More Feminist Apostasy in the News!

When feminists of either gender strive to be consistent they are eventually faced with the God’s Word.  It is here that the Word which separates bone from marrow, that a conflict arises.  They cannot honestly avoid the clear meaning of the text and simultaneously hold on to their presuppositions.  To resolve this conflict they either, bow the knee to the God and repent of their delusions of female repression or they abandon allegiance to God.  Now since the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord, it is expected that these feminists often act foolishly, but foolish feminist is a redundancy.

This headline:  Humanities Professor: “Christianity” Just another Name for “White Supremacist Patriarchy” is but another example of how feminism is an atheist ethic. Just for good measure the fool added racism to make it more offensive.

Romans 10:3   For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 

Then there is this: Army ROTC cadets pressured into wearing high heels to promote feminist campaign

Feminist in order to demonstrate against sexual assault pressure men into an abomination against the Lord.

Deuteronomy 22:5    ” A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God”.

 But women are already committing the same abomination they want to like men because they have been taught that the patriarchy has given men the good life.  They want me to pay,  to walk a mile in their shoes to humiliate them.  Like other liberal ideas the humiliation of the men will do nothing to stop sexual violence or make a single woman’s life better.

At the heart of feminism is anger that men got the better curse at the fall.  Women have had it drilled into them that they got the raw end of the deal by feminists of both genders.  The seminal feminist work of Betty Friedan “The Feminine Mystique” is described in Wikipedia by this summary.

The Feminine Mystique begins with an introduction describing what Friedan called “the problem that has no name”—the widespread unhappiness of women in the 1950s and early 1960s. It discusses the lives of several housewives from around the United States who were unhappy despite living in material comfort and being married with children.

Yet one more example of how feminism is, at its heart, about discontentment.  Women are unhappy and this is the great tragedy that requires changing society from God’s blueprint. Teaching contentment and joy in womanhood is anathema and must be avoided.  Women need to have their feelings validated especially their feelings of discontent.

Male feminists have been taught that they have privilege and not responsibility.  They look to sooth their guilt by the validation of women.  They will do most anything to get female approval including: shaming other men, stirring up conflict in marriage for men who do not submit to their wife,  denigrating authority given to husbands cutting me off at the knees, and encouraging the politicization of the marriage bed.

Eve was deceived and today women are deceived as well.  Eve wanted to be something she was not, that is a god.  Women today also want to be something they are not namely men, but without all the responsibility.  Women that are discontent about: being women, being submissive to their husbands, bearing and raising children, valued as helpers to their husbands, changing their last name when they get married, not able to do what ever any man can do, being dependent on men more than a fish needs a bicycle and not allowed to be a teacher in the church.  At some point for the sake of constancy either the feminism has to go or God has to go from their lives.  No matter how they try to avoid it Christianity is patriarchal.

How to speak God’s love language!

I admit it I took the bait.  I clicked on a Facebook link shared by a friend of mine.  I knew better, but knowing that this friend has been influenced by Christo-feminism and recently was wedded for the second time I was curious what she thinking and how her life was turning out.  The link lead here.  It was another  isn’t “The 5 Love Languages” by Gary Chapman so awesome.  I hate to be a voice in the wilderness on this, but no it is not awesome, but rather toxic.

The premise of the book is that everyone has their preferred “love” language.  That language may be words, gifts, actions, touch, or time.   Their “love language” is that which make them feel validated cherished and appreciated.    The presupposition is that love is feeling and evoking that feeling is the essence of love.  The abuse of the premise is that couples (and by that it is inferred mostly husbands) need to learn their spouse’s (wife) “love language” to make them (her) feel loved.  Women’s discontent is stirred by such worldly wisdom.   So many have thought or said,  “My husband doesn’t speak my “love Language” that is why I’m not happy. “   Oh, can you just imagine the rainbows, unicorns and cotton candy that will be experienced if you can just speak the same language.

It turns out that the Bible has a different love language, but it is not too popular with Christian book publishers.

John 14:15    ” If you love Me, keep My commandments.”

Yep that is the love language of Jesus.  In case you did not get it, He repeats in the negative.

John 14:24    “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.”

The apostle John repeats the application of love rather succinctly.

1 John 5:3   “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments”

Still not getting it?  Let’s try again!

2 John 1:6   “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments.”

So you see the love language that Jesus hears is obedience to His words and authority which proceeds from His Father.   Five Love languages is not concerned at all with authority or obedience, but feel good practices that are in the context of negating authority and obedience.  Because love is about obedience to authority, knowing the chain of command is critical.   Consider God’s chain of command:

1 Corinthians 11:3    But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 

I know that is not commonly heard and you might think it incorrect,  so here it is in another Epistle

Ephesians 5:23-24   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. 

If a wife is to speak the love language of God then she will obey God’s words to submit to her husband, fear him, respect him help him and yes obey him.  If she is not happy, maybe it is because she finds the commandment burdensome.  Here again is 1 John 5:3 , only with the second half of the verse not abridged.  

1 John 5:3 “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.”

  The key to speaking the love language of God is to obey and not fear that obeying makes one a “doormat”.  There is no fear of such things in the loving  of Christ.

1 John 4:18   There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.

After all, obeying cannot make one less than what Christ has already made you, a joint heir of the grace of life.

If a husband is to speak God’s love language to his wife he is to obey the word of God and imitate Christ in such ways as: rule her (, lead her, teach her God’s law, provide for her, pray for her, chastise her (Rev 3:19), encourage her, rebuke her and die if necessary to protect her.

God’s love language is not words 1 John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.

Love is not a feeling; it is obedience to the law.  In fact is the fulfillment of the law (Gal 5;14, Rom 13:8).

Only Christians can transcend their own narcissism and truly love: 1 John 4:7-8   Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.  ⁸ He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

But some might object, isn’t this “love language” thing an application of 1 Peter 3:7   Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.  I answer no! THe understanding is not about some best-selling psycho-babel that encourages the discontent of women.  The understanding that Peter refers to is the understanding of the word of God and the understanding of His love language, obedience.

I wonder how long Christians will continue to embrace every feel-good psychology that comes along and occludes the clear teaching of the word of God.   Telling men to man up and make their wives happy has fueled the feminist rebellion and discontent which is now mainstream in post-modern Christendom.

Head or Figure Head?

There has been a good deal of discussion about headship in the Christian world.  What does it mean that Christ is the head of the church? And in similar fashion what by extension does it mean that the husband is the head of the wife?  Some still advocate that head as used in scripture indicates source.  While this has been soundly de-bunked feminists and anti-nomians still do not accept that head concerns authority.  But what is the most distasteful is that this headship in scripture  requires them to submit to their head.  As much as feminists of all stripes try to suppress the truth of scripture, one inescapable theme is that husbands are to be the head of the wife in marriage.  There is no command for husbands to subjugate their wives, or to domineer over them, but the order of authority is accomplished by a wife submitting to her own husband.   His headship is in practice not enforced by the husband exerting force, but by the wife willingly submitting to husband.  Peter characterizes her submission as that to a slave to his master,(1 Peter 2-3) Christ to the Father and even calling him Lord.  Paul says that she is to submit to him as to the Lord. (Eph 5:22)

A common phrase herd in Christianity today is “Jesus is my Lord and Savior”.  This is a good and proper phrase if it is understood to mean what the words indicate.  Lord is another name for ruler, king, sovereign and master.  Jesus is Lord means that he rules the universe with power and authority.  He has all authority in heaven and earth.  His law is law, regardless whether his creation acknowledges it or not.  He is the judge, the jury and  the prosecution.  There is no court of higher appeal, no challenging the charges and no escaping His justice.  He is Lord of all of it.  This is what it means that He is Lord.  But He is also savior and this is good news, the gospel, that he defends His elect by taking their guilt, verdict of conviction and sentence upon Himself and gives to His elect His own righteousness and innocence.  But He does not stop there; He adopts His elect into His family.  The Collection of the elect makes up His bride and become sons of the Father.

As the husband of the church and the Lord of the individual elect Christ Jesus rules with authority and grace, but with the non-elect He rules with authority and justice.  Some are ruled with love others with wrath.   The bride gets the grace those who refuse to submit to His rule wrath.

When Peter and Paul tell wives to submit as to Christ or calling her husband Lord the stakes are high.  If she defies her husband she is defying Christ’s appointed authority, if she submits to her husband as an earthly lord she is really submitting to Christ as Lord.   She does not submit to her husband as savior from her sin, but as God’s appointed her protector, provider and ruler.  Yes ruler!  (Gen 3:16, 1 Tim 3:5, Heb 13:7)

Jesus tells this parable about authority and delegation of authority in Luke 20:9-18 .

  “A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time.  Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed.  Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed.  And again he sent a third; and they wounded him also and cast him out.  Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Probably they will respect him when they see him.’  But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.’  So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them?  He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others”

This incident is set up when the scribes and the elders ask Jesus …

“Tell us, by what authority are You doing these things? Or who is he who gave You this authority?” Luke 20:2

After the parable Jesus describes the ominous repercussion of not honoring that authority:

 ‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone’?  Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” Luke 20:17-18 

When a wife does not honor the husband, she is like the vine-dressers who will not honor the owner/Lord by refusing the appointed servants and even the owner’s son.  The servants of the owner had no authority over the vine-dressers except that which was given to them to exercise by the owner/Lord.  A husband has no authority over his wife except that which the Lord gives to him.  To hold him in contempt is like killing the heir. (Matt 5: 21-22) The world has largely denied the authority of the husband, but then it has largely denied the authority of the Lord.

That is the real problem.   Wives are following the teaching of Peter and Paul in that they treat the lordship of their husband like they do the Lord of heaven and Earth.  They submit to neither when it does not suit their fancy.  It is criminal that wives would treat Christ with as much contempt as they do their husbands, but that is what evangelicalism has done.  They are living a life-view of authority much like the British monarchy, the Queen/King does not rule, they only serve as window dressing,  The queen waves in parades and the prince visits foreign lands not as a ruler, but as an good-will ambassador and figure head.

Christendom has fragged the officers of the home and set up a system where husbands submit to their wives.   (“Happy wife..happy life”, “She would submit if only he led”, “If he loved her like Jesus she would follow” … etc. ) It is commonplace to hear pastors and christian radio vilify the authority of the home and encourage women to civilize, train sanctify their heads.  On the rare occasion when wifely  submission is taught, it is in my experience proceeded with the statement “submission is not …” and always the word doormat is included.  Why start where the Bible does not go?  Because the Bible  teaches submission of the wife and headship husband.  In telling wives that submission is not in all things, contrary to Eph 5:24, or in all circumstances, and especially if he is not obeying the Word (1 Peter 3:1), they are creating so many subjective qualifications to render the scriptures of no effect.  The wife is encouraged to rule the household and yet, they still they tell men to be the figure head, just like the British royal family position with no authority.  In a way, the husband is just like Christ to the modern church.   He bears an honorary title and is really cool when He does what she wants Him to do for her!

Don’t Get Forked!

So often in life an issue is framed as a false dichotomy.   Feminists are black belts in such framing.  As I was perusing Deep Strength he pointed out one of these dichotomies.

He writes:

• Choosing that you want a woman who can cook and take care of the house (patriarchy, holding down women) = evil.
• Desiring a woman based on physical attraction (“judges” women) = Shallow. Shame on you men for not looking past physical appearance

In chess we used to call this a fork.  If you move your rook your queen is captured and if you move your queen the rook is captured.  It takes a great deal of maneuvering plus a mistake by an opponent to set up a good fork in chess.  Feminists are maneuvering to make men either evil patriarchs or shallow sexists as they choose to show inters in a woman.   Men are tempted to make the mistake of attempting to thread the needle to avoid the charges.

The better approach is to avoid living down the center between the charges of extremism, but to live on another plain altogether; a higher plain that does not concern itself with the judgement of feminists, but is very concerned with the judgment of God.

Neither utility nor sexuality alone is the basis that God created marriage.  Both are important and reasons to get married or avoid marriage.

Genesis 1:27-31  So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”  And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.  “Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.  Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. 

Genesis 2:18-25   And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”  Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.   So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.  And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.  Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.  And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.   And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

God created marriage because it was not good that man be alone especially regarding the twofold task of taking dominion.  The first part is to subdue the earth and the second is to populate it.  Marriage serves to facilitate both of those purposes.  Men work harder and more effectively when there is a family who depends upon him and without a woman a man cannot pro-create.  Companionship is the solution to loneliness and so marriage not only helps a man take dominion but also provides so that neither live alone. This is the stated reason that God created marriage from the beginning.

In the New Testament Paul tells us that there are reasons for marriage. The union of husband and wife creates a living picture of Christ and His bride, the church.  Thus the marriage is a presentation of the gospel.   Paul also instructs that sexual desire is a reason to enter marriage.

Ephesians 5:31-32    “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”   This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church

Malachi tells us that God desires godly offspring, so marriage not only is the context to have children, but to raise and disciple them.

Malachi 2:15   15 But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. 

My advice to young men has been; only marry a woman who is a christian that you are attracted to, who shares your life vision, who will assist you in achieving that vision, who wants to bear your children and demonstrates a “helper’s heart” of service and submission. Cooking cleaning singing and the like are all bonus points, but don’t overlook an otherwise acceptable perspective wife just because she can’t prepare a proper crown roast like mom used to make.  Let the feminists complain.  Rejoice in the wife of your youth, it drives the feminists bonkers.   Don’t get forked!

Got Feelings?

There are some propositions that are so ubiquitous that to challenge them is to risk being labeled a subversive.  Political correctness is constantly exerting pressure on individuals to conform to the social orthodoxy, even imposing its own social mores.   Yet, it is the Word of God not the spirit of the day is to be the guide for life the man of God.  Thus Biblical correctness not political correctness is to used to conform the man of God to the image of Christ.  Even if everyone believes and enforces a particular view, God alone is the standard of truth and ethics.  (Romans 3:4 …let God be true but every man a liar.)

One such proposition held by contemporary society that is featured in movies, sung about in music, the theme of poetry and a bestselling genre of books is the view of love is a feeling.   Romantic loves evokes so strong a feeling it is what makes life worth he living. According to that view, if that feeling of love is sufficiently intense, that feeling is real love and it justifies getting married.  For the modern, one of life’s great tragedies is to not act and allow those feelings to fade and miss the chance for true love.  We are told when two people are in love they get married.   By extension if two people fall out of love they dissolve the marriage to be free and available to pursue the feelings of love with another.    The idea that is held nearly universally held is that the presence of love as authenticated by intense feelings is the basis for getting married or a moral context for sex .

There are two differing approaches in which the world associates love and sex.  One is that love is a prerequisite for sex and a moral justification.   “But we love each other”, is the often heard cry of the “good” fornicator.  An approach that is gaining popularity is that sex is a prerequisite for love.  For those who to subscribe to this view  they say things like “How do we know if we love each other until we are intimate, what if the sex is not very good?”    Both approaches are unbiblical.  The Word of God teaches to love even your enemies and to be intimate only within the covenant boundaries of marriage.  In the Bible we do not have sex because we love each other, but because we are married.  Now love will exist as a fruit within the marriage, but not as a prerequisite.  Likewise sex will grow the marriage oneness by celebrating the covenant and provoking feelings of love.

Now feelings of love may be viewed from a physiological and pharmacological viewpoint, which is as neuro-chemicals interacting with portions of the brain increasing and decreasing electrical activity.  For instance Sexual arousal often causes the production of dopamine that produces an inclination of sexual reactivity and neural receptivity.  When combined with adrenaline the feelings become exponentially more potent.  Novelty, danger and lust can produce a high that is hard to match.   Familiarity and security may cause the production of oxytocin that gives that warm, happy, content “in love” feeling.  Serotonin and testosterone and several other chemical agents in the brain serve to increase reception of inhibit reception of brain activity in one are or another.   Thus the feelings are more chemistry than metaphysical transcendence.  While love is transcendent the feelings are not, but phenomenal.

The church has also adopted this feeling based approach.  While the Bible teaches that husbands  are to love their wives, much of Christendom teaches this means that a man is to arouse feeling of love in his wife.  Christen marriage ministries echo this sentiment in a myriad of messages to husbands, for him to:  tell her you love her, tell her how beautiful she is, tell her how hard her life is and how much you appreciate her sacrifice, listen to her problems without a comment, do housework, open the door, share decisions, buy her presents, bring her flowers, wrote poems, brag her up in public, deprecate yourself as the lesser in maturity, intelligence, wisdom, holiness and emotional maturity… ad nauseam.   Now a husband loving the wife is what is commanded; he is not held accountable for her neurochemical state.   But even some of the most conservative voices in Christendom have adopted the feelings standard.

Al Mohler is the President of Southern Baptist Seminary, a teacher of teachers, a man who is considered one of the most biblically conservative and influential voices in America.  What he writes or teaches influences the thinking of many pastors, elders and intellectuals.  So by quoting Al Mohler,  I am not picking the low hanging fruit, but taking a close look at the best Christendom has to offer.   Study his words carefully as he writes:

“Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.”

This “earning“ is presumably the provoking of feelings in the wife.   Note he does not mean prior to marriage, he must earn access to the marriage bed by committing to her in covenant marriage.  No!   He means husbands who are married must earn access to the bed by provoking feelings of love in his wife.   He further explains :

“I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.”   

Only when he presents himself as worthy?  What is the standard to gauge his worthiness?  Well it is apparently left to the wife to determine, but it is entirely subjective and capricious.  It is also misandric.  Must she earn access to his wallet or his protection?  Such earning is contrary to the concept of covenant.

1 Corinthians 7:3-5  Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.  ⁴The 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.   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.

Mohler’s view is that the terms of the covenant of marriage are not inforce until the wife subjectively feels like honoring the covenant, but she is free to not honor the covenant if she feels that her husband hasn’t done enough to make her want to.  The default answer to the question of sex remains “no”.  It only changes to “yes” when the husband has demonstrated to her that he has sufficiently earned it.  Once he has darned the marriage bed, that access is temporary and defaults back to “no”.   If he did not buy her flowers that she wanted then she can deny access.  He must create feelings of love in her prior to her do performing as a covenant wife.  In this modern model, if she does not respect him, he must do something to generate in her feelings of respect toward him.  This model  supported by Mohler is contrary to the scriptures.  Notice that for Mohler wives are responsible for sanctify men as well as control access to the marriage bed.  The implication is that if a husband wants sex with his wife he must submit himself to create and satisfy her feeling of love.  She is in control.  She becomes the functional head and spiritual leader.    Thus according to Mohler a wife civilizes her husband.  I presume that Mohler is joining the chorus of “men bad, woman good” advocates.   Of course this harmonizes well with the “women are emotional which is like spiritual, their feelings are sanctified.  Men however are insensitive brutes who are naturally uncivilized and in part because they are not in touch with their emotions like women”

Ephesians 5:25-27  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. 

The Bible has clearly laid out the roles of husband and wife and the context and boundaries of sex.  But feelings not scripture are the controlling ethic of our day, both inside and outside the church.  Is it really all that shocking that culture is in decay when the church is going with the flow – it just feels so right!

The Heterodoxy of the Hyphenated

I know this is picking the low hanging fruit, but another hyphenated feminist, Rachel Held-Evans, has offered her opinion on how the church ought to reform.  Heterodoxy like this must be refuted so I will not resist the low fruit.

Ostensibly her reasons for reform are to bring back the millennials, because she claims the current church is registering high on the millennials sensitive BS meters.    My irony meter is pegged as I read her piece on CNN.  Writing for CNN she claims the church is too political and too obsessed with sex.    CNN is a network that is obsessed with advancing liberal politics and supporting all forms of aberrant sex.  Mz Hyphenated is singing along with the CNN chorus to marginalize the Christian opposition to their political ends.    It is little surprise to hear from another hyphenated feminist on how Biblical-ethics need to be changed to accommodate feminist and liberal positions.

Mz. Evans it frustrated over stylistic changes.  She writes  “What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance”

Yes she wants substance changes, like becoming more accommodating to the sins she likes or tolerates herself.  She wants the unchangeable God to change so that the sinful creature does not need to change.  She is advocating justifying sin rather than Christ’s justification of the sinner.

“Armed with the latest surveys, along with personal testimonies from friends and readers, I explain how young adults perceive evangelical Christianity to be too political, too exclusive, old-fashioned, unconcerned with social justice and hostile to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”

It will take a substantial change in substance to de-politicize the scriptures.   The kingdom is a political term with a political hierarchy.  Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth; He sits atop the hierarchy.  He has ordained four jurisdictions and delegated His authority in each.  The family jurisdiction he has given rule to husbands over wives and the household.  He has given authority to mothers through their husband over children.  He has given the civil magistrate authority to execute His civil laws.  He has provided the church a polity to shepherd and disciple those of the congregation. And finally to the individual he has given volition to be accountable to His laws over actions and thoughts.  The kingdom is not just eternal in duration but it has no end in its boundaries.  In other words Christ is King over all for creation, every action, every thought, every word, every inch every proton, neutron and electron, and every moment.

Mz. Hyphenated says that the millennials deep down long for Jesus.  But which Jesus, is it the Jesus of the Bible who reign on the throne who cannot look upon sin, or is it the Jesus who doesn’t rule has no interest in politics does not instruct women to submit to their husbands, says that fornicators will not inherit the kingdom, but just exists to make the hyphenated feel good?  Is she after the Jesus who died for justice or the one that is more concerned with “social-justice”.

What the millennials need is to see the real Jesus of scripture.  The ruler of the universe, who has given a holy law to be obeyed and because all sin are born in sin He was incarnate and offered himself as sacrifice to satisfy holy justice and has risen and rules on the throne.   That Jesus is obsessed holiness, with His children including sex.   He has given them instructions on sex, namely only in marriage and that between a husband and wife.  He even gave instructions on being a woman like:

1 Corinthians 11:3 … the head of woman is man…
and
Ephesians 5:22  Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the LORD.  

But then that is the point, Mz hyphenated does advocate submitting to her husband as she does the Lord.   She is ignoring His rule and inviting others to follow.  If she cannot submit to God, how canshe submit to God’s authority,(her husband).   If she must maintain her identity apart from Christ’s law, she cannot be expected to find her identity in her husband.  So the hyphen is emblematic of a “Christian-feminist” who desires the bride of Christ disobey her Lord even as she does.   Taking her husband’s name she hyphenates it and rejects his name and his authority.

What millennials need is what everyone needs: Justice not social justice, to humble themselves before the throne of the sovereign God and cry out for mercy.  Then by faith receive the grace of Christ and live a life worthy of their calling.

Discipleship Link

Hey, check out this post over Over at the Society of Phineas on the authentic Christian living.  It is worth the read for both the carnivores of the Word and those on a strict lactose diet.

---

Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate…

Costly grace is the hidden treasure in the field; for the sale of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has….such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it is to follow Jesus Christ.  It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life.  It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because ti justifies the sinner.  Above all it is costly, because it cost God the life of His son.  

Grace is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow HIm; it is grace because Jesus says “My yoke is easy and my burden light”   

— Dietrich Bonhoeffer the cost of discipleship.

 

What God created for good!

He is Risen!  Resurrection Sunday or Easter is upon us, that is if you are on the Latin Church calendar, if you are on the Greek (Orthodox) calendar  you will have to wait an additional week this year for your resurrection festival.  If you are part of the free church of Scotland, well sorry no Easter for you, again.   Why all the diversity on when to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, or should I write why all the disagreement?   Historically the date of Easter has been no small sideshow issue, but it was a significant factor in the great Schism, the dividing of the church between the Greek east and the Latin west.

Unity is the great hypocrisy of Christendom, but disunity is also the master strategy of Lucifer.  Divide and cause strife and schism, has been his tactic from the beginning.  That condemned serpent has been dividing everything God made to unite us since he fell from heaven.  Lucifer also known as Satan, who thought to exalt himself against God, that serpent of old and the destroyer of nations, has been dividing to destroy for a very long time.  His favorite areas to create schism are those very areas God created for unity.

God created the church to be “one body”, yet it is a collection of squabbling fiefdoms, each claiming to the one true expression of the faith, condemning others as false prophets, heretics or just simply inferior.  Just like Lucifer’s fall, pride drives the schism.  While pride itself is a sinful assessment of self, the pride that divides is often rooted in the exultation of things that are good.  A Church seeking truth and knowledge is a good thing, yet when they value their perception of knowledge so much they stop loving, they actually have neither truth nor knowledge.

1 Corinthians 13:2  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 

Do not forget Satan is cunning and clever; it is by craft an deceit that we are conned into divisions.

Genesis 3:1  Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. 

Lucifer’s strategy is to use something good and use it goodness to reorder life into disorder.  The resurrection of Jesus is the single most important event in history to mankind.  The celebration ought to unite all Christians and all of Christendom, yet it a cause to squabble and boast.  The body is divided among all those who have this in their cannon:

1 Corinthians 12:12-13   For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.  ¹³ For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free — and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. …²⁵  that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another…²⁷  Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.

But it not just concerning Easter that Lucifer had aimed his mischief, baptism and most ironically of all communion have been among the most divisive issues for the church.  Disagreements over the sacraments that bring us into the body and unite that body with Christ have been the cause for division for millennia.  This is to our shame.  I am not arguing that we should remain ignorant in these matters, but humble.  It takes wisdom to differentiate a major issue from a minor one, and a liberty from the application of the law.  If these deliberations are not accompanied with love, the destroyer has already won a victory.  Neither am I urging hand holding an a hearty chorus of kum ba ya, but of humility under God.  It just might be that you are in err, and as hard as it is to conceive, I might be wrong and that is no mistake, but God is always right and He is always in the right.

Lucifer has not stopped with the church, he uses his cunning stratagem in families and nations to hasten their destruction.  Isiah 14:12 refers to Lucifer weakening nations directly.  We in our modern age think of nations as civic states, but in the time Isiah a nation was more extended family ( i.e. decedents of Abraham) than a constitution of laws and borders.  In America there are political divide and conquer threats constantly operating to marginalize the strength of opposition, weakening resistance against the march of evil.  Each race, special interest, gender, economic class, and geographic region is pitted against all others to compete for scarce resources and laws advantageous to their interests.  The US is no longer e pluribus unum, out of many one, it is now much more many trying to be number one, kinda like Lucifer id described in Isiah 14.

 Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, And the sound of your stringed instruments; The maggot is spread under you, And worms cover you.’  12 ” How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!  13 For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;  14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’  15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.  16 “Those who see you will gaze at you, And consider you, saying: ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms, –Isaiah 14:11-16

The family is also divided.  Jesus said about marriage:

“So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” –Matthew 19:6 

 Husbands and wife operate separately, divorce is common and completion for rule is ubiquitous.  Satan has certainly been busy.  He created feminism to divide.  Look again at Genesis 3.  Lucifer divides the household by disrespecting Adam’s headship as he preys upon Eve.  He appeals to her low estate being under god and provokes a desire to as a god.  This is the most basic kernel of feminism, it is the desire to create a higher estate for women than God designed; to be as god and reorder creation to her liking.    Eve wanted to be as god, last decade women wanted to be as men, today women want to rule.  By marriage God made them one but, feminism uses every wedge to make them two.  Perhaps no more potent example is that of sex.  Sex was created for oneness, but has become a great instrument of division.  Sex is an act of becoming one and important in maintenance and the celebration of oneness.  God reserves it exclusively for marriage, yet inside the marriage is has become a bargaining chip or a weapon.   It is according to studies the single largest area of conflict among married couples.  The conflict over sex has become so rampant that today if a man desires regular and frequent coitus, it is more pragmatic to remain single and learn to fornicate than to get married and be sentenced to celibacy.  The whole of modern culture supports that sinful and calamitous premise.  Music, books movies and laws are all biased to the idea of sex outside of marriage is better and more frequent than sex inside of marriage. The world says Marriage is where a sex life dies and a man loses his manliness.  Women fear marriage means for them a danger of enslavement, boredom and loss of self expression.  This is concept of sexless marriage is not just propaganda, but observation supported by overwhelming data.   They are no longer one but two.   Satan has been busy turning what created for good and using it to destroy what God created to unite.

However, He is risen!  He is now seated on the throne.  That should be enough to overcome our schismatic pride.  He rules, His law is law, He revealed a blueprint for life in the church, the government and in the home.  Diversity of application is the expected result of diversity of gifts and diversity of purpose in the body.  Viva la difference, we are not all the same.  Christianity is not a franchise, but a body.  And marriage is not two of the same type, but two different individuals made to be one.  The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  He is risen, He has overcome sin and death that we can resist parting out our marriages and  repent of our schismatic pride for God tells us… Hear oh Israel, the Lord thy God is one!

Death to Life – Good Friday

On the western church calendar Good Friday is tomorrow, the day when the church remembers the anniversary of the death of Jesus by crucifixion.   As I have been meditating on the significance of this event upon which human eternity hinges, I think about death and how it is essential to life in a fallen world.

Jesus died to bring life for all His elect.  The theological importance of the imputation of my sin upon Him and the propitiation of that sin in His death is staggering.   As I am meditate on His death I am drawn to the familial nature of the sacrifice.  The Bridegroom gives up His life to save the life of His bride.   This death is personal, this is not to save sinners in the abstract, but to save His own bride made up of the collection of the elect who are made heirs with Christ.

Death has been a indispensable act for the family throughout history.  A leading cause of death among women was complications due to childbirth.   Women risked their lives to bring forth life.   Having offspring to continue a bloodline and a legacy was a matter worth dying for.  Men died protecting that legacy and their bloodline.  Death then was central to the continuation of life.  This kind of thinking seems almost foreign in the post-Christian west.   It testifies to a cataclysmic shift in our culture’s philosophical orientation.

Existentialism has corrupted our value of the future and cheapened death for the sake of a shallow life.  The thought of women dying to bring forth new life and to create a hope for the continuation of the family and a future or men dying in the preservation of life protecting that hope and future only makes sense for those with a future outlook.

Today in the west childbirth is relatively safe for the mother, but deadly for the child.  In the past women risked their lives for their child’s chance for a future, today woman callously kill the child to enhance her own future.  This act of treachery toward her own children is not simply and act of selfishness, but one of despair.  Why despair, because it is born of an orientation that is incapable of a hopeful future, and a purpose greater than self.  Thus the future is sacrificed for self.

Men have also abandoned hope.  In the past they would fight to preserve their family, today they routinely have their children taken from them by a discontent and ungrateful wife.  Men are increasingly losing a future orientation, which spells disaster for society.  Men going their own way is a life strategy for men to avoid the pitfalls of life in a gynocentric society.  Rather than risk the calamities of failed marriage and the expense of child-support for children they do not get to raise, they avoid the marriage altogether.  Rather than take dominion for a better future they do just enough to enhance and enjoy their sense of self.   Economically men falling behind as women choose to express their own sense of self in their career competing against men in a game that is rigged in their favor.  Today there are more women are in US colleges than men, 80% of divorces are filled by women, and men are routinely shamed as oppressors.  Men used to know that a good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.  Today men ask whose child is it?

The church has also contributed to an existential orientation through the teaching of a pessimistic eschatology.  The drumbeat of despair is regularly heard. How often the message of hope is occluded by the more vocal message of the rise of evil and the weakness of the faith to provide a serious opposition.  The attitude is “Why polish brass on a sinking ship?  The best we can do is wait for the rapture and take as many with us as we can.”  This is a far cry from those who took dominion and polished the brass and built the ship.  Christendom started out with just twelve disciples and successfully grew and overtook the juggernaut of paganism.  But the disciples were not existentialists,  they had a hope and a future orientation. As part of the bride of Christ they gave their lives to help give birth to the church.   All but John died as martyrs in the preservation of that hope, and John only escaped the martyrdom by a miraculous preservation.   Because of them, I have an adoption into the household of faith and the family of our Lord.  The Church used to believe that the light banishes the darkness and the Kingdom of Christ has come.

Jesus had a very different outlook than we see today.  He sacrificed for the future of others, but not for just strangers, for His bride, His family.   On this Good Friday I remember that by sin death entered the world, and by death it was defeated.  It is a paradox that life is secured by death.   This is why in Ephesians 5:25 husbands are called to imitate Christ by transcending self and giving their life for their wife’s.  Faith has a future to live for and die for.  It welcomes children and prepares them to be the next link in the chain, to carry on where our lives leave off, to continue a bloodline and a testimony of the faithfulness of Christ, not just in His death, but in His sovereign rule.

Idolization of romantic love.

Check out this excellent post over at Deep-Strength.   He expounds on the real idolatry of the Church in our age.