Women in Fatigues.

women-in-combatThere are many reasons for a male only military, some of them are based on battlefield effectiveness, others on societal and social implications and yet others are based on following God’s plan. Dr. John Frame in his ethics class does not define christian ethics as the study of right and wrong, but on what God blesses and what He does not bless. What is understood is that what is right God blesses, although not always as creatures desire, and what is evil God does not bless. God sometime allows evil to prosper and evil desires to be fulfilled, but in the end He brings judgement an curses evil actions. The same can be said about righteousness; it seems as though the righteous are persecuted, but God promises that he will reward the righteous and the testing of their faith is more valuable than riches on earth. (1 Peter 1:7 )

Now that the the pentagon has gone all in for women in combat, I thought it is time to post a position paper that I worked on for a committee my former presbytery. The question of women in combat is a subset of the question of women in the military. I take a position that I believe is the position that God blesses because it is based on His Word.

Women in the military

 

Advertisements

Holy > Happy!

Happy wifeOn several occasions I have spoken to Christians, instructing them that God did not create marriage to make you happy but holy.  This concept has typically been greeted with steady resistance.  The concept is a paradigm change and that kind of reorientation does not come easily.  Some of the support offered for resistance comes by way of;  1 Corinthians 7:32-35

32 But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord — how he may please the Lord.  33 But he who is married cares about the things of the world — how he may please his wife.  34 There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world — how she may please her husband.  35 And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.

The  rebuttal  to holy not happy is that a married man is to strive to please his wife or put another way to make her happy.  This is not Paul’s point at all, in fact Paul  argues quite the opposite.  The Apostle’s point is that it is natural for a man to seek the approval of his wife, to please her and make her happy but that desire to please her can constitute a distraction to serving the Lord.  St. Paul is not commanding husbands to please their wives, that is what men do already.  He is instead calling men to not put that natural desire above serving the Lord.  To that end he advocates singleness as an easier path, while not condemning those who are married.

The grammar here is crucial to understand the meaning of St. Paul.  The phrase “Please his wife” in Verse 33 is not an imperative, but an indicative.  An imperative is a command or an instruction, where an indicative simply indicates a truth or a situation.  Paul is not commanding husbands to please their wives, he is stating that husbands already want happy wives and already strive to please them.  This is not something that is unique to Christendom, but the normal situation of humanity.  Why husbands want to please their wives is an altogether different question and perhaps the topic of a future post.

In the garden, Adam ate the forbidden fruit at the request of his wife. [i]  Adam apparently let the desire to please his wife occlude his desire to please the LORD.  This is what the apostle is concerned about, husbands who care more about their wife’s happiness than holiness.  For Adam that dereliction of duty to God ushered sin and death into creation. Bad things happen when a man puts the desire of female approval above communion with God.

But Paul does not limit himself to just husbands, for he observes that women also are tempted to make their husbands happy more than serve the LORD in holiness.  The terms holy and world can give the wrong idea that marriage is not holy but worldly[ii].  Here Paul uses the term holy as consecrated to the Lord and set aside for temple service.  World is an order or arrangement and if she is married the arrangement goes God – husband – wife, but a single woman that order goes God- woman.  She is free from changing diapers, cooking and being an intoxicating lover for her husband to serve God without distraction.   Again the temptation is to think that the duties of a wife and mother are not acts of worship, but they can be some of the purest worship on earth[iii].

One irony is that if a husband and wife are equally yoked, and both are seeking the Lord, they will increase joy in each other.  A husband does not need to give up headship to make his wife happy, but he can lead her in holiness and multiply her joy.  Same for a wife, she can present her body to her husband, imaging the worship of the church to her husband, and not be defiled but united to her husband in holiness, joyfully as his helper.  A result of the sexual union is a child and childbearing is indeed holy[iv] when accompanied with faith, love and self-control.

Another misused example of scripture is Jesus washing His disciples’ feet.  Some have made foot washings almost sacramental and white-knighting feminists have used it to destroy the headship of the husband.  The Bible gives a true historical account of Jesus and his words, this is an indicative.  But, Jesus makes it clear that this is an example to be followed[v] and so the indicative is in fact an imperative.  Jesus is at first resisted by Peter who does not yet understand that authority is service.  Jesus does not give up His authority, he restates it in verse 13.  He already has established His headship over His disciples and they have for the most part submitted to their rabbi and His teaching.  Jesus shows that we must allow God to help us and if we are in authority we are to imitate Christ and use it to serve each other.  It is not an instruction for a subordinate to demand a foot bath that is insubordination and sin.  Nor is it a call to those given authority of allowing the subordinate party to become their ruler; that is abdication and that is sin.  It is a call to humility; to humble ourselves before the LORD that He might raise us up and in service to Him we do not use authority to lord it over others as the gentiles do, but to to serve others by the kind use of that authority.

A second rebuttal to the purpose of marriage is centrally holiness and not happiness has been presented from Deut 24:5.

“When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken.

It seems odd that God would only command happiness for the first year of marriage.  That is because the phrase here is a Hebrew idiom that refers to the creation of a bounding bundle of joy.  While the concept of having children and an heir as a happiness is foreign to the modern narcissistic mind, it has been in the history of mankind one of the greatest sources of happiness and joy to be found.  Before a new husband went to battle, he was allowed one year to produce an heir and pass on a human legacy.  If he died in battle his line did not perish with him.   This was happiness for both him and his wife, the two joined sexually to create new life that is the union of both sets of genes.

It is shameful that the modernist glories in fornication and the prevention of pregnancy. These things society says makes you happy!  Women divorce their husbands who fail to make them happy; they divorce to find the elusive happiness they desire. God wants something better your happiness, He sent His Son to make you Holy.  We count it all joy when various trials [vi] exercise our faith and develop steadfastness, for we know this is the road to holiness[vii], and without holiness no one sees the Lord[viii].  Happiness is fleeting and often the fulfilling of the desires of the flesh, but joy in holiness is eternal and the result of sanctification.

Marriage images Christ and his bride the church.  This is holy matrimony!  The traditional christian marriage vows include the phrase “for better or for worse – in sickness and health”.  In other words the vows say the marriage continues whether happy or not for it is a holy estate that God has joined two and made them one flesh.   That may not make some feminists happy, but to those who seek the Lord, there could be no grater source of joy!

[i] Genesis 3:6  She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

[ii] Hebrews 13:4   Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled;

[iii] Romans 12:1-2  I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.  2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

[iv] 1 Timothy 2:15  Yet she will be saved through childbearing- if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

[v] John 13:13-17  13 You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am.  14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.  15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.  16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.  17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

[vi] James 1:2  2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds,

[vii] 1 Thessalonians 4:7   7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness.

[viii] Hebrews 12:14  4 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

The Trinitarian Marriage – The one and the Many

 

2-w-axe-180RJ Rushdony wrote The One and the Many in   1971.  Amazon provides the following description for the book:

The question of where ultimacy lies should be central to the Christian. It is easy to see the social implications of allowing priority to fall to either the one or the many. This volume examines in-depth the Christian solution to the problem of the one and the many – the Trinitarian God. Only in the godhead is this dilemma resolved. Only in the Trinity does there reside an equal ultimacy of unity and plurality. Rushdoony examines the history of Western thought from the standpoint of the one and the many and demonstrates clearly that the most astute thinkers were unable to resolve this philosophical conflict. What is needed now is a complete return to the Trinitarian view of God and its implications for a Christian social order.

I believe the doctrine of the one and the many is the proper framework to address Christian marriage.  The Trinity provides an example of a one and many dichotomy; The one God and yet three persons.  Another example of one and many is the Christian’s union with Christ; there is a oneness and yet a many-ness.  In the later example the union is incomplete until the return of Christ and the wedding supper of the lamb consummates that union.  But Christian marriage is not awaiting the consummation of the union of husband and wife.  Jesus says that God has made the two one flesh. [i] The many, husband and wife, are joined into one, a union of both into something greater than the parts.  It is telling that as Jesus describes His ministry of winnowing, He speaks of dividing son from father and daughter from mother, but He does not speak of dividing husband from wife.[ii] This is an argument from silence or exclusion and so is too weak to stand on its own, but coupled with the rest of scripture it highlights the sacredness of the oneness of marriage that is the result of God’s own joining activity.

The point is that the atomization of the individuals in marriage violates the unity God created and the disregard for the two persons violates the many; although there has been little overemphasis of the unity in history.   Feminists often complain that a woman can lose her identity in marriage.  They symbolically reject the joining by hyphenating their name, to preserve their pre-married identity.   But the identity of both the husband and the wife is altered when God joins them into one flesh.  As an axe-head is joined to its handle neither the axe-head nor the handle are same, together they have become the axe.   The parts are distinct but they are not separate.  There is one marriage with one head and one helper.  The two are united, but distinct – one flesh, but two persons.

In the Trinity the three persons are in perfect harmony.  They have the same values, purpose and agree on the same decrees and actions.   Yet, each persons possess their own volition. [iii]  The Son, who is one with the Father[iv] came to do the Father’s will[v] which the Son and the Father agreed to before the foundations of the world. [vi]  How does the Trinity maintain the unity amongst the diversity of the persons?   Of course there is no sin among the members of the Trinity that might lead to conflicts, but another possible insight is that there is perfect submission.  Jesus comes execute the Father’s commands[vii] even when it costs Him his life.  He is not concerned about being mistreated as a doormat[viii], or losing His identity or not able to become all He can as are feminists when they speak of submission.  He does His Father’s will and the Father declares Him His beloved. [ix]

I believe that this is the pattern of the one and many that a Christian marriage ought to emulate.  Both Peter and Paul use Christ as the example of submission that wives are to pattern their own submission to their husbands.  The warning against a wife’s insubordination given by the Apostle could not be more stern.

 Titus 2:5  …obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

The resistance to submission whether because of loss of identity, fear of being mistreated like a doormat or to become all that one can is blasphemy against the Word of God.  Feminism is blasphemy, it destroys the one for the sake of one member of the many.   Feminism in practice does not image Christ and the church, but Lucifer and his fall from glory.

Pastors and Christians who continue to stir up fear in women over abuse or a loss of identity are doing the Devil’s work.  I am not dismissing or justifying a husband’s physically harming his wife, but that the concern of the exception has destroyed the obedience to the rule.  The rule is summarized in Ephesians 5:22-28

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.   For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.   Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.  Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,  that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.  So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.

Each time a Christian defines submission apart from Christ and by such statements as not becoming a doormat he is effect stirring up blasphemy, doubt and fear not meekness, obedience,  and Christ likeness.   The oneness requires submission even as the many-ness requires loving sacrifice.  To diminish either is to add to the decimation of the family, which is already devastated.

———————————————-

[i] Matthew 19:4-6  And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’  5 “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  6 “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

[ii] Luke 12:51-53  Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.  For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three.  Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

[iii] John 3:8   The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit

The word translated “wind” is the same word translated “Spirit”.  The words of Jesus are translated by Young as “the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.”

The Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, but He goes where He wills. This demonstrates the volition of the Spirit.

[iv] John 10:30  I and My Father are one.

[v] John 14:23-26   Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.  He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.  These things I have spoken to you while being present with you.  But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

[vi]Ephesians 1:3-5   Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,  just as He (Father) chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him (Father) in love,  having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His (father) will,

***For the sake of clarity I put the antecedents to the pronouns in parenthesis.

John 10:29   “My Father, who has given them to Me,

[vii] John 10:18  18 “No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

[viii] This “being treated like a doormat” is a commonly voiced fear and often used as qualifier of wifely submission from the pulpit.  It is a feminist charge and not a Biblical concern.

[ix] Matthew 3:17   And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Musings on Authority!

 

gavel

We live in an age where authority is under assault.   During the social upheaval of the sixties it was not uncommon to hear “don’t trust anyone over 30” and no doubt you have seen the “Question Authority! ” bumper stickers or heard about uprisings against the police.  While these are some contemporary assaults, the principle of authority has been severely thwarted by philosophy and theology for some time.

It would be difficult to construct a more significant presupposition to ethics than authority.   Christian ethics are founded by a doctrine of authority.   Something is write or wrong simply because God, the ultimate authority, declares it so.  Jesus said in Matthew 28:18  “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”  This is the basis for His Lordship.  The three offices that Christ is said to hold are all based on His authority.  As a prophet he speaks truth because he is the authority of what is true.  As priest he is authorized to make intercession to the Father and as the King he has authority to rule and judge.

The commands of God can likewise be expressed in terms of authority.  The first table of the law limits the authorized objects of worship and manner to honor and serve that authority.  Honor your parents is the recognition of authority given to them by God to raise their children.  The laws against murder are a claim over who has authority over human life; likewise theft is the violation of the authority over a possession.  The commands against adultery are commands that require the respecting of who has authority over another’s sexuality.   The commands against coveting are recognition that a desire to disrespect authority is in itself a violation of that very authority and the mental supplanting of self in its place.

The modern age of anti-authority is concomitant with the rise of antinomianism.   That is to say that as men have disregarded the law they have at the same time disregarded the authority that underpins the law.  Men have entertained their own hubris towards a usurpation of the authority of God, taking for themselves the authority to create or ignore laws as they see fit.  The authority of God rests on His claim as creator and provider for all of creation. Without the intervention of God’s creative work nothing would exist except God and without His work of providence nothing would continue to exist.  The authority God possess over the universe is based on its dependence for existence from God.  Much like a painter has authority to put paint on the canvas where he chooses the creator has the authority to create as He pleases.

Authority flows from a source like a flowing river.  It is not as a well that appears in the midst of the land seemingly disconnected from a source.  The Christian view of authority has no islands and no spontaneous appearances of authority, all authority is Christs; all expressions of that authority are assigned by Him.

Rom 13:1bFor there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”

Authority is derivative of the interactions with in the Trinity.  The Son has been given all authority, but who had the authority to give it to him but the Father. Fathers have authority over their children and the heavenly father also has authority over the eternally begotten son.  But unlike earthly fathers and sons who are tainted by sin and often are conflicted, the persons of the Trinity have no conflict in their purpose or plans and they are untainted by sin.  The Son came to do the will of His Father which is in perfect harmony with the purpose of the son.  In this way the Father and Son are one; one mind one purpose.

Children are under the authority of their parents because their parents have the creative claim and God’s command.  God gives to the parents the children he selects for them in the quantity he selects to raise them with assigned parental authority.   A neighbor does not have the authority of a parent over another’s children, because God has not granted to them that authority. When a civil magistrate claims to have authority over children they are making a claim of authority that has likewise not been granted to them by God.  The secular claim of authority reduces to might makes right.   While Christ has all power and all authority it is not His might that gives Him authority but His claim as creator and preserver.  The secular claim fails on its own terms because God is more powerful than any magistrate and thus according to their own reasoning He still has all authority.  So even if the police have guns and the IRS has the tax code the state does not have authority to raise children or remove them from parents, for the children to belong to their earthy creators and their heavenly creator.  Christ has appointed the magistrate to authority, but that authority has boundaries and limits.  The magistrate is not to be God’s social architect to design a world according to the imagination of the rulers, but to execute wrath on him who executes evil.[i]  That begs the question of what is evil, and what evils is the magistrate authorized to adjudicate. That question can only be answered by seeking the definitions of the appointing authority, that what is evil is what God calls evil and only those evils that God has authorized the magistrate to adjudicate are authorized activity of the civil magistrates.

In the realm of the church, the modern floating unaffiliated “Christian” who is under no ecclesial authority, who claims the sacraments for himself and scorns apostolic succession, is a symptom of the anti-authority zeitgeist.  Beyond the independent member is the equally anti authority manifestation of the independent church and independent pastor.  The polity of independance is foreign to the teachings of the Bible.  It is not to say that these are not true churches or true Christians, but it points out to a spirit of autonomy and false liberty from authority.   The Reformation made an appeal to the authority of the Bible over the pope, counsels and traditions of the church.  Sola Scritptura trumped ex cathedra.  Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms stated the principle clearly in the historic statement:

Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.

On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me.[ii]

This doctrine of Sola Scriptura was never intended to be a “me and my bible” as the authority.  Luther did not start a new church, but restored the church of the apostles under the authority of the God breathed scriptures.  Some have taken the Sola Scriptura doctrine as an invitation to create an autonomous ecclesiology, but a thorough reading of the scriptures would prohibit such a result.   Luther would be aghast at the modernist approach to the sacraments apart from the authority of the apostolic church.  The family does not have jurisdiction over baptism or communion and elders are not self-appointed.

Perhaps the most the destructive manifestation of the anti-authority spirit is in the modern configuration of marriage.  God has created marriage with an authority structure.[iii]  Husbands have authority over their wives, wives are to be subject to their husbands in all things.[iv]  But the modern marriage, often characterized by the label marriage 2.0, defies the authority of God to exult the authority of the wife.  The Church has contributed to the anti-authority trend.  Wives are rarely exhorted that they are helpers to their husbands rather than partners .  They are more often told that they are equal not subordinate and that submission is to be avoided so that she can be all that she can be.  Some Churches will give lip service to the Bible’s commands that women submit to their own husbands, but will immediately define submission to be anything, but true submission.  In doing so, they stir up women to insubordination and discontent, telling them to avoid being doormats and creating images of abusive angry patriarchs with imagined or exaggerated abuses of the past, before the golden age of the anti-authority wife.    Wives are taught that sex is a reward for their husband’s dutifully earning his way to her bed.[v]  But the Bible teaches she has no authority over her body and her sex.[vi]  Women follow the example set by ministers who engage in male shaming language and the condemnation of men for being masculine.   They are in essence being taught by example to speak evil of those to whom they owe honor, their husbands who posses the authority of Christ over her.  They are styled as dignitaries in…

Jude 1:8    Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.

and

2 Peter 2:9-10  preserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,  10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries…

and

Hebrews 13:17  Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

I believe it is good to question authority to inquire whether one’s claim of authority is legitimately given by God.  But in our zeal to resist tyranny, unlawful claims of authority, we must have equal zeal to honor the authorities that God has ordained.  If western Christendom is to be preserved it is my contention that the authority of husbands must be taught and all opposition to his legitimate authority rebuked.  That means that ministers must have the courage to condemn wives of their sins of desiring to be partners, insubordination, withholding, and spiritual contention in the home.  It also means that preachers must demonstrate and support honor to the household authority.  Husband is to wife as Christ is to the church and defamation of the husband in the presence of the wife is akin to leading a rebellion against Christ.

———————————————————————

[i] Romans 13:3-4  3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.  4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

[ii] http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~lyman/english233/Luther-Diet_of_Worms.htm

[iii] 1 Timothy 2:12-13    And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.  13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

[iv] Ephesians 5:24   24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

The jurisdictional limits of a husband’s authority are expansive indeed.  Many like to point out that a husband does not have authority to command his wife to disobey God, but this is a cavil as the apostle is clear that his authority over her is comprehensive.

[v] An Example of such a teaching comes from AL Mohler who writes that a wife should withhold sex until her husband earns her favors  “Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed. ….Therefore, when I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.”  http://www.albertmohler.com/2005/06/09/the-seduction-of-pornography-and-the-integrity-of-christian-marriage-part-two/

[vi] 1 Corinthians 7:4-5   4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.  5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Forget Bitcoin, Female Happiness is the Real Currency

feminism6Proverbs 22:7-8 … the borrower is servant to the lender.  He who sows iniquity will reap sorrow…

One of the more interesting ideas of feminism is that women’s happiness is a type of used as means of currency to be exchange.   Interestingly the counterpart of happiness is unhappiness and discontent which is the foundation of feminism.  Feminism teaches that women are entitled by their birth-right to be happy, and they certainly would be if the patriarchy did not suppress their own happiness with unbearable discontent.  Discontent is like debt placed upon others to enslave them to the task of making women happy.    This phenomena is easily observable in this election cycle as politicians are eager to validate women’s discontent and pander for their happiness.  Their happiness leads not just to their vote, but for the approval of others for their acquisition of the female-happiness-currency . It is equally easy to observe the practice in action within marriage where the slogan” if momma is not happy, nobody gets to be happy” is the default method of controlling the husband.  Husbands are taught and encouraged to live their lives to make their wives happy or face consequences like forced celibacy, divorce or the prospect of an unhappy wife who is bent on making those around her unhappy.

Betty Freidan wrote about women who were loved and lived lives of comfort, but they had an existence of discontent.  Thus the modern age of feminism sought to validate that women’s unhappiness and change society so that women are entitled to happiness.  Laws were changed to pay off thedebt of discontent, but simply making payments is not enough.  Keeping society in perpetual debt means perpetual power for those who are collecting.  A happy woman is berated by other women simply because her happiness fails to validate other women’s discontent.

Women are entitled to happiness is perhaps the essence of the feminist ethic.  If something makes her discontent it must be changed.  If she has an unhealthy body, she must make society accept her/love her for the fat girl that she is; meanwhile it is the healthy bodies that are disparaged for creating body image issues among the Haagen-Dazs crowd.   If a discontent woman wants to be a CEO, rather than compete against the men, like every man must do, she simply starts a campaign about glass ceilings that make her unhappy.  She is entitled and if men will not make her happy then the government will.  She is entitled to be defended by men for her safety, but if she wants to be in the military or a police officer nobody should threaten her happiness in such an unsuitable position.  She demands: sexual license without judgement, free birth control, the right to change her mind on any sexual encounter at any time including afterwards, extended pregnancy leave, subsidized daycare, abortion on demand, no-fault divorce, forced child support under threat of jail, and the right to fight against men and the moral indignation to punish any man who dares fight back.  When men fail to give her the entitled happiness, the government insurance kicks in to underwrite her debt by the  FDIC Female discontent insurance corp.

 

It is not just the Betty Frierdans of the world that advocate the currency of female happiness, much of “conservative” Christianity agrees.   Al Mohler writes that a husband must earn his access to the marriage bed; what in essence he is saying is that a husband must first pay his wife in the female-happiness- currency before she will agree to sell him sex.  This is a form of prostitution advocated by the church, where the wife can negotiate the price of sex and if discontent refuse her husband.   She may trade mowing the lawn, vacuuming, flowers or dinner, but these are just acts to acquire the true currency of Female – happiness bucks.   I have heard a dozen times at weddings that men are required or have a duty to provide happiness to their wife.  This sold as love, but loving and producing feelings of happiness are very different.  A simple example should illustrate this point.  Christ  loves His church and is sovereign over the events of history, but she often is unhappy with persecutions and trials that He brings to her.   Is it Christ that is unloving or is the church?  Yahweh loved OT Israel and lovingly sent her prophets to lead her to repentance, yet she was unhappy with the prophets of God and in her unhappiness she killed the prophets.  Would any dare call the God who is love deficient because he failed to produce happy feelings in Israel?  Likewise a husband in scripture receives no imperative to make his wife happy, but he does receive the imperative to love her or better stated perform acts of love toward her as Christ does toward His elect.