do things. Add to that the frequent New Testament emphases on wives submitting to their husbands, and you have a recipe for utter disaster- assuming DeYoung’s perspective is correct. The men from such a sexist culture would certainly latch onto these teachings and run wild with it! They might assume that they had the right to do that very thing that Kevin DeYoung decries- namely, forcing their wives to submit to them. Paul and other NT writers would have been aware of this, right? Surely they would have made sure to warn these ancient brutes that to force their wives to submit would be to sin against God! But they never did.

Now, Kevin DeYoung is technically correct when he says that husbands are, “…never told to submit the wife unto himself.” However, he is only correct in the strict sense that there is no verse in the Bible that contains such a simplistic, word-for-word command. In a debate, such a statement would be eviscerated for being utterly irrelevant. If that kind of statement carried any weight, then one could just as easily refute it by pointing out that husbands are, “…never told NOT to submit the wife unto himself.” Now what?

However, let’s set that issue aside for a moment and examine Kevin’s claim that, “…the woman is told to submit herself unto her husband. It is a submission freely given, never forcibly taken.” Let’s try and parse out what’s wrong with this carefully.

Let’s say we lived in a society where we legally enforced God’s command for wives to submit to their husbands. Let’s also assume that if a married woman broke this law, her husband could punish her for doing so. Let’s say he has the liberty to bring his wife before a judge and subject her to punishments such as monetary fines, beatings, jail-time, etc. This could reasonably be an example of a husband “forcibly taking” submission” from his wife. You might even call it slavery!

Where Kevin DeYoung goes wrong is in assuming that if submission is forcibly taken, then it can’t be freely given. I’ve gone into this in detail in I’m not going to submit like those lousy slaves! and The Greek Says My Husband Can’t Demand Submission From Me!. Very briefly, there is this errant assumption Christians keep making wherein we assume that if a person can be compelled to do something by another, then they cannot obey that other person in a voluntary or meaningfully respectful manner. This is a common assumption, but it is a false assumption. The Bible contradicts it clearly in Ephesians 6:5-6 and 1 Peter 2:18-20 when it commands slaves to do that very thing to their masters. These slaves/bondservants were compelled by law and by force to obey their masters, and yet, the Bible still commands them to obey sincerely, respectfully, and in a willing manner.

Now let’s get back to wives. Let’s say a husband does “forcibly take” his wife’s submission. Does that prevent his wife from giving it voluntarily? Of course not.

If Kevin DeYoung’s assumption had merit, then surely Paul and Peter left many a born-again slave befuddled as to how they would obey those commands. After all, if they had no choice but to obey their masters, then submission could not be freely given! This is absurd, of course, and it’s just as absurd for Kevin DeYoung to come to such a wrong-headed conclusion about husbands and wives. Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands whether they are being forced to or not.

In fact, when DeYoung claims that wives should submit entirely of their own volition, then he’s teaching a Christianized version of the protests of rebellious children. We’ve all heard young kids say, “I’ll do it because I want to, not because you tell me too!” Wives certainly should not speak that way to their husbands, but when it comes down to it, that’s what complementarians believe. They would not advocate a wife speak in that manner, but when it comes to how they see wifely submission, they think that’s exactly right. Submission MUST be freely given, and hence, wives can, in a theologically sophisticated manner, disobey their husband on the grounds that he tried to forcibly take that which must only be freely given.

It’s unbiblical, and it’s irrational. Imagine trying to defend this kind of teaching in a debate. One of my readers suggested that Kevin DeYoung might be open to debating his views. Given how flawed his thinking is, I very seriously doubt that he will ever leave himself open to such scrutiny. I know I wouldn’t if I were him.

Complementarians Will Never Debate Their Views.

Despite reaching out to multiple persons and channels, no debate between a Complementarian and a Patriarch is in the works. There is simply no interest on the complementarian side to participate in such a debate. I’ve reached out to hosts of podcast and people who have engaged in online debate plenty of times, and usually, there’s no response at all. Those who do respond are not interested.

This is really interesting, because if you’ve been listening to podcasts and debates since the mid-2000’s, then you’ve heard Christians debating every subject under the sun. Calvinism, the existence of God, roman catholic doctrines, Mormon teachings, Calvinism, Jehovah’s Witness’s various beliefs, open theism, Provisionism, the trinity, the theory of evolution, Calvinism… The list is a veeery long one.

Christians have demonstrated that they do not fear debates. We’ll debate just about anything under the sun. You can find dozens of debate videos and mp3’s on almost every topic I listed above by many different people. And yet, there is not one such debate between a Complementarian and a Patriarch. Not one. I am not exaggerating- there isn’t even one debate like this on the web, even now in 2021. Go ahead and try to find one. Search YouTube and Sermon Audio. There isn’t even one. How incredible is it that after all the debates we’ve had, we have ALWAYS managed to avoid having a debate like that?

This is unbelievable, and yet, it is not accidental. There are Christians who will debate anybody on just about any topic relating to Christian doctrine. And yet when it comes to the husband’s authority over his wife and her obedience to him, we have a positively pristine record of never going there. We’ll debate everything else relevant to marriage and sexuality, but not that. Anything but that!

Why is this the case? Is it because Christians avoid debating doctrines pertinent to marriage and sexuality as a rule? Not at all. We don’t even need to be debating a fellow-believer. If some left-wing activist challenges Christians to debate whether homosexuality is compatible with Biblical Christianity, he’ll find plenty of men signing up for the job. What’s there to fear about debating some God-hating degenerate on whether being gay is okay with God?

But that just raises yet another question: Why are Christians afraid to debate servant leadership, or mutual submission, or even what submission in marriage entails? Why is that scary while other topics are not? Because there is something about debating these subjects that makes complementarians turn tail and run.

Perhaps this isn’t to be unexpected. Debating such topics goes right to the heart of what it means to be masculine in God’s eyes. Who wants to run the risk of being exposed for not knowing what it means to be a real man? No one, but especially not complementarians. Oh, they’ll happily demonize men who disagree with their maritial advice, but debate their views formally and publicly? No way. Let’s conduct yet another debate on the existence of God! It’s not like we don’t already have a billion of those already!

This proves what I’ve suspected of Christian men for a long time. There is a real lack of confidence in the beliefs they’ve held to concerning marriage. At some point, they have had to study the Patriarchy written in the Bible. At some point, they have had to wrestle with the issue of their wife’s obligation to submit to him. Many married men have had to fight with their wives, but almost all of them have had family and friends jump all over them should they dare to assert their authority. Enormous pressure has had to force Christian men to look at their disobedient wives and delude themselves into thinking that her sin is not really sin. It’s her simply having a Godly temper tantrum, or her wanting to have her way since it’s only fair, or that he drove her to act in a sinful, rebellious manner. None of those things are true, but Christian men have been forced to believe it just because they can’t fathom that their loving family and friends could all be holding a wrong view of marriage. And so, despite his rational mind seeing things one way, he gives up the fight and accepts the rule of the mob. His wife may be defying him, but there must be something wrong with HIM. There must be! But, the truth of the matter is there is NOTHING wrong with him. The truth remains gnawing at him from the inside. He may accept his wife undermining him and his authority, and he may even joke about it in public, but deep down, in his heart of hearts, he knows this is wrong. He knows he is the man in the relationship, and that his wife’s disobedience and disrespect towards him is evil. But, since he caved to the pressure of his family and friends, this knowledge will remain suppressed. Anything that would threaten his effort to suppress the truth will simply be avoided at all costs.

This is what I suspect goes on in the minds of Christian men everywhere. If I am right, and I’m sure I am, then we may never have a debate between a complementarian and a patriarch. The reader may think this is an exaggeration, and that some complementarian somewhere someday will come out of the wood work and accept the challenge. To them I say, I hope so, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

You Would Love Submission If You Properly Understood It!

Someday I’ll need to start a collection of when Christians say, “Wives, you would love submitting to your husband if you understood submission properly!” It’s a well-meaning sentiment, but it’s a lie, and one that leaves women confused as they struggle with the concept.

On one hand, Christian women do want to obey God. On the other hand, these same women still have a sinful nature that wants to disobey God. Just like with men, they have a battle going on in their minds where they have two natures waging war against each other. Knowing what the Bible commands us to do is key to discerning what actions constitute obedience and disobedience. We cannot determine what actions are Godly based upon our feelings. This is especially true for women given the fickle nature of their emotions.

What I’ve seen is that Christian women try to broach the topic of wifely submission by assuring their female audience that the reason they have an immediate negative reaction to the concept is because they simply don’t understand it. They follow this up with a complaint that our society has made submission a dirty word, but the true biblical definition is one you would be happy to embrace.

Take a video by Jackie Angel called What it Means to Submit to Your Husband:

In this video she makes a few faces she says she has made and has seen other women make when submission is preached on in church:

At 1:09 she says:

I’m going to share with you what it actually means because it’s so beautiful!

What follows is she reads Ephesians 5:21-32, and then at 2:22 says that submit means,

“to be under the mission”. So, wives, be under the mission of your husband. And then it says husbands, love your wife as Christ loved the church. Um, the mission of a husband is to lay his life down for his wife. To love her as Christ loved the church. How did Christ love the church? He laid his life down he sacrificed his life so that we might live. So, husbands, like- That’s the mission of a husband, is to lay his life down. It doesn’t say in there, ‘husbands, your mission is to treat your wife like an object, to treat her like property, to be a domineering man, to be prideful, to be- no. It’s saying to love her as Christ loved her, with tenderness, with beauty, with gentleness, to lay your life down, to sacrifice your pride.”

This is a standard method of sanitizing what the Bible says. Submit does not mean ‘to be under the mission’. It means to be obedient, and no one in a debate/dialogue setting could dispute that. But, having inserted that awkward definition, Jackie then says that the husband’s “mission” is to be super duper nice to his wife and never be egotistical, which also isn’t what the text says. Having done that, she says at 3:05,

And women, I mean, that’s the kind of mission I want to be- like, that’s the kind of mission I will be like, “Heck yes, I support that mission! I’m gonna be under that mission.”

If you watch that portion of the video, you should see how hard she has to act as if she’s positively thrilled with what she’s saying. Whereas her faces of disgust and revulsion were quite convincing, this is pathetically artificial. Even after mangling the meaning of submission, she still can’t do a convincing job of faking “delight” at her feminist-friendly interpretation.

Her poor acting is just icing on the cake, of course. The truth is that wifely submission is not a doctrine that women will ever be “thrilled” to embrace. The fact that Jackie still doesn’t like it even when she twists its meaning to suit her feminism only proves this point beyond all question.

That being said, her point is clear: If biblical submission is taught, it should make Christian women happy to embrace it. Thus, a basic thought has been planted in her viewers’ minds: “I’m supposed to like submission.” Thus the groundwork has been laid for marital catastrophe, since these women are now prepped to gauge the validity of the doctrine of wifely submission with their feelings. If those women aren’t thrilled to death about what their pastor is teaching about submission, then something must be incorrect with what he’s preaching.

The fact of the matter is that submission is not a doctrine women are ever going to love. What Jackie has done is admit that women hate it. Submitting to their husbands is something she and they loathe, and at our core, we all know what submission truly means. It means someone else is in charge of us, and we must do as he says, like it or not. But, since Jackie has been told she is a strong woman (she says this multiple times in the video, and with indignation), she despises the prospect of her husband being in authority over her.

Jackie may have been saved this struggle had the Christians in her life simply explained what submission really means and acknowledged her ugly-face for what it was. It’s not due to a misunderstanding of submission, but a proper understanding of submission. Teaching what the Bible says requires violating women’s phony notions of self-esteem, hence they will never “like” it. But, a truly born-again Christian woman can still grow to accept it. Slaves were expected to respect and obey their evil masters in 1 Peter 2:18-20. If a slave can be expected to do it, then so can women today.

Fake it ’til you make it… or not? Part 2

Excellent insight from Deep Strength:

Christianity and masculinity

Interestingly, fake it til you make it was one of the first posts I made on this blog when I started blogging in 2012. I still stand by that post in terms of faith, but I wanted to take things deeper into scenarios where I think people are using it incorrectly.

When men/husbands start trying to exhibit leadership in marriage they feel like they’re trying to “fake it ’til they make it.” I think this is the wrong thing to consider it.

If we think about learning a new sport or martial art, everything is going to feel awkward and uncomfortable at first. It’s only through repetition of the movements and learning the various techniques of the sports or disciplines that things start to feel more natural.

For those that have rescinded leadership (e.g. drunk captain) or never had leadership in the first place (e.g. egalitaratians, feminists, “she’s the boss”…

View original post 278 more words

Come on- Homosexuals Can’t Be THAT Evil!

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Screen-Shot-2021-07-07-at-11.50.47-PM-e1625695179568.png

Apparently there’s a “San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus”, and they released a music video titled “We’ll Convert Your Children”. It has since been taken down from the web, but the reactions are still fresh and on-going. Unfortunately, they are not all united in calling this predatory battle cry the evil filth that it is. It must have been a joke. A joke in poor taste, to be sure, but merely a joke! Let’s not over-react and look like a bunch of homophobes, okay?

Vox Day wrote an excellent article revealing yet again why conservatives are utterly useless in the culture wars. In The conservative defense of pedophilia, Vox shows that a particular writer, Rod Dreher, is taking this statement of theirs as a result of idiocy on the part of those gay men. I absolutely agree with Vox’s assessment. This is a naive, desperate ploy to try and assure people that homosexuals really aren’t as bad as they say they are.

Do you see the way in which the good conservative can’t bring himself to condemn proud and overt evil even when it openly declares that it is coming for his children?

They are smart-asses. They are fools. They are idiots. Dreher is willing to call them anything except that which they are: the wicked.

Indeed. But Dreher is not the only one. Think of how many so-called Christian conservative commentators (ex. Steven Crowder) embrace the likes of Blaire White, Rob Smith, Dave Rubin, etc. These are all wicked people, but they are actively put forth as examples of “good” homosexuals. I’m sure Blaire White may start making the rounds on various conservative YouTube shows expressing outrage over this song. And that is part of the lie being told.

The attitude being delivered to right-wingers is essentially this: “See? Even the gays/trans people think this is evil! Isn’t it great that even these left-wing people are calling out these especially evil people? Isn’t it cool that we can band together over this?”

We’re being made to assume the best about people who flaunt their sexual debauchery. Whenever we see a correlation between homosexuals and pedophilia, we’re reluctant to conclude that there’s a connection. After all, aren’t there plenty of gay people on our side? We shouldn’t just assume that being gay is an indicator that you’re predisposed to molesting kids. We wouldn’t want to appear homophobic!

But this petty fear over being seen as homophobic is just one more challenge to Christian masculinity among many. Don’t you dare suspect gay people of being dangerous, you backwoods hillbilly! Stop over-reacting just because you never went to college and you think gay people are gross! They’re just people who want to live their lives and do their own thing.

That’s not true, of course, but wicked men work hard to beat Christian men down in this way. And their labors have proven successful. Pastors like Matt Chandler were already at work discouraging Christians from reacting negatively towards homosexual persons. In Loud and proud complementarians: Pastor Matt Chandler., Dalrock included a “feel-bad-Christians” segment from one of his sermons:

I think you are going to see what we’ve already seen probably three or four times in Christian history. There are going to be those that try to reach the world by becoming like the world. And then there are going to be those that try to by the grace of God hold fast to orthodox Christian faith in a way that’s compassionate and kind, and they are going to have to weather the backlash of all of the wrong that has been done in the name of Jesus in the last 50 years.

This isn’t the only brilliant expose Dalrock wrote on so-called Christians who are working to dissuade Christians from seeing gay people as the enemy. The guard in the tower shouts “Lower the drawbridge and unbolt the door!” is another gem wherein Dalrock revealed that Sam Allberry and Rosaria Butterfield were literally, not figuratively, telling Christians they ought to give LGBTQ people keys to our houses:

If you want to share the gospel with the LGBTQ community or anyone who will lose family and homes, the gospel must come with a house key.

https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/why-the-gospel-comes-with-a-house-key/

In another article, Dalrock showed where Matt Chandler said we “should” have a gay person somewhere in our life, whether it’s family, friend, or co-workers:

What advice would you give to Christians who have gay family, friends or coworkers?

“That broad question probably includes all of us. All of us are going to have gay friends, family or co-workers. That’s a giant umbrella. And you should have someone in that umbrella in your life….

https://intersectproject.org/faith-and-culture/matt-chandler-homosexuality-church/

Once upon a time, gay activists were coming to Christians in our churches and our legal system with their hat in their hand. The said that gay people just wanted to be permitted to live out their debauchery as long as they didn’t hurt anybody. Fast-forward to now, and we’ve seen how untrue that is. They can’t help themselves. It’s not enough that they obtained the legal ability for gay people to live together and have sex with each other. No, they had to come after the church. They had to start wearing Christians down so that gay people would be allowed into their homes… Right where the kids are.

The SFGMC’s music video was just an open confession of what they’ve been trying to do for forever. It’s evil, and it’s wicked. Christian men need to be ready to call this brainwashing out for what it is. The enemy is not foolish. The enemy is not naïve. The enemy is bold and brash, and they have “Christian” leaders on their side, ready to shoot you down for being homophobic. Don’t back down, Christian men. Call them wicked, because that’s what they are. Be defiant. Protect your children, no matter what.

Violating Titus 2:3-5

In my previous post “Who Are Women Allowed to Teach?”, I pointed out that Titus 2:3-5 is very specific as to what kind of women are commanded to teach and what that teaching entails. In short, only older women are commanded to teach, they must only teach young women, and they must specifically teach those young women how to be good wives and mothers.

While most Christians are quite careful to focus on the requirements of a Christian man who wishes to be an elder (husband of one wife, etc.), they’re content to ignore what is required of women who wish to be teachers. In fact, they usually just pass over the topic altogether, even when the passage is brought up. You can see this play out when women are permitted to occupy various teaching positions regardless of their age or their audience.

For example, take a podcast like Sheologians.

We are twenty-something, with backgrounds in English and mansplaining.

Right off the bat we have a violation of Titus 2. Neither Summer Jaeger or Joy the Girl were “older women” when Sheologians was created. Granted, they turned 30 in 2019, but even now in 2021, they’re both turning 32. They aren’t exactly “aged” considering the lifespans of women in the Bible.

Both of us are members in good standing at Reformed Baptist churches. Joy can be found serving in multiple areas of ministry, and Summer leads a weekly women’s study in her home.

So put on your slippers and try not to be offended, cause hardly any subject is off-limits (except baptism–don’t ask us about baptism).

Yet another violation of Titus 2. Even if Summer and Joy were bother older women, there should be a great deal of subjects that are off-limits. The categories for what Titus 2 permits older women to teach is very specific- be a good wife and mom so you don’t revile the word of God. To expand that is to go beyond what was written.

It’s not as if these women are ignorant of Titus 2:3-5. In fact, when Summer wrote “What To Do When the Church Can’t Handle You“, she quoted Titus 2:3-5 from the NASB (the bolding is mine):

It is erroneous to claim that the church doesn’t know “what to do” with women that can teach. Scripture is very plain about what we should be doing with our gifts. Nowhere will you find a call for women to leave their children behind to encourage someone else’s wives or children elsewhere. YOUR family is your first duty. And women are instructed by the Apostle Paul to teach! Check it out:

Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

Notice that there is no recognition of the specificity of Paul’s command to Titus. True, this article wasn’t meant to delve into that subject, so that’s understandable. However, what is also true is that this subject is frequently left unaddressed by the Sheologians even when raised in other contexts. For example, a commenter named Karen said this under the article “Girl, What’s Your Number? (The Enneagram Episode)“:

Karen on May 29, 2019 at 1:13 pm

(…) I am a very busy homeschool mom of 7 trying to keep up with the latest “trends” so I can engage with my older children. I have no time to do much research into things like this. I very much appreciate your leg work. In fact, you two were the ones who first introduced critical theory to me. Very helpful!! (…)I haven’t quite known how to engage the younger women I encounter. Let’s just say I have moved into the Titus 2 “older” woman. I’m praying for wisdom to lead.

Karen’s comment was VERY long, so I just quoted the relevant snippets. Summer replied:

Summer Jaeger on May 31, 2019 at 8:30 am

Thank you so much for your kind words! And that’s a prayer I think we can safely say that God loves to answer—give me wisdom!

Notice how Karen cites Titus 2, but neither she or Summer give any indication that there’s a conflict between Karen, as an older woman, learning from two younger women. Another commenter named Troy had this to say under the post “Red Letter Jesus“:

Troy dillard on February 23, 2017 at 5:44 pm

Summer white praise the lord your teaching women truth Titus 2:3,
3. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4. That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, keep on doing for the lord Jesus have a bless day

Yet another commenter named Jay replied with:

Jay R. Walker on April 12, 2017 at 6:50 am

Hmmm. I’m not sure I’d say that Summer quite qualifies as one of the aged women in Titus 2. In fact, the wisdom of mature women might help take off some of the biting sarcasm that makes me wince when I read some of these posts.

His comment is fairly lengthy, so I’ll end my citation there. Summer replied to Jay and said:

Summer White on April 14, 2017 at 12:27 pm

I don’t choose to outright dismiss the majority of egalitarians just because I don’t think their arguments aren’t great. Their arguments aren’t great, and they should be responded to…which is what this article does. I also never implied that they are the cream of the crop in terms of consistent argumentation.

You can see that when Summer chose to reply, she didn’t address the first thing Jay brought up- namely, that Summer doesn’t meet the qualification of being an “aged” woman. She decided to rebut the other things he said, but not that one. Obviously she wouldn’t dispute that she’s a young woman vs. an older woman, but that’s not the point. The text that one of her fans raised declares that the women who are to teach must be older. Another commenter pointed this out, but it was again left unaddressed.

Perhaps Summer & Joy have thoroughly tackled this particular issue in one of their podcasts. Looking at their archives, there’s over 250 episodes, so listening to each one is out of the question. I was able to search their summaries, but none of them even contain “titus” in any of them. I expect this is an objection they’ve simply decided not to address yet. Whether they do or not, they obviously don’t believe the Bible prohibits them from doing what they’re doing.

I have a question then, for Summer, Joy, or whomever would disagree with my interpretation of Titus 2:3-5: If you’re a Reformed Christian and you affirm the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (as do I), then you believe that the Scriptures are sufficient to equip us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16). If it is a good work to allow young women to teach; And not only to teach, but to even teach older women, and to teach on any topic of their choosing, then can you please show me where the Bible equips you to teach that? I think that’s a perfectly fair question that should be answered. After 250 episodes, if this question has not been answered yet, I’d say it’s about time. They may even decide to do so in response to this article. We shall see.

Who Are Women Allowed to Teach?

Titus 2:3 (ESV): Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Most Christians today are content to have Christian women in general teach other women in the church. The assumption tends to be that while female Christians may not teach men in the church, they may teach other women in the church without qualification regarding whom they are teaching, or what is being taught. This is a mistake, one which will be rectified by a careful examination of this passage from Titus 2.

Claim #1: Any Christian woman can teach other Christian women in the church!
Rebuttal: This is false. Titus 2:3 does not permit any kind of female Christian to teach women. It’s a specific subset of women, namely “Older women”, that are permitted to teach other women.

Claim #2: As long as the Christian woman meets the criteria of being an older Christian woman, then she is free to teach to any other woman or group of women in the church!
Rebuttal: This is also false. Titus 2:4 specifies that the women who are to be trained are “young women”. Older women are not given free-reign to teach women of any age-range. They must make sure the woman they are teaching are young.

Claim #3: If an older Christian lady makes sure she only tries to teach younger Christian women, then she can teach them whatever she’d like, so long as it’s a true part of Christian doctrine!
Rebuttal: Again, false. Titus 2:3-5 does not grant to older women the freedom to teach whatever doctrine they like. The older women are supposed to train young women to be good wives and mothers. That’s all.

Summary: Titus 2:3-5 is a very specific passage of Scripture. It teaches that if a woman is to teach, she must come from a specific subset of women. This particular subset of women is not permitted to teach other women within that same subset. It’s from one subset of women of the older age range teaching women of the younger age range. What these older women are commanded to teach in this passage is not any old Christian doctrine they may wish to teach. They are commanded to teach what is necessary to train those young women to be good wives and mothers so as to avoid blaspheming God.

Recognizing these careful qualifications is foundational to understanding where most Christians have got it wrong on this subject. More to follow in the next few days/week.

Debunking the Myth that “Marital Sex Is Not A Solution For Lust”

Bnonn & Foster sent out their latest newsletter yesterday titled, “Notes on manhood 2021 week #25″. In it they revealed that they’re still just as stunted in their views of biblical sexuality as your standard Christian feminist:

Let us leave behind magic numbers, and move onto wise principles for knowing whether a couple is ready for marriage. Here are five: (…) 5. Focus on training your sons and daughters to harness their sexual energy towards productive ends. So much of the young marriage stuff is motivated by parents who think their children can’t overcome lust and stay chaste into their early 20s. But marrying young is not a solution for this. Sex does not cure lust; it merely channels sexual energy licitly. A man who has not learned to control his eyes before marriage, for instance, is not going to do any better after marriage, and is frankly not marriage material.

This kind of attitude towards marital sex can be found everywhere. At Blazing Grace, Mike Genung wrote a scathing piece on this subject, but it can be summed up with this paragraph:

Continue reading