Real Men Don’t Impede Her Desires

Men will set expectations for other men. They will say things like, “You’re not a real man if you don’t know how to change your own oil.”, or,  “A real man knows how to harvest game from the field.”, or, “Real men help women first.” They will hold such expectations on a regular basis, and they will invent new ones as needed to make a point about the importance of this thing or the other.

Men will also set limitations for other men. They might say, “A real men would never wear a dress.”, or, “Real men don’t play video games for hours.”, or, “A real man never hits a woman.” I trust you understand the dynamic of expectations and limitations to which I refer. They know that a man is a man. What they mean by real is good; good men will do these things and won’t do those things.

Now, once in a great while a man will set a very general expectation on women. If he is a bold Christian he might say, “The Bible says wives should submit to their husbands.” It’s hard to imagine a safer statement than that. The man himself hasn’t actually placed any expectation on women.  Yet even then he will surround it with quibbles and bromides and caveats and exceptions so that the plain and unoffensive statement has no practical meaning whatsoever; lest some man out there start to actually believe what the Bible says. But at least he made some vague attempt at something that might look like an expectation if it is seen at some distance in a dark alley on a moonless night.

What he will never, ever, do is say, “Women shouldn’t  _________.” You can fill in the blank as you like. It doesn’t matter because whatever it is that you think women shouldn’t do won’t actually be said. You can think of the manliest activity, and ultimately a modern man will reason that a woman must not be forbid to do it because she wants to, and because he refuses to stand in her way. Only jerks do that, they say; only a jerks makes a women forgo something she wants to do. He will marshal all forces of technology or rule available to ensure that she gets to try whatever she wants. Worse: He can’t explain why.

He can explain that he doesn’t allow his son to wear skirts even just once a year because it is unseemly for a man to wear women’s clothes. But he cannot explain why he lets his daughter wear a ballcap, jeans, and sneakers as routine. If his son is given a doll he will throw it out, but if his daughter is given a football then the municipal Pee-Wee league needs to give her a shot on the field. If his son picks up knitting needles his father will sneer and deride, but if his daughter picks up a gun then she will be able to defend herself. If his son puts on shorts he will be corrected to dress respectfully. If his daughter dresses like a slut she is merely expressing herself, and what man would dare to make a concrete pronouncement on modesty anyway? Who does he think he is?

They can’t draw a line anywhere around women; what women are, what women aren’t;  what women are to do, what women are not to do.Any man who can find a reason to let her have her way (any reason will do) is an enlightened hero. But any man who forgets himself and tries to put real material expectations and limitations on a woman is scorned as a misogynist and belittled as a wimp who can’t handle women. He will be told it’s not his place to say what his wife or daughter–or wives and daughters in general–are to do or not do.

This is one of the themes which I have come back to over and over. I talked about it with modest dress in sports, cowgirl crossdressing, pioneer women, women roaming malls and churches in various states of disrobe… Modern Christian men simply will not stomach the idea of actual, real, discriminating expectations and limitations on women; of telling them, “No.”

 

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “Real Men Don’t Impede Her Desires

  1. Women shouldn’t ____________”

    has become the preface to a thought crime. Really at this point it’s only a matter of time until that may be the preface to a chargeable offense.

    I’ve been sucked so deep into the hole that I overlook half the examples noted in this post that are around me all the time. I’ve been played and I know it. What’s worse is that I’ve been seeing behind the curtain for a year now thanks to blogs like this one, Dalrock, etc.; yet still haven’t climbed all the way out of my hole into pure daylight.

    Modern Christian men simply will not stomach the idea of actual, real, discriminating expectations and limitations on women; of telling them, “No.”

    It hasn’t even occurred to me until lately that such a thing was possible, and at my age and situation in life I’ve really got nothing to lose by telling them no. But I wasn’t trained like that. It seems wrong and takes an effort of will to confront women over bad behavior, or even suggest they can’t do what they want to do.

  2. Pingback: A Caned Response to the Nashville Statements | Things that We have Heard and Known

  3. Pingback: The High Ground | Donal Graeme

  4. Now, once in a great while a man will set a very general expectation on women. If he is a bold Christian he might say, “The Bible says wives should submit to their husbands.” It’s hard to imagine a safer statement than that. The man himself hasn’t actually placed any expectation on women. Yet even then he will surround it with quibbles and bromides and caveats and exceptions so that the plain and unoffensive statement has no practical meaning whatsoever; lest some man out there start to actually believe what the Bible says. But at least he made some vague attempt at something that might look like an expectation if it is seen at some distance in a dark alley on a moonless night.

    Exactly. Even when it initially seems like they are placing this expectation, the surrounding words negate it. After your post on the “fortified” Nashville Statement I looked to see who it came from. While I recognized Pastor Wilson, the other names weren’t familiar. However, one of the signers is Pastor Tim Bayly, an early Executive Director of the CBMW. Bayly still supports the CBMW founding document (which invented the sin of a wife submitting to her husband in a servile way), and the founding book (which carved out space for women preachers like Beth Moore). But he subsequently broke from the group for (among other things) not promoting one of Pastor Wilson’s books. Bayly is also surprisingly critical of fellow PCA Pastor Tim Keller, calling him a feminist.

    So Bayly is not only an ally of Pastor Wilson, but on the bleeding edge of pastors defending “traditional” sex roles. That is to say he supports the terrible things the CBMW did at their founding, but not the worse things they have done since then. Not surprisingly, Bayly has written a book titled Daddy Tried: Overcoming the Failures of Fatherhood. In promoting the book, he did a Q&A at the Barnabas blog where he was asked what wives can do to help their husbands stop failing as fathers:

    Q: What can wives do to help their husbands better fulfill their role as fathers? What about sons and daughters, how can they help?

    A: Well, this is the million-dollar question, but here are some thoughts.

    WIVES: Don’t nag, but pray. Don’t become bitter, but sweeten up. Don’t try to fill in the gaps in you and your children’s emotional lives by doubling down on your own intimacy with your children. Teach your children to honor their father, and honor and submit to him yourself without complaining or giving subtle looks that tell your children your resentment.

    If he had ended here, his answer would be quite good. He tells her not to nag, and to submit. But of course, he can’t end there, as that would prove your observation to be incorrect. Starting with the very next sentence, he undoes his good work and tells the wife to nag her husband for not making her feel loved (where did that come from?), and use their Pastor as a sock puppet through which she can lead her husband:

    Explain to your husband that you wonder if he loves you because real love between a man and his wife is as emotionally intimate as it is physically intimate. Ask your husband to go with you to meet with the pastor; tell him that there are some things you’d like the pastor’s help explaining to him. Don’t baby him. Ask questions that are open-ended. Study him. Learn his fears.

    Pray for your husband. Neither parade nor hide his failures. Don’t use your emotional intelligence to show him up in front of your children. Let him make mistakes. Sometimes, you’ll be surprised to find out he was right. Many men learn fatherhood by watching their wife’s motherhood and doing what helps and strengthens and protects her.

  5. Pingback: Boldly inoffensive. | Dalrock

  6. A woman’s submission and obedience to her husband is her witness and testimony.

    The modern church says a woman’s submission and obedience to her husband DESTROYS her witness and her testimony.

  7. Pingback: Boldly inoffensive. | Dalrock - Top

  8. “The Bible says wives should submit to their husbands.” It’s hard to imagine a safer statement than that.

    It’s not a safe statement at all. In fact, the Bible really doesn’t say that wives should submit to their husbands. That is a misquote of the Bible both because it doesn’t complete the sentence as it appears in the Bible and because it doesn’t take into account the cultural context of the statement. Further, there is no “should” attached to that statement in the original Greek of the Bible. So the statement as made above simply isn’t in the Bible.

    The actual statement in the Bible is, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22). Paul isn’t telling wives to submit to their husbands. That was simply a part of the culture. It would have been obvious to every one of his hearers. Rather, he was telling wives in what way they should submit to their husbands—and that way of submitting was radically different from what the surrounding culture thought and practiced.

    In the culture of Paul’s day, women were considered “naturally” of lower status than men, and to be “naturally” subject to men’s will. The part of Paul’s statement about women submitting to their husbands is completely unremarkable in his culture. It would be like saying in our culture, “People go shopping at malls.” Duh. Of course they do.

    The thing to pay attention to in Paul’s writing is what he said that was not just part of the social landscape of his time. Those are the things Paul himself is saying, whereas things such as women submitting to their husbands is a reflection of the social realities of his time.

    I go into this more fully in my just-posted article, “Wives, submit to your husbands.”

    In Paul’s day, feminism wasn’t a thing. Interpreting his writings as if he were dealing with our modern social issues is anachronistic and wrong.

  9. @Lee

    TL; DR version of your comment:

    A command isn’t a command when said command is to be done fully and completely, and anyway everyone is different today and there is no such thing as human nature.

    This probably isn’t the place for you.

  10. @Cane

    I don’t see any connection between what I said and your “summary” of what I said. Or more directly: That’s not what I said. If this is the (poor) quality of response I’m going to get here, then no, this probably isn’t the place for me.

  11. @Lee

    The actual statement in the Bible is, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22). Paul isn’t telling wives to submit to their husbands.

    You quote the Bible verse and then read the complete opposite meaning into it. It is mind boggling, yet it is not new.

    “Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.”

  12. It’s not a command. It’s just an observation, like “People go shopping at malls.” Duh. Of course they do. OBVIOUSLY that doesn’t mean that you HAVE to go shopping in a mall.

  13. Lee outlines his position on intersexual relations in the comment section of his blog, found at the link he provided.

    Basically, I believe that there are three general models for male/female relations:

    Full equality and partnership
    The woman being a helper for the man (and sometimes the reverse)
    The man ruling over the woman (and sometimes the reverse)

    I believe that we started out with the first one, then over our spiritual history descended first to the second, then to the third, and that we are now climbing back up to the first one—which I believe is the highest form of marriage. However, this doesn’t mean men and women are the same. I believe in complementarity; I simply don’t believe this means one must rule or lead and the other must obey or follow.

  14. I wonder if Lee would accept the contention that men also aren’t being told they should love their wives?

    So if I say ,”Obey the law, as if an officer were standing next to you” I have not instructed you to obey the law? Paul not only tells wives to submit, but to submit more fully. Just as he instructs men to love their wives more deeply. Otherwise Paul wasted a lot of words to say nothing.

  15. @Chad,

    Men loving their wives was really not a basic cultural expectation until fairly recently in human history. Yes, it happened at times. Isaac is said to have loved Rebekah (Genesis 24:67). And Jacob is said to have loved Rachel more than Leah (Genesis 29:30). But I think it’s hard for us moderns to understand that love really was not a key component of marriage for most of known human history. It is significant that in the entire Old Testament, though love is sometimes mentioned in connection with marriage, there is no clear commandment that men are to love their wives.

    This is why Paul’s statement that men are to love their wives as Christ loves the church is significant in a different way than his statement that wives are to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. The latter draws on a long-established social structures (woman being subservient to man) and seeks to transform the nature of that structure. The former says something rather new and surprising on both sides of the “equation”: both that husbands are to love their wives as an important part of marriage and that they are to do it in the way Christ loves the church.

    I understand that this difference between the two statements might not be apparent from a simple reading of the text. But if we read the text within the cultural realities of the day, the difference stands out more clearly.

    Having said that, if you want to treat “husbands love your wives” as something that is just a basic cultural expectation, that would work in much of today’s culture, even if not so much in Paul’s culture. Men today are certainly welcome to read Paul’s instructions to husbands as being entirely about how to love their wives, since today the idea that men should love their wives seems as obvious as in Paul’s day it seemed obvious that women should be subservient to their husbands.

  16. @Chad

    Paul not only tells wives to submit, but to submit more fully.

    I think this misses Paul’s point, because it misses what it means to submit to Christ.

    One of Paul’s major themes throughout his writings is that we are no longer under the Law, but under grace. I think this has been badly misunderstood in traditional Christianity. However, it at least means that we are no longer “slaves to the Law,” meaning no longer bound to strict obedience as the primary basis of our relationship to God, but rather are in a free relationship with God through faith in Christ. Any obedience now flows from faith, which is an internal thing, rather than from external imposition and punishment for disobedience, as under the Old Covenant.

    For Paul then to turn around and say that wives submitting to their husbands as to the Lord means “to submit more fully,” if that means “obey more strictly,” goes counter to the entire thrust of Paul’s writings about the transformation in our relationship with God from a law/obedience-based one to a grace/faith-based one.

    What Paul means, rather, is that wives are to submit to their husbands in an entirely different spirit than has been common in both Jewish and Gentile culture up to his day, in which men ruled over their wives like a king over his subjects or a master over his slaves. Instead, wives are to submit to their husbands in the same way they submit to Christ: from faith, love, joy, and even friendship (see John 15:14–15) rather than from the old harsh law of externally imposed obedience, and punishment for disobedience.

  17. @Chad

    Just as he instructs men to love their wives more deeply.

    While I don’t think this is a wrong statement, I also don’t think it fully captures what Paul was saying to husbands.

    First, as I’ve already said, it was not necessarily assumed in Paul’s day (or throughout most of human history), that a man was supposed to love his wife or wives. So the very fact that Paul tells men to love their wives is significant in itself.

    Further, for husbands to “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” represents a massive change in the whole pattern of how men were to relate to their wives. Husbands did not give themselves up for their wives. Wives gave themselves up for their husbands.

    This isn’t just “loving their wives more deeply.” It is, first of all, loving their wives as an essential part of marriage. And it is relating to their wives in an entirely different way than men had done before, giving themselves up for their wives as Christ gave himself up for the church.

    So yes, “more deeply.” But that in no way captures the full force of Paul’s instructions to husbands.

  18. @Lee

    Everything you wrote is nonsense. You’ve tried to hide it, but you’re hermeneutic is thoroughly concerned with internal feelings from the heart; which is deceptive above all things.

    First you say that Paul didn’t mean a command for wives to submit because the culture already enforced that, but they you say he commanded husbands to love their wives in a sense that would not exist for 11 centuries. When you want to interpret Paul in an ancient cultural context (about a wife’s submission), you do. When you want to interpret him in a modern cultural context (about a husband’s love), you do. This is what the characters on British TV call: “Playing silly buggers”.

    “If you love me, keep my commandments” is what Jesus said. That makes perfect sense to anyone who has actually raised children, or husbanded a wife.

    I think it’s hard for us moderns to understand that love really was not a key component of marriage for most of known human history.

    LOL!

    “This now, is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.”, said Adam when he saw Eve. I don’t care where you’re from: That’s the language of love.

    And Solomon wrote:

    “9 You have captivated my heart, my sister, my bride;
    you have captivated my heart with one glance of your eyes,
    with one jewel of your necklace.
    10 How beautiful is your love, my sister, my bride!
    How much better is your love than wine,
    and the fragrance of your oils than any spice!
    11 Your lips drip nectar, my bride;
    honey and milk are under your tongue;
    the fragrance of your garments is like the fragrance of Lebanon.
    12 A garden locked is my sister, my bride,
    a spring locked, a fountain sealed.”

    Every pagan pantheon of Europeans had love gods and goddesses. For example: Eros, of whom we have the word erotic But Lee–who cannot time travel, and has never been to the ancient world–can tell us how the ancients really thought. He knows that most of them did not know romantic love. The central conflict of The Iliad was a fluke, and denouement of The Odyssey, Homer’s weird lark.

  19. @Cane

    My “hermeneutic” is based on a complex theological system. And that system is indeed one that puts love first, just as Jesus Christ puts love first in the two Great Commandments that are the heart of the Christian message. Jesus also states that mutual love is what will distinguish people as his disciples. And Paul, for all his emphasis on faith, says that love is greater than faith. So denigrating a theological view because it is based on “feelings” is tantamount to rejecting the entire message of the New Testament. Love is a feeling. And I do not apologize for putting love above faith, hope, and every other Christian virtue. If the truth does not have love behind it, it is certainly not Christian truth.

    As for the rest, don’t confuse marriage (or “romantic”) love with sexual desire and passion. The latter we have in common with animals. The former is unique to humans. The latter has existed in human society throughout the ages, just as it has existed in the animal kingdom all along. The former has rarely existed in human recorded history, and was barely even known as a real thing until recent centuries and decades.

    Animals will fight to the death over “love” that is really just the reproductive instinct in action, and not the marriage or romantic love that many married couples today experience. Because perpetuation of the species is basic to animal life, the reproductive drive is the most powerful drive there is in the animal world, surpassing even the individual survival instinct.

    The central conflict of The Iliad is no different than that of two male lions battling it out over which one will be the alpha male with a pride of females, and which one will be a lone male lion unable to pass on his genes. Going to war over “the love of a woman” is really going to war over sex drive and the animal reproductive instinct.

    And if you read the Song of Solomon objectively, you will see that unless it is taken as a metaphorical piece, it is all about physical attractiveness and sexuality. It describes in luscious words all of the physical characteristics of the object of love. There really isn’t anything in it of interpersonal love such as many married couples today experience. It’s all about sexual desire for a sexually attractive woman. And for all of Solomon’s wisdom, his desire for many women was his downfall, and a central cause of the breakup of his kingdom after his death, as recounted in 1 Kings 11-12. Besides, real, spiritual marriage love exists only in monogamous relationships, not in polygamous ones.

    I don’t disagree that “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” is the language of love. But that language came before humanity had willfully disobeyed God and fallen entirely away from the pattern in which God originally created us.

    Our human sex drives and passions are indeed more complex than those of animals because we humans are more complex intellectually and emotionally than animals. But the genuine, mutual, spiritual love that exists in a truly Christian marriage is as far above sex drive and passion (commonly mistaken for “love”) as humans are above lions.

    This does not mean that genuine marriage love is sexless. But it is not driven by sexual desire. Rather, it expresses itself in sexual union.

    I would encourage you to study the history of marriage. For most of history it was primarily a business and social relationship, in which love, if it existed at all, was frosting on the cake. Noblemen commonly had wives to cement political alliances and to produce heirs, and mistresses or concubines on the side for “love” (which was really just sexual desire). Commoners had wives in order to have children to pass on their name and profession (if they had one) and to aid in the running of the household and the family business. And marriage or romantic love as we know it today was exceedingly rare, if it existed at all.

  20. @ Cane

    Didn’t you know?

    Paul didn’t command wives to submit to their own husbands.
    Paul didn’t command children to obey their parents.
    Paul didn’t command servants to submit to their masters.
    Paul didn’t command Christians to submit to their church leaders.
    Paul didn’t command Christians to submit to civil authorities.

    Oh, and neither did Peter.

    They’re all just cultural observations, like, duh.

    Lee is a perfect example of a Christian who is ashamed of something the Bible says because it offends his cultural sensibilities, and therefore ties himself into knots trying to force the Bible conform to the culture, instead of conforming his own thinking to God’s Word. Thus, his “complex theological system” is designed with as many loopholes as he needs to sneak his cultural sensibilities into the Bible. That’s why it’s so complex.

    You know, kind of like Artisanal Toad, only with less S&M, and fewer assassin wives. Where’s the fun in that?

    He’s also this guy.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/09/14/boldly-inoffensive/#comment-245896

  21. @Lee

    Love is a feeling.

    No, it’s not. Desire is a feeling. The two may sometimes go together, but love should rule our desires and behavior. If we love, we do it by acts, speech, and thought which are disciplined and in accordance with love. You and your second wife may both feel warm and pleasant desires to divorce and marry others, but that would not be the sort of love to which we are commanded. It would not be love at all.

    And I do not apologize for putting love above faith, hope, and every other Christian virtue. If the truth does not have love behind it, it is certainly not Christian truth.

    There is no such thing as a truth which is not recognized by Christ. Truth is truth. What one does with that truth may be Christian or not, but the nature of truth is not changed by anyone’s feelings.

    Aside from all this, you appear to suffer under the delusion that humans have changed from the first century to something else now; that wives didn’t have to persevere to submit to their husbands; that husbands did not have to struggle to love their wives; that children did not have to work at obedience; that servants pilfer from and backbite their masters only on the basis of acceptable culture.

    Such observations are the depths of blindness; as anyone knows if he has watched a child discover sin on his own.

  22. @Oscar

    Thus, his “complex theological system” is designed with as many loopholes as he needs to sneak his cultural sensibilities into the Bible. That’s why it’s so complex.

    You know, kind of like Artisanal Toad, only with less S&M, and fewer assassin wives. Where’s the fun in that?

    Don’t forget Toad’s secret sauce, the girl on girl action!

    But as you say, with those noteworthy exceptions, the similarity in style is uncanny. For example: https://leewoof.org/2015/01/18/is-jesus-christ-the-only-way-to-heaven/

    Is Jesus Christ the only way to heaven?

    Yes . . . but it’s not what you’re thinking!

  23. @Lee

    This does not mean that genuine marriage love is sexless. But it is not driven by sexual desire. Rather, it expresses itself in sexual union.

    In addition to the errors pointed out by others, you have this one backwards too. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is clear that sexual desire is the reason to get married. Does “genuine marriage” produce other good things? Of course, but the second sentence quoted above is false and shows that your views on Christian marriage are impoverished by your devotion to the “the soul connection that makes a true and lasting marriage,” a concept that is not found anywhere in scripture.

    In reading your tortured defense of this concept, I found a strong thread of Gnosticism, corroborated by your devotion to Swedenborg, a man who claimed to have received a new revelation and rejected the Trinity, which suggests that you have literally everything backwards. This fundamental error leads you into all kinds of nonsense about people becoming angels, so I have to agree with Cane that this isn’t the place for you. The church has universally condemned your ilk throughout its history, and until you stop looking for hidden meanings and listen to the plain words of scripture, you will remain a petty and pedestrian outsider.

  24. @Cane

    I agree that love is also more than a feeling. Very much so. But in the usual way that people toss around charges like, “You’re just acting on your feelings,” love is also a feeling, and something that drives people to act.

    The fact of the matter is that everyone accepts and understands truth according to what is in their heart. It is a modern myth that we can rationally think ourselves into the truth. Rationality serves, rather, to guide the heart in seeing and accepting the truth, especially as taught by Christ in the Bible. If you want to charge me with believing certain things because of “feelings,” then you are really making the same charge against yourself as well.

    So let’s drop all these irrelevancies and focus on the truth.

    You and your second wife may both feel warm and pleasant desires to divorce and marry others, but that would not be the sort of love to which we are commanded. It would not be love at all.

    And here once again you merely show your own prejudice, making charges against me and judging me without knowing anything about my life and my situation.

    Just for the record, I did not divorce my first wife. I was prepared and fully intended to stay married to her “till death do us part,” even though marrying her was a “mistake of my youth,” and there was no life left in the marriage. She, however, was not a Christian (other than culturally), did not see things the way I did, and divorced me after 20+ years of marriage. Suffice it to say that in the matter of the end of my first marriage, and my remarrying afterwards, I did not violate anything Jesus, or Paul, taught about marriage and divorce.

    Beyond that, you are not my judge. Christ is.

    So let’s drop all these irrelevancies and focus on the truth.

    Aside from all this, you appear to suffer under the delusion that humans have changed from the first century to something else now;

    And you seem to suffer under the delusion that the Incarnation had no effect whatsoever on humanity as a whole or on any individual human beings.

    Of course humans have changed since the first century. Otherwise Christ’s life, teaching, death, and resurrection were all for nothing.

    Granted, in many ways things are still a mess. But I don’t see how anyone can seriously study human history, and the vast changes we have gone through, and think that there has been no change in human society or in individual human beings. I could provide you with a survey of all the changes in humanity within the narrative sweep of the Bible. But if you can’t see that there for yourself, nothing I say will convince you anyway.

    For now, I’ll just mention that we are no longer under the Old Covenant, but under the New Covenant. And that means there has been a huge change both in humanity and in our relationship with God and with one another. Otherwise, the New Testament is a dead letter.

    that wives didn’t have to persevere to submit to their husbands; that husbands did not have to struggle to love their wives; that children did not have to work at obedience; that servants pilfer from and backbite their masters only on the basis of acceptable culture.

    None of which I said. And since it doesn’t address anything I said, I’ll pass it over without further comment.

  25. @Lee

    And here once again you merely show your own prejudice, making charges against me and judging me without knowing anything about my life and my situation.

    Just for the record, I did not divorce my first wife. I was prepared and fully intended to stay married to her “till death do us part,” even though marrying her was a “mistake of my youth,” and there was no life left in the marriage. She, however, was not a Christian (other than culturally), did not see things the way I did, and divorced me after 20+ years of marriage. Suffice it to say that in the matter of the end of my first marriage, and my remarrying afterwards, I did not violate anything Jesus, or Paul, taught about marriage and divorce.

    Beyond that, you are not my judge. Christ is.

    1) Where specifically did I judge your marriage? I know I wrote a hypothetical which could be stated about anyone, but what words of mine judged your marriage?

    2) If we are both Christians, then I am to judge you. We are to first judge ourselves, and then we are to judge Christians, and in all things I am to judge what is good, true, and beautiful.

    Let’s try this whole thing a different way. I’m going to take a cue from another blogger.

    I understood what you have wrote. That isn’t the problem between you and I.

    For example, I can paraphrase that what you wanted to tell me (and others) about Ephesians 5:22. Here it is: Paul wrote that first century wives should change their submission from one of pure necessity, to a glad submission of adoration like all Christians should adore the Lord.

    Can you, in your own words, tell me what I wrote in the original post?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s