Category Archives: Female Christian Authors

Refuting Sheila Gregoire’s Assertion That “Deprive is not the same as refuse”

1 Corinthians 7:1-5 has been a standard text that people like myself reference when arguing against feminists like Sheila Gregoire. Sheila is one among many feminists seeking to give wives an excuse for not giving their husbands what 1 Cor. 7:3 describes as their “conjugal rights”. While Sheila acknowledges that verse 5 clearly forbids both spouses from depriving one another, she had to devise some way around it. At least as far back as 2012, she has had this to say (bolding is mine):

First, let’s note what this verse does not say. Paul did not write:

Do not refuse one another, except by mutual consent and for a time…

He wrote do not deprive.

Deprive is not the same as refuse. I believe many people interpret this verse to mean refuse. Are women obligated to have sex every time a man wants it? Are we ever allowed to refuse?

Well, let’s look more closely at deprive.

If I were to say to you, “do not deprive your child of good food,” what am I implying? I’m saying that your child should get the food that is commonly recognized for good health: three healthy meals a day, with some snacks. I am not saying that every time your child pulls at your leg and says, “Mommy, can I have a bag of cheetos?” that you have to say yes. You are not depriving your child of good food by refusing a request for Cheetos.

Deprive implies that there is a level of sexual activity that is necessary for a healthy marriage.

What Does 1 Corinthians 7:5–Do Not Deprive Each Other–Really Mean? []

More recently, this year in her new book The Great Sex Rescue, Sheila repeated this same assertion.

A Closer Look at “Do Not Deprive”

Let’s take a step back and ask, What is God really asking of us in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5?(…)what does it mean not to deprive, and what is it that we’re being asked not to deprive our spouse of?

Saying “Do not deprive” is not the equivalent of saying “Do not refuse.” When we say “Do not deprive,” we’re saying, “Someone has a need that has to be fulfilled.” But this is not the same thing as saying, “A person gets to have whatever they want.” God made us with a need for food. If your child asks, “Can I have Cheetos?” and you refuse because lunch is in an hour, you are not depriving her of food. The child’s need is for a healthy, balanced diet, not to eat anything she wants, any time she wants.

Likewise, the sexual need that God created us with is not for intercourse whenever we want or however we want. It’s for a healthy, mutual, fulfilling sex life, and sometimes that means saying no for a variety of reasons.

The Great Sex Rescue, 2021, Pages 173-174

As you can see, Sheila is quite attached to this assertion, but it remains just that. An assertion. Notice I did not call it an “argument”, and that’s because she argued for nothing. She claims that “Do not deprive” is not the equivalent of saying “Do not refuse,” but she never proves that. While we frequently use these two words interchangeably, Sheila insists they mean distinctly different things. Yet if one simply examines the word “deprive” in the dictionary, what do you find?

deprive [ dih-prahyv ]
verb (used with object), de·prived, de·priv·ing.
to remove or withhold something from the enjoyment or possession of (a person or persons): to deprive a man of life; to deprive a baby of candy. explicitly refutes Sheila’s definition of ‘deprive’. Even her ludicrous comparison between a husband’s sexual desires and a child’s desire for Cheetos is debunked by this definition: “to deprive a baby of candy.” Clearly babies do not need candy, they merely want candy. And yet, to remove/withhold candy from a baby is still an act of deprivation. The word can be used either way, as can the word ‘refuse’.

In light of this, when we see 1 Corinthians 7:5 say, “Do not deprive one another,” its meaning is clear. Neither spouse in a marriage is permitted to refuse sex to the other. This interpretation doesn’t simply rest on the use of the word deprive, of course. Verses 1-5 flow together in an unbroken line of thought. Men and women are commanded to marry because of temptation to sexual sin in verses 1-2. Verse 3 follows up by describing access to your spouse’s body for sexual intercourse as a conjugal “right”. Not a reward or something you must first earn- it is a right, I.E. something each spouse is entitled to receive from the other. Verse 4 fortifies this by saying that both the husband and wife must have sex with each other because they don’t have authority over their own body, but their spouse does. Verse 5’s condemnation of depriving your spouse of sex except in highly exceptional circumstances is the final nail in the coffin.

That is how we can know how the word “deprive” is being used. The word in itself does not carry some special meaning that redefines what came before it. On the contrary, what came before it defines the meaning of that word. Sheila’s bare assertion ignores Paul’s flow of thought, ignores the interchangeable meanings of “deprive” and “refuse”, ignores how the words are defined in the dictionary, and hence, she doesn’t have a single leg to stand on.

Then again, why worry about such things when you think you know better than the Bible anyway? (From pages 177-178)

Rescuing and Reframing

  • Instead of saying, “Do not deprive your husband,” say, “Sex is a vital part of a healthy marriage relationship that you are both meant to enjoy.”(…)
  • Instead of saying, “You do not have authority over your body; your spouse does,” say, “God wants sex to be a mutual, loving experience.”
  • Instead of saying, “The only activity that is to break regular sexual relations is prayer and fasting for some specific cause, and this to be only by mutual consent for a very limited time,” say, “Our sexual needs are very important ones, but they are not the only ones. Show love to your spouse by caring for all of their needs.”

Interesting approach from a woman who wrote a book with the subtitle, “…How to Recover What God Intended” by telling people not to say what God himself said.

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.


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.

Southern Baptists Are Getting What They Deserve

For those not aware, this pastor is now the president of the Southern Baptist Convention. He is a woke pastor who, according to this article, is okay with his wife preaching alongside him, and decries people who oppose critical race theory. He is one among many who has made it a point to belabor just how mean and evil whites have behaved towards blacks, which tells you all you need to know about where this man stands politically.

Why did he win? Were there not more Christian, orthodox men who wanted the job? At least one man, Al Mohler, did run, but he only got 26% of the votes. Assuming the voting process is not corrupted, then the majority of Southern Baptists who voted have made their desires clear. Most of them want a man in charge who will lead the convention to the left. It’s a tragic turn of events. Perhaps if Mohler won the presidency he could have slowed down the SBC’s descent into depravity. Perhaps.

I assume a lot of Southern Baptists will wonder what on earth they did to deserve this outcome. Why has God placed an evil man in the role of their president? I’d like to suggest that maybe, just maybe, that Southern Baptists are getting what they should have expected to get after the way they’ve behaved over the past 15+ years.

#1 – They engaged in and encouraged other Christians to engage in alienating the Christians among them who affirmed a belief in Calvinism. I believe the Calvinist resurgence in the SBC began in the early 2000’s, and it picked up speed in 2006. Southern Baptist preachers and teachers went on a warpath, decrying Calvinism as a move away from the gospel, and hounding Christians in the SBC who identified as Calvinists. They were vilified by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Ergun & Emir Caner, and later on by men like David Allen and most of the men who helmed the John 3:16 conference. Southern Baptists made it a point to incite distrust and suspicion of Christian men who affirmed the doctrines of grace, and looking back now, it is all the more foolish considering just how many grave issues lay at their door. Who cares if a man in your church is a Calvinist when you have the celebration of sexual debauchery pounding on your door? This engendered a lack of unity that obviously left them vulnerable when a strong, anti-Christian, pro-sexual depravity force came along.

#2 – They have embraced a complementarian view of marriage and sexuality. They may have paid lip service to the doctrine of the Husband’s authority and headship over his wife and home, but as we all know, it was just that. Lip service. A grudging admission that yeah, it’s in the Bible, but we all better watch it, because it’s only one small step from affirming patriarchy to having women by the thousands being tortured, mutiliated, raped, and murdered by their husbands. They routinely attacked the men who would assert their authority over their wives. In doing so they destroyed men’s natural desire to be bold, to make decisions, and to demand their wives and children (and pastors, God forbid) adhere to a God-honoring family structure. Is anyone really surprised that a convention filled with emasculated men lacked the spine to stand their ground against the attacks of feminism or social justice?

#3 – They have deliberately disobeyed God’s command to forbid women from teaching biblical theology. Al Mohler played a deliberate role in this, as he welcome Mary Kassian, a founding member of the Council of Biblical Manhood & Womanhood to join the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary faculty back in 2005. In his words:

“We’re absolutely thrilled to have the person I consider to be the premier evangelical scholar and writer in the area of gender roles join the Southern Seminary faculty,” Mohler said.

“As distinguished professor of women’s studies, Mary Kassian brings an international reputation combined with deep biblical convictions and a tremendous ability to communicate, to teach and to share her passion for a biblical understanding of these issues.

“This is a great development for Southern Seminary and another representation of what God is giving us in this faculty. We look forward to having Mary join us in the classroom, on the faculty and as a part of the Southern Seminary family.”

This is not even touching upon the unbiblical things Mary Kassian has taught.

Let’s not forget Paige and Dorothy Patterson who were doing the same thing Mohler did:

Patterson, along with her husband, were instrumental in establishing women’s studies programs at Southwestern and at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, where Paige Patterson was president until his election at Southwestern in 2003.

Dorothy Patterson was the only woman in the founding of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and has authored, coauthored and/or edited more than a dozen books, including “The Study Bible for Women,” which received Christian Retailing’s top award in 2015 for devotional/study Bibles; the Old and New Testament volumes of the “Women’s Evangelical Commentary”; and “The Christian Homemaker’s Handbook.”

See how that accursed council keeps rearing its ugly head? Southern Baptists were absolutely clueless about the destruction the CBMW would wreak among them. So what if they have women teachers? So what if it violates Scripture? It’s not like we’re all going to become raving feminists!

Which leads me to my next point:

#4 – They have fully and happily embraced a feminist attitude towards men. Feminist hate men, they hate Christian men who preach Patriarchy from the pulpit, and they want to destroy them. Yes, I’m saying Southern Baptists have become exactly that. If you don’t believe me, let me remind you how they treated Paige Patterson. His crime was objectifying a woman, and preaching that a woman who was beaten by her husband should stay in her marriage and pray for her husband. He told her to rely entirely upon God to change him. For this, he was all but burned at the stake only 3 years ago. Dalrock covered this in extensive detail here, but let’s not forget just how viscously they treated this man for what he said:

Deeming the information demanded immediate action and could not be deferred to a regular meeting of the Board, based on the details presented, the Executive Committee unanimously resolved to terminate Dr. Paige Patterson, effective immediately, removing all the benefits, rights and privileges provided by the May 22-23 board meeting, including the title of President Emeritus, the invitation to reside at the Baptist Heritage Center as theologian-in-residence and ongoing compensation.

Unbeknownst to Paige Patterson, he had a HUGE group of people around him and below him who hated him and wanted him gone. Now, how did that happen? How did such a sudden swell of feminists have the power and influence to take him down? Hadn’t he been a good complementarian preacher who even allowed his wife to teach? Surely he had done nothing to encourage feminism in the church, had he? There’s no way that thousands of women in the SBC would all band together to take him down, right?

The sad part is, I think even most truly born-again Southern Baptists will never figure this out. Complementarianism is Christian Feminism, and Feminism engenders hatred for men who dare to stand against it.

Prime example? Al Mohler. Yes, that guy.

When Paige Patterson was being destroyed by his enemies, Al Mohler, that supposed far-right leaning leader in the SBC, joined the feminists in tearing him down.

A church, denomination, or Christian ministry must look outside of itself when confronted with a pattern of mishandling such responsibilities, or merely of being charged with such a pattern. We cannot vindicate ourselves. That is the advice I have given consistently for many years. I now must make this judgment a matter of public commitment. I believe that any public accusation concerning such a pattern requires an independent, third-party investigation. In making this judgment, I make public what I want to be held to do should, God forbid, such a responsibility arise.(…)

The #MeToo moment has come to American evangelicals. This moment has come to some of my friends and brothers in Christ. This moment has come to me, and I am called to deal with it as a Christian, as a minister of the Gospel, as a seminary and college president, and as a public leader. I pray that I will lead rightly.

Denny Burk, yet another Southern Baptist member of that damned council, joined with Al Mohler in throwing Patterson under the bus. These men, plus the members of the SWBTS board of trustees, are unquestionably more educated than your average Southern Baptist. They’ve studied issues surrounding marriage and sexuality for years, and in Mohler and Burk’s case, decades prior to this. They should have been among the men who unapologetically stood behind Patterson when he needed them, and they stabbed him in the back. Took it as an opportunity to distinguish themselves as the good guys so that the evil, resentful men and women who hated them would spare them their wrath.

At this late stage in June of 2021, it should be no surprise whatsoever that a woke, social justice crony has been given power over the convention. This is what you get, my Southern Baptist brothers. You attack your Christian brothers, you fostered a movement of hatred for fathers and husbands, rebelled against God’s commands for your preachers and teachers to be male exclusively, and you don’t know the first thing about loyalty when one of your brothers comes under attack. Sorry, guys, but you’re getting exactly what you deserve.

P.S. When it comes to Al Mohler, I haven’t even touched upon his seething, alienating response to his silence on the problem of social justice amongst evangelicals. He clearly does not get along well with those who disagree with him, and is ready to go scorched-earth with anyone who would. This was just another side-example of the disunity Southern Baptists struggle with. James White covered this in detail here.

Sheila Gregoire Wants To Dox People Who Don’t Like Her

Some guy on Twitter had the audacity to tell Sheila Gregoire that he didn’t appreciate her presuming to talk to him about his family.

Not being accustomed to men telling her to buzz off, Sheila re-framed her nosiness as merely delivering information to an ignorant man.

One of Sheila’s simping fans decided that this man ought to be doxed for the despicable things he said.


Sheila much appreciated Kyle’s white-knighting, and heartily agreed with him.


Amazing, isn’t it? This man who dared denigrate Sheila Gregoire needs to be doxed. His identity needs to be revealed, and he needs to be investigated. He’s among the sickest of abusers, or at least, an enabler of such men.

But what was the wrong-think that motivated Sheila to talk to the man anyway?

Thebedouin wasn’t interested in having a lengthy theological treatise on the subject of modesty and boys thoughts. Maybe Sheila was, but he wasn’t. He didn’t bother entertaining her super-duper-smart 20,000-strong survey report. He simply had the gall to point out that if what this sign said is true, then there’s no reason for girls to dress modestly. He’s right, of course, but that’s just not okay with the great Sheila Gregoire. To her and her simping fan Kyle, this man needs to be punished.

I suppose I can thank these two for reminding me why thankless work like running this blog must go on. These “Nice Christian Ladies” need to be exposed by anyone willing to do so, and they must be called to repent for their sinful intrusion into other people’s lives. Sheila Gregoire needs to be reigned in by her church, her husband, and anyone who has a hint of self-awareness of what she’s doing.

Marital Sex MUST Be “Mutual”!

Sometime back Sheila was going on a Twitter-campaign to let the world know just how eeeeevil the book Love & Respect is.

I’m not interested in defending the book Love and Respect per say, but rather, this assumed belief Sheila has that sex must be mutually gratifying or mutually fulfilling in some manner.

I challenged Sheila to provide Scripture to prove this assertion of hers- that “sex should be mutual.”

Unsurprisingly, this stalwart rescuer of Christian women around the globe eventually just blocked me.

For a man standing behind what the Scripture says and only what the Scripture says, he can see Sheila’s nonsense with perfect clarity. The Bible never says that if you have sex purely for physical reasons that you are committing a sin. Nor does the Bible say that it’s a sin for a husband or a wife to have sex purely for their own satisfaction and not their spouse’s. On the fundamental level, there isn’t a verse that even hints at such a concept.

Sheila didn’t care to acknowledge this fact. Instead she resorts to good old-fashioned poisoning of the well. “It is pornography that talks about sex as being about a man taking what he wants.” No, Sheila. That’s the way God talks about sex. It’s straight out of the book of Proverbs:

Proverbs 5:15 (ESV) Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be for yourself alone, and not for strangers with you. 18 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, 19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love. 20 Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?

The Holy Spirit who inspired King Solomon to write this book felt quite comfortable talking about sex being about a man taking what he wants. The man wants sex, and so he is commanded to drink from his own cistern/well. He’s even being explicitly told to use his wife’s boobs to satisfy him at all times. No such mention of the mutual gratification/fulfillment on the wife’s part is mentioned, and for Sheila, that just won’t do.

Proverbs 5 “never once talked about how sex should be mutual and how it was created for her too” either. As you can see though, that isn’t important to Sheila. She never offered a verse proving what she kept asserting was a required feature of marital sex. Does that phase her? Not one wit, because the Scriptures simply don’t matter to her. If we’re going to talk about pure and simple abominations, I’d say that comes pretty darn close.

Is Sheila Gregoire An Expert on Marriage or Isn’t She?

Buckle up. We got a long one here.

I checked, and confirmed that Sheila really is writing another book about sex, and it’s set to be released on March 2nd, 2021. I gotta say, that’s a pretty blasé cover. This looks like some cheap cover you’d find printed back in the early 2000’s by a publishing company that didn’t have any faith in their product. Maybe Gregoire and co. haven’t made up their minds on the final design.

I’ll tell you one thing I can’t figure out about Sheila- has she even made up her mind on whether she’s an expert on marriage? She’s claimed to have an informed perspective on marriage since at least March 6th of 2012*. Take this description from The Good Girl’s Guide to Great Sex on Amazon: Continue reading

Even Mary Kassian could see through the spell!

Mutual Submission is a doctrine Christians invented decades ago to make marriage less repulsive to women’s sinful natures. We had grown tired of wringing our hands whenever we had to tell women they have to do what their husbands say. We had to find some way around it, and so we conceived a new strategy: Couple our teachings about the authority of the husband over his wife with a hasty assurance that husbands must also submit to their wives. See? Now we can assure the women we preach to that the only reason they think submission in marriage is a bad thing is because they thought they were the only ones who had to do it! Pure genius! Christian teachers latched onto it with glee and we continue to preach it to this day.

Not everyone fell under the spell, however. To my surprise, not even Mary Kassian bought into this. Back in 1992, she wrote the following on page 216 of The Feminist Gospel: The Movement to Unite Feminism With the Church:

The primary concern of Biblical feminists is the question of the ordination of women — whether or not women should be allowed to occupy the office of elder (pastor, presbyter, bishop, priest). A second related concern is the mutual sharing of authority and responsibility in the marital relationship — “mutual submission.”59

The #59 footnote is on page 278. It says:

59. “Mutual submission” is a misnomer. Besides being a linguistic impossibility, it is a concept that is absent from the Bible. See my discussion of the term in Women,
Creation and the Fall, pp. 36, 37.

The book Women, Creation, and the Fall was published in 1990. You can read the following from pages 36-37:

The one in authority is also required to submit.
Mutual submission is also an incorrect concept, for submission is the responsibility of the one under authority. Although admonitions to bend to meet the needs of a submissive partner in a relationship, as well as to lead with love, consideration, and respect, are present throughout Scripture, the one in authority is never asked to submit to the subordinate.8 The term mutual submission is thus a misnomer and is foreign to Scripture.

Ephesians 5:21 is used as the prooftext to support the mutual submission concept. Hypotasso (Greek for “submit”) in verse 21 is interpreted to mean submitting to the needs of each other. Mutually looking out for each other’s needs and altering one’s behavior for the sake of the other is in line with Christ’s pattern of self-sacrificing love and is indeed what He wishes us to do. However, interpreting hypotasso as requiring reciprocal obedience within a hierarchical relationship obviously overlooks its New Testament meaning.

Hypotasso always requires one party in a relationship to submit to the other, and not vice versa. The context of Ephesians 5:21 supports this position. In this verse, Paul makes a general call to all Christians to submit to one another in whatever hierarchical relationships they are involved in. He then gives three specific examples of relationships in which submission of one party is required. Verse 21 is thus properly understood as an introductory verse to those which follow. As James Hurley points out:

Verse 21, “submit yourselves to one another out of respect for Christ,” is thus to be understood as a general heading indicating that there will be various situations in which certain believers will have to yield to the authority of others. The following text (5:22–6:9) sets out three particular relations in which this will be the case: wives will need to submit themselves to husbands; children will need to obey their parents, and slaves their masters. The idea of mutual submission has to do with various members of the congregation rather than with the two partners of each pair.9

Although the Bible does not teach mutual submission within an authority structure, it does teach principles of conduct which are to be mutually practiced by all believers. Believers are to encourage,edify, be devoted to, and live in harmony with each other. They are to exhibit Christlike traits of gentleness, patience, and kindness. Believers have mutual responsibility to show concern, love, and respect for each other, and to esteem each other better than themselves. They are warned against being conceited and against biting, devouring, consuming, provoking, envying, hating, and begrudging one another.10 This is the mutual responsibility of both the one in authority and the one under authority. But submission, or obedience, is required only of the one who is under authority, not of the one in an authoritative or leadership position.

Now fast forward to 2015. In her True Woman 201 book that she co-authored with Nancy DeMoss, you can find this on page 195 (Location 3806 in the Kindle version):

Ephesians 5:21 instructs us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. The passage then identifies three specific relationships that call for a submissive posture: wives to husbands, children to parents, and bondservants to masters. The concept of authority and submission extends into all sorts of other chain-of-command relationships, too—like governments and citizens, bosses and employees, church elders and congregations.

The term mutual submission is popular in Christian circles, but “submitting to one another” doesn’t mean that both parties in a chain of command are to submit to each other. It means we’re to have a respectful disposition that inclines us to submit in all the relationships that call for submission. In some relationships you may have the responsibility to govern, and in others the responsibility to submit.

In the “Personalize” section on page 204 (Kindle location 3986):

6. Ephesians 5:21 instructs us to submit to one another. How are those instructions different from the notion of “mutual submission” that’s so popular today?

I assume Mary Kassian hasn’t changed her mind since 2015. If that assumption is correct, then she has been consistent on this point for the past THIRTY YEARS. She has been bold enough to point at “mutual submission” and clearly state it’s a doctrine at odds with what the Bible teaches. That’s despite her hatred for patriarchal authority and her desperate attempt to justify it from the Greek. If even a woman as prejudiced as she is could figure this out back in 1990, then you know that plenty of God-fearing men knew it too. No, it’s worse than that. They’ve known full-well this entire time. Unlike Kassian, they either embraced it, or they let it go unchallenged. That’s why we’re still dealing with it today.

The Greek Says My Husband Can’t Demand Submission From Me!

In their book True Woman 201: Interior Design – Ten Elements of Biblical Womanhood Mary Kassian & Nancy Leigh DeMoss, they make a textual argument for their position that when it comes to wifely submission, wives are only required to submit to their husbands of their own volition. Husbands are forbidden from demanding submission from their wives, and in this book, Kassian/DeMoss make an argument from the Greek text (Page 189):

The Greek word translated “submissive” is the word hupotassō from hupo “under, beneath” and tassō “to place in order, arrange, or line up.” The word is an old military term. It means to arrange under in an orderly fashion—to place in the proper position under rank. In this case, it indicates that the Lord wants a wife to voluntarily line herself up under the headship of her husband.

It’s important to note that the word for submission used for the wife’s desired attitude differs from the one used for the child’s behavior toward his parents and the bondservant’s response toward his master. In the case of children and servants, the word is hupakouō, from hupo “under, beneath” and akouō “to hearken, obey.” Hupakouō means to yield to a superior command or force without necessarily being willing, whereas when Paul tells a wife to hupotassō herself, it means to willingly put herself in the proper position.3

Although this book was co-authored with Nancy Leigh DeMoss, I assume Mary Kassian is the one responsible for the content of this portion of the book. As we proceed, I’m going to refer to Kassian alone for ease of reference. Continue reading

Nice Christian Ladies Will Ruin Your Marriage.

Most married Christian men have no clue what female Christian authors write in their books or web articles. Why would they? Reading a book about relationships by a woman sounds about as much fun as listening to her whine about her feelings and emotions. It’s too bad, because when Christian men do turn a critical eye to the written works of atheists and heretics, we can expose all manner of evil and warn others to stay away. Were we to treat books and other written works that so-called Christian women write in the same manner, we wouldn’t buy them. We certainly wouldn’t give their relationship advice to our wives for their edification.

Here’s a sampling of the kind of things you can expect your wife to be taught when she buys books by these nice Christian ladies who just want what is best for her (Page 121 of When Your Husband Is Addicted to Pornography: Healing Your Wounded Heart by Vicki Tiede).

I’m going to offer a few ideas for you and your husband to consider implementing when you are ready to be sexually intimate. Encourage your husband to verbally ask you if you’d like to be sexual with him. This will help you feel respected and will allow you the freedom to say no with honesty and without repercussion.

Here’s how a nice Christian lady will ruin your marriage. Think of some nice lady, perhaps a truly born-again believer, who is soft-spoken and polite in your company, and is enthusiastic about teaching women how to be Godly women. This is the kind of person who writes books like these. They’ll nicely and politely take your wife aside and teach her how to talk to you in a specific, manipulative manner so that she can get out of having sex with you. And feel unafraid in doing so. It’s also in the guise of a book with a pious-sounding title- healing your wounded heart. She just wants to help your wife!… Supposedly.

How about a web-article by Sheila Wray Gregoire? What Does 1 Corinthians 7:5–Do Not Deprive Each Other–Really Mean?

First, let’s note what this verse does not say. Paul did not write:

Do not refuse one another, except by mutual consent and for a time…

He wrote do not deprive.

Deprive is not the same as refuse. I believe many people interpret this verse to mean refuse. Are women obligated to have sex every time a man wants it? Are we ever allowed to refuse?

Well, let’s look more closely at deprive.

If I were to say to you, “do not deprive your child of good food,” what am I implying? I’m saying that your child should get the food that is commonly recognized for good health: three healthy meals a day, with some snacks. I am not saying that every time your child pulls at your leg and says, “Mommy, can I have a bag of cheetos?” that you have to say yes. You are not depriving your child of good food by refusing a request for Cheetos.

Isn’t this exactly the kind of advice you want your wife to be given unbeknownst to you? She’s instructing your wife to think of your desire for sex as akin to a kid who wants mommy to give him Cheetos. That way if she feels tempted to turn you down for sex, then it will be okay to do it. If this weren’t a female Christian author teaching this, you’d think this was some white-trash busybody, recklessly encouraging wives to hold their husbands in as much contempt as she holds hers. But, since she’s a nice Christian lady, she gets away with it.

How about another book, this one by Mary Kassian & Nancy Leigh DeMoss? This one is called True Woman 201: Interior Design – Ten Elements of Biblical Womanhood (Page number N/A.)

According to the Bible, a wife’s submission is her choice alone. A husband has no right to demand it or to try to extract obedience from her. His only responsibility is to love her, woo her, and humbly sacrifice himself for her as Christ did for the church.

Translation: “If your husband demands you obey him, he needs to mind his own business.” Isn’t that exactly how you want your wife responding to you when you remind her that she’s required to do things your way? Hey, Buddy, your only responsibility is to love, woo, and sacrifice. What do you think you’re doing trying to demand my submission??

Wives have enough difficulty accepting their God-given mandate to obey their husbands. The temptation to disobey is never not there. When a so-called nice Christian lady comes along and informs your wife that she has a way out of that, what do you think she’s going to do? She isn’t going to reply like an apologist and refute what the nice lady said. She isn’t going to say, “Wait- Christ demanded our obedience. In fact, he said in John 14:15 that if we love him we’ll keep his commandments, so I don’t think it’s out of bounds for my husband to do the same.” No. That’s how a man would respond, but your wife is not a man. Her struggle to obey you was difficult enough before this lady came along and encouraged her to give up the fight. Now she’s thinking it’s her perogative alone to submit, and if you try to enforce that, she can tell you to back off.

My advice? Don’t let your wife read female Christian authors. The nicest ladies in the world are going to politely and respectfully ruin your marriage if given the chance. Don’t let it happen.

Punishment For Me, But Not For She.

Family Life co-founder Dennis Rainey disclosed how his wife reacts when he hurts her at a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Panel Discussion in 2012.

Notice how comfortable Dennis Rainey is in revealing how Barbara will, if she’s not satisfied that he has repented, refuse to forgive him until she’s persuaded that he really has. He is very specific in declaring that she has the right to withhold forgiveness until his grovelling pays off. This would be embarrasing enough in its own right, but as Christian feminism is like secular feminism, he doesn’t believe he has the same right to treat her the same way.

I knew my attitude was wrong, and by an act of my will I asked God to take away my childish feelings of wanting to punish Barbara because she had hurt me.

This quote is from page 261 of Staying Close: Stopping the Natural Drift Toward Isolation in Marriage, a book both Dennis and Barbara authored together 9 years prior to the panel. Notice how he characterizes his desire to punish Barbara as childish in nature. It’s not a right- it’s something he needed to ask God to take away. In a nutshell, it was wrong for him to want to punish her despite her having hurt him. If you read the preceding pages, what Dennis did to “hurt” Barbara involved not wanting to listen to her whine about what a hard day she had at home. He was busy setting up an entire conference, but never mind that. She wanted to “talk” about her day. Unsurprisingly, he dragged his feet getting around to it, so she hit him with a pillow (pages 260-261).

Then, when Barbara finished feeding the baby, she put her in the crib, took a pillow, and hit me on top of the head! It wasn’t a very playful whack, and I got the message loud and clear. Smarting with anger, I took the pillow, propped it under my head, and rolled over to stare at the wall, dramatizing where our relationship was headed—straight toward isolation.

Then Barbara said, “Don’t you want to talk?”

Dennis Rainey suggested they take care of this the next day, which they did. No punishment for Barbara whatsoever. If Dennis had “hit” Barbara in any way, shape, or form, pillow or no pillow, he would have depicted himself as the scum of the earth who would need to do some serious grovelling. Flip the story around, and Barbara need not grovel for anything. In fact, she can pretend like her rotten behavior towards him isn’t shocking and revolting. “I just hit you with a pillow. What? You don’t want to talk? Aw, why naaaught?”

Keep in mind that Dennis Rainey isn’t some bumbling fool whose advice is regularly disregarded by real men. He is a celebrated and honored teacher on marriage. From his Biography on

Dennis Rainey is the President and CEO of FamilyLife, a subsidiary of Campus Crusade for Christ. Since the organization began in 1976, Dennis’ leadership has enabled FamilyLife to grow into a dynamic and vital ministry that offers families blueprints for living godly lives. Dennis has authored or co-authored more than two dozen books including the best selling Moments Together for Couples and Staying Close. He has also received two Golden Medallion Awards from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. Dennis serves as the senior editor of the HomeBuilders Couples Series® which has sold over 2.5 million copies and has been translated into 47 languages.

The man may be completely and totally emasculated, but his influence reaches far and wide. He has turned it into a career with dozens of books, a radio show, multiple ministries, and more over the course of four decades. Yet his advice to other men is not to take control of your wife and scold her for her inexcusable behavior. In fact, even the desire to do so is demonized. This is how Christians have decided to view marriage in general: We call cuckold marriages Godly, and we declare husbands who wish to punish their wives sinful behavior as childish.

Now, why is the Christian church so effeminate again?