Standing in stark contrast to Pastor Bonhoeffer’s interpretation, today’s feminist churchians demand “mutual submission” or “servant leadership” from their husbands which means, when boiled to its essence, the husband might lead but only in a manner approved by his wife, which translated to the King’s English means he leads not at all. The feminist churchian seeks a puppet for a husband, with her as the puppeteer, (at least until the divorce is final when she hands the control bar to her attorney who walks it over to the judge, leaving the judge as the head of this new and exciting state-controlled relationship.) But no true leader is just a figurehead, a mere puppet. Even though Jesus sacrificed His very life for us, are we His puppeteer? Thank God, no! Good leaders are often sacrificial leaders, but they are still leaders even when leading sacrificially, perhaps especially when leading sacrificially.
It’s true that both parties in a Christian marriage are to be submitted, just not in accordance with the feminist churchian’s ideal. Their patriarchal straw man, the horrible husband, barking out orders like a two-bit dictator, concerned with only his own desires, beating his wife if his beer is insufficiently cold, doesn’t even exist but in the most extreme cases, and hopefully never in the genuine Christ-follower. Feminists always drive social change by using the hard case, even when that case has to be fabricated from whole cloth, and then applying their solution for the rare or non-existent hard case to the normal case, proffering a solution for a problem that hardly exists, introducing all manner of heretofore unknown pathologies to society in the process. For example, feminists used the hard case of conception through rape to justify access to legal abortion with the full but hidden intent to make their abominable solution available in the general case, ending any pregnancy merely at the mother’s whim, the father having no rights, no input whatsoever. Note well that if she decides to keep the baby, he’ll be financially supporting the child until adulthood. Isn’t it ironic that in the feminist’s world (our world) a married woman can abort her child without her husband’s consent or even his knowledge, yet many doctors will not perform a vasectomy on a married man without his wife’s consent? Isn’t it his body? Isn’t it his sperm? Seek to fully comprehend the inherent dichotomy. A wife can legally abort her baby (whether fathered by her husband or not) without her husband’s knowledge or consent, while the husband may find it difficult to obtain a simple vasectomy without his wife’s consent.[66] The feminists seek to undermine male leadership in every area and at all cost.
The biblical model of submission is the Father leading, Christ following the Father, you following Christ, and your wife following you: “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”[67] As hard as this might be to live out, it’s not hard to understand unless one is being willingly obtuse. You follow the Lord; she follows you. You love her; she respects you: “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”[68] God will hold us responsible for how well we loved and led, just as He will hold our wives accountable for how well they respected their husbands and submitted to their leadership. God does not attach conditions to these commands, even directing Christian women to remain married to their unbelieving husbands.[69]
Of course, this model isn’t an acceptable one to the feminist churchian, but the Bible couldn’t be clearer on this topic: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.”[70] How would a feminist churchian, man or woman, react to this clear-cut passage since even most churchians supposedly believe the Bible to be God-breathed? It’s a conundrum, a superb example of unresolved cognitive dissonance. Their equalitarian ideology precludes them from following this straightforward passage so the biblical model must be undermined at its foundation: Equality in every respect, submission in none, is the equalitarian substitute. To resolve any remaining cognitive dissonance, the churchian will predictably refer to the previous verse in Ephesians which states, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”[71] and argue thusly: “Paul couldn’t have really meant what he stated in verse 22 regarding marital submission since it contradicts what he wrote in verse 21. After all, even Peter wrote, ‘[Paul’s] letters contain some things that are hard to understand.’[72] Since we find this passage hard to understand, and we know that equality is the highest virtue, we must be safe and interpret this passage as commanding husbands and wives to submit to each other.” See how it’s done? That’s how a feminist reconciles her ideology with her faith. She alters her faith.
I suppose it’s possible that the Apostle Paul, the man who authored the impeccably reasoned book of Romans, the same brilliant evangelist who reached the Greeks by seizing upon their “UNKNOWN GOD,”[73] might contradict himself from one sentence to the next. Actually, I think not: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”[74] Paul was genuinely brilliant, was blinded by Jesus on the Damascus Road,[75] was “called to be an apostle,”[76] was “a prisoner of Christ Jesus,”[77] literally became “an ambassador in chains,”[78] was called by God as His “chosen instrument,”[79] was a “Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee,”[80] and knew precisely what he was writing, expressed precisely what he meant. The fact that we now store our writings with electrons instead of scrolls doesn’t invalidate Paul’s clear teaching, for only a few paragraphs later he wrote: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”[81] Must children really obey when we’ve all just been instructed to submit to one another? Why? And why only a few paragraphs later would he instruct, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear”[82] when we’re all to submit to one another? Though Peter did indeed write that Paul’s letters “contain some things that are hard to understand,” he continued, “which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”[83] Paul is so hard to understand, especially when one doesn’t want to understand him.
Just as the adjective modifies the noun, so do the latter sentences modify the previous, starting with the general case and moving to the specific; for those readers who are computer programmers, think of it as a case statement. In general, Christians should submit to one another but Paul lays out three specific cases of emphasis: husbands and wives; parents and children; masters and slaves. Paul provided additional weight to this interpretation when he wrote that young women should be trained “to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.”[84] By my count, the NIV translation uses the phrase “subject to” thirty-seven times. If one peruses each instance, there is little doubt what is meant by the term, and it has nothing in common with equality or mutual submission as understood and put forth by the feminist churchian. Suffice it to say, if you’re having this argument with a woman of some interest to you, I strongly advise moving along. If a woman is incapable of understanding and following God-breathed instructions written this clearly, then she is simply not a risk worth taking. There are too many worthy women in this world to settle for less. Seek the crown.
Let me be clear: God loves His people, male or female, and His earthly roles, though purposeful, are not eternal. Only God fully knows what our roles will be in heaven, but as Christians we must take great care to avoid treating others harshly or condescendingly because of their earthly gifts or roles (or lack thereof.) The Bible is filled with warnings to those who would abuse their talents or misuse their authority: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”[85] Those tasked with leadership responsibilities must seek to execute against those responsibilities deliberately and with all care. For, when He is avenging, “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God,”
[86] for His “judgment is just.”[87] But, keeping the foregoing in mind, it is still men who are to lead. The prophet Isaiah defines disaster thusly: “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they that lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”[88]
Let’s linger here for just another moment to more fully ponder a man’s inherent responsibility in God’s model. Jesus certainly did pick up the serving towel and wash His disciples’ feet and He obviously loved His disciples unto His very death; however, He demonstrated His love by loving them enough to lead them well, whether they invited His leadership or not. Jesus didn’t hesitate to use His authority to instruct, exhort, demand, or command, but He performed all of these actions in love and with consideration, according to His Father’s will. Jesus sets a high bar, men, but His very first recorded statement to His very first disciples was a command: “Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch.”[89] After their nets were filled He stated, “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”[90] From His rebuke of Satan, to His command to follow, to His defiance of Pharisaic authority, to His clearing of the temple area while brandishing a whip, to His authoritative teaching and actions, to His washing of His disciples’ feet, to His very death at Golgotha,[91] Jesus led perfectly, and we should follow in His path: “If you love me, you will obey what I command.”[92] And note this well, even Jesus subordinates Himself to authority, God the Father: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.”[93] Anyone who designs an organization with no clear line of authority is a fool, and God is no fool. He’s God, by definition the antithesis of a fool. Even Heaven itself has clear lines of authority. Churches do too, especially, and most ironically, in those churches advocating equalitarianism in marriage. Stir the pot in an equalitarian congregation, and you’ll quickly see those lines emerge in deep relief. The family is also an organization and requires clear leadership too. You are called and commanded to provide it.
Where can one find a wife who will become a crown? How can one identify a woman who’d make a loving, respectful, submissive wife, a woman willing to join you in your mission, separating her from the morass of her rebellious sisters? Once you’ve sufficiently prepared, the next step is simple really, for you must meet her to evaluate her: Follow Jesus’ model with His disciples and take charge from the very moment you meet. If you’re interested, don’t timidly ask her out. Tell her you find her interesting, that you’d like to see her on Friday, and that you’ll pick her up at seven. If she reacts in the negative, just pass, and celebrate that you’ve probably saved yourself time, effort, and energy towards a dead-end. After all, time and resources are limited and there are plenty of girls available for the man on a mission. This is truth men: Though the percentage of virtuous women has decreased, there are still millions of good women available for the capable, courageous man.
Take courage, men. Countless potentially good marriages have been lost before they began through a man’s timidity and his fear of rejection. Have you ever noticed or wondered why good salesmen are often married to exceptionally pretty women? Their professional life is full of rejection and they must overcome their prospect’s objections repeatedly to be successful. They understand that selling is a game of large numbers, that if only one percent of people need their product, they are going to have to be rejected ninety-nine times for every sale. If a salesman can’t deal with rejection routinely, he’s in the wrong business, and will have to find other employment. So what are you afraid of? Is that five foot, two inch, one hundred and fifteen pound girl going to put you in the emergency room with her strong right punch? Is her rejection going to ruin your life? No and no. You should work to become fearless around women, to disregard their beauty when interacting with them; she’s not remotely capable of injuring you during your waking hours; if you get rejected ten thousand times and then meet your perfect wife, you are a winner. In marriage, you only have to make the successful sale one time! Put in its proper perspective, rejection really is not a big deal; after all, who should you fear, God or woman? Truly you must decide, “Do I fear woman?” Men who are successful with women don’t fear them, or at least find ways to overcome their fear.
You can be certain of this: If you fail to muster the courage to approach a woman of interest, you certainly won’t be able to lead her in lifetime marriage. Even more importantly, how will such a man bear up under adversity or persecution when it comes? Seriously, be about your business. Take courage. Let the memory of your fearless approach marinate for a lifetime in her mind. Courage is attractive. College, the grocery, sporting events, the cafeteria – girls are where you find them. Think. Man up. Invite her in.
Harvey Mackay gives great business advice and his “Rule of Ten Thousand” is very applicable to this problem:
When you were a kid, you wouldn’t get the pie unless you ate the peas. As we get older, it gets more sophisticated. They don’t threaten to fire you to get a day’s work out of you.
But there is a variation of the peas/pie gambit that still gets results. One of the country’s most successful college basketball coaches uses the Rule of Ten Thousand. Or rather, ten thousand dollars.
“You miss more free throws than any other starter on this team,” he says. “You say you can’t make free throws?”
“Now, what if I were to pay you ten thousand dollars to shoot above the league average in free throws the rest of the season? Could you hit sixty-five percent?”
“Yeah, I know I can.”
“Yeah, I know you can, too. Only there’s just one thing. I’m not going to pay you ten thousand dollars. You are going up to that line, and every time you shoot I want you to think you’re shooting for that ten thousand dollars.”
A 50 percent free-throw shooter became a 70 percent shooter, for a coach whose teams appeared in the NCAA tournament more often than any other team in his region.[94]
Could you muster the courage to approach a woman of interest if someone paid you ten thousand dollars to do so? Of course you could. (If not, just stop reading now and resume your favorite video game. Being single has its advantages.)
Let us take this idea a step further: I once employed a wonderful woman as my office manager, a woman who joined the company in its infancy and contributed to its success for many years. When something needed to be done, I could hand it off to her and know that nothing would keep her from accomplishing the goal. She stunned me with her tenacity repeatedly. If a task was possible to accomplish, it would be done. She was indispensable, a lioness, and she was compensated accordingly. Interestingly though, in her personal life she was precisely the opposite, so considerate and intent on not inconveniencing another soul on this earth that she lived less than the full life that was before her. Every day, the moment she left the office, the lioness transformed into the lamb. Eventually we became close enough for me to inquire directly about my observation and she answered candidly, “You are paying me to get a job done and that makes it my responsibility to get it done.” Though hers was a stunning transformation, I’ve since noted that many men also behave similarly, a tiger at work, castrated for the remaining hours in the day. A man castrated for half his waking hours cannot become all that God would have him to become, so I have a suggestion for your consideration: As a Christian, you are in God’s army 24/7, and are more accountable to Him than to any employer or customer. If you are capable of knocking down walls for a paycheck, can’t you embrace your masculinity sufficiently to knock down walls for the God of the Universe, your Creator? Can’t you knock down walls to marry well and thereby bless yourself and your children with a good marriage? Can’t you knock down a few walls to enjoy sex often with your lovely wife? Yes you can, and it will both please your God and benefit you greatly. To the point, to successfully find (and marry) a virtuous wife in Sodom, you will need your chest, so don’t leave it
hanging in the closet my brother. Your future children are depending upon your ability to marry well.
Though God commands wives to respect their husbands, the wise husband will seek to engender respect, to become a man worthy of respect. The man too timid to approach a woman of interest will not command any woman’s respect but “the righteous are as bold as a lion.”[95] Don’t you seek His righteousness? Be courageous. Be bold. Be a lion.
Avoiding the Scourge of Divorce
I love divorce.[96] — Satan
I was sitting at lunch with Jeren as he held back tears, recounting how his wife, Laura, had connected with Bill via Facebook, an old high school flame, and was now meeting him at nightclubs. She’d stayed out all night the night before, not for the first time, but claimed, “Nothing had happened except a kiss.” Translation: “Bill is exciting! I’m really attracted to him and I’ve had wild sex with him several times. He’s not boring like Jeren, but I’m not sure yet whether or not Bill will commit to me, so I have to keep Jeren from bolting until I’m ready to dump him. But he knows that something is up, so I’d better admit to indiscretions too small for him to jettison our marriage but sufficient to seem plausible. I’ll tell him I need some space and that we might still have a chance with some counseling. Hmmm. I think he’ll go for it! The dupe.” Having seen this scenario play out any number of times, the pattern of behavior is utterly predictable.
Made to Lead Page 4