Update: New version with updates: https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2024/03/04/a-christian-understanding-of-attraction-and-the-role-it-plays-in-marriage-dominion-is-baked-into-the-cake-part-4/
Back in January, I wrote the post Understanding Attraction. It was somewhat based off of insight based off of what we see in the real world evidence from the PUAs and players. Donal Graeme has two excellent codified posts of what “vectors” are involved with attraction. 5 vectors of female attraction and going APE with a categorization of appearance/personality/externalities.
However, this didn’t really sit right with me. I think material world analysis is good, but it’s of the world. We know that God created the world and everything in it as good, but it’s not the same thing as what God says in His Word. And we are supposed to base our actions, thoughts, and beliefs off of what God says, especially in His Word.
It was actually this past series on Authority and the argument in Authority is Good that has really opened up my eyes to understanding attraction from a Christian perspective. I think most of the Christian manosphere bloggers will kick themselves for not understanding this sooner.
1. Attraction
To understand attraction let’s go back all the way to the creation of the world.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule (râdâh) over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue (kâbash) it; and rule (râdâh) over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [al]sky and over every living thing that [am]moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the [an]surface of all the earth, and every tree [ao]which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the [ap]sky and to every thing that [aq]moves on the earth [ar]which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
H7287 — râdâh — raw-daw’
A primitive root; to tread down, that is, subjugate; specifically to crumble off: – (come to, make to) have dominion, prevail against, reign, (bear, make to) rule, (-r, over), take.H3533 — kâbash — kaw-bash’
A primitive root; to tread down; hence negatively to disregard; positively to conquer, subjugate, violate: – bring into bondage, force, keep under, subdue, bring into subjection.
I think the best word for understand this authority or rule is dominion. God tells man to take dominion over all of the earth.
If you read the previous post on Structures of Authority before the fall, you’ll see that that there are 3 arguments from Genesis that husbands had authorities over wives prior to the fall. Namely,
- God creates and brings the animals in front of Adam to name, and the same thing occurs with Eve.
- The comparison of Cain’s temptation with sin and his decree to master it is the same as Eve’s curse to desire her husband and the husband’s rule over the wife.
- The fact that we understand that perfect authority, as exemplified by God -> Jesus and Jesus -> Church, is love. Adam, prior to the fall, could perfectly love his wife as Jesus does the Church.
God intentionally does not make men and women “equal” prior to the fall. Instead, God creates with the intention of a husband having the authority over the wife which is exemplified through being his helpmeet.
Therefore, by the same measure we understand that it is one of the innate characteristics of marriage — the dominion of the husband over the wife — that God has created to be attractive to women. Likewise, this is in agreement with God’s command to take dominion over all of the earth.
Let’s look at Donal’s vectors of attraction which we know to be empirically true, and see if they fit within the paradigm that God has created and commanded — that man have dominion over the earth (which includes himself).
- Power/Personality — A man that has dominion over his person and thus power/personality is not needy or have any deficiencies. He does not have anything to prove. If he needs something instead of begging others for it, he goes out and accomplishes it.
- Status — Status is an indicator of man’s dominion over social situations or social groups.
- Athleticism — Athleticism is a man’s dominion over his body primarily physically but also psychologically and emotionally in action.
- Looks — While men cannot change what they are born with, they can exert dominion over how they look and how they appear by taking care of themselves with proper grooming, smell, clothes, etc.
- Money — Money is a dominion in itself because it can be exchanged for needs, goods, and services. It is literally a means by which a man can access that which he desires.
As you can see, each of these vectors show different aspects of what a man has dominion over here on this earth. This is expressed through a man’s dominion over himself, and a man’s dominion over his environment.
What is very interesting is that a man’s lack of dominion results in sin. Think for a moment about the 7 deadly sins:
- Lust — When a man is uncontrolled (or lacks dominion) over his desire for money, food, fame, power, or sex then he falls into sin.
- Gluttony — When a man is uncontrolled (or lacks dominion) over his wants or needs then he overindulges or overconsumes.
- Greed — When a man is uncontrolled (or lacks dominion) over his desire for material possessions.
- Sloth — When a man is uncontrolled (or lacks dominion) over his own laziness.
- Wrath — When a man is uncontrolled (or lacks dominion) over his emotions especially anger.
- Envy — When a man is uncontrolled (or lacks dominion) over his desire for what his neighbor possesses.
- Pride — When a man is uncontrolled (or lacks dominion) over himself.
Pride, being the original and most serious sin, is what all of the other sins stem from. It is a lack of dominion over himself such that he loses control in any of the areas above such as lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, or envy.
Thus, the Christian definition of “attraction” is doing that which God has commanded in the beginning: to take dominion over the earth and likewise to his wife. A Christian man can do that by exerting dominion over himself and any environment he inhabits.
When a man fails to exert dominion over himself then he sins and will also generally becomes unattractive. Men who cannot control their own lust put women on a pedestal or become addicted to things such as pornography. Men who cannot control their gluttony will become obese or become addicted to things such as video games. Men who cannot control their sloth may quit their jobs and live in their parents basement. etc.
You can see this across the world as both non-Christian and Christian men become more feminized. There is a lack of responsibility for taking dominion over their own lives and their environments.
2. Sexual desire / arousal
Attraction is different than sexual desire or arousal. However, they are accomplished by similar mechanisms. Let’s explore the Scriptures which speak to this.
As previously mentioned in Structures of Authority before the fall, God outlines the curse put on Eve, and it is contrasted against Cain’s struggle against sin:
- Gen 3:16c Yet your desire (teshûqâh) will be for your husband, And he will rule (mâshal) over you.”
- Gen 4:7 If you do well, [e]will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire (teshûqâh) is for you, but you must master (mâshal) it.
H4910 — mâshal — maw-shal’
A primitive root; to rule: – (have, make to have) dominion, governor, X indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule (-ing, -r), have power.H8669 — teshûqâh — tesh-oo-kaw’
From H7783 in the original sense of stretching out after; a longing: – desire.H7783 — shûq — shook
A primitive root; to run after or over, that is, overflow: – overflow, water.
The two implications here are very interesting.
Teshûqâh comes from the root word shûq which denotes a manifestation of human desire such that it overflows overflow. I believe that it is directly related to the condition of the heart.
The first is the traditional interpretation of the verses here. This is that a wife desires (overflows with longing for) her husband in that she desires his authority. This is the evil state of the heart where desire is a temptation. This is the easiest interpretation to pull out because humans are naturally rebellious. Likewise, the desire of a wife to usurp the husband’s rule is a temptation like sin. This the temptation that many Christian wives today have fallen to.
The mean here where desire is temptation agrees with the verse about Cain in Genesis 4. Sin lies at the door, and the desire (temptation or overflowing with long for) is there but Cain should master it.
The other interpretation is pulled out from the only other verse where teshûqâh is used in the Scriptures — Song of Songs.
- Gen 3:16c Yet your desire (teshûqâh) will be for your husband, And he will rule (mâshal) over you.”
- Song of Solomon 7:10 — The Union of Love — “I am my beloved’s, And his desire (teshûqâh) is for me. 11 “Come, my beloved, let us go out into the [l]country, Let us spend the night in the villages. 12 “Let us rise early and go to the vineyards; Let us see whether the vine has budded And its blossoms have opened, And whether the pomegranates have bloomed. There I will give you my love. 13 “The mandrakes have given forth fragrance; And over our doors are all choice fruits, Both new and old, Which I have saved up for you, my beloved.
From this we know that desire — teshûqâh — is also an overflow of sexual desire and/or longing for in both feeling or emotion that spurs one to action.
If we take this into context with the passage from Genesis, we see that the wife will sexually desire her husband when [when she submits to] his dominion over her. This is the good side of submission to authority for the wife — she will overflow with sexual desire for her husband. See the rest of Song of Songs for more details, or alternatively look no further than romance novels or 50 shades where the protagonist ravishes the woman.
The passage in Song of Songs is from the reverse perspective. When the woman — the Shulammite Bride — is possessed by her love (e.g. “I am my beloved’s”) then the husband’s sexual desire will be for her. Thus, a husband’s overflow of sexual desire comes from possessing his wife. In other words, the Shulammite wants to be her beloved’s/husband’s. There is probably no greater turn off, aside from obesity, than an unsubmissive wife. An unsubmissive wife does not want to be her husband’s as she disrespects, nags, and otherwise in rebellion.
Therefore, following God’s command of the husband’s authority over the wife in the marriage relationship results in a husband’s sexual desire for his wife (Song of Songs) and a wife’s sexual desire for her husband.
These Scriptures unify what we have observed throughout the manosphere. Those wives that are rebellious and thus desire the authority of their husband instead of submitting to it will have no sexual desire for him. Those wives that submit to their husband’s authority and his possession of them will overflow with sexual desire for him. And likewise, vice versa.
I am always amazed at the multiple meanings that can be found in the Scriptures.
Conclusions
This is a post I have been most excited to write since the inception of this blog, and I suspect that it will stay that way for some time. This is the paradigm shift from “PUA/player” understanding of attraction and sexual desire that I have been looking for ever I took the anti-game perspective.
I wrote in Reactive, Proactive, and Truth that currently the majority of the Christian manosphere is based off of neo-reaction style of thinking. Basically, the neo-reaction is that we see trends emerging from what has happened in society (namely feminism), and there is a rational, logical based response to it (e.g. players, PUAs, MRAs, Christians, etc). The problem with this is that God does not call Christians to be reactive but to be proactive by obeying His commands. Thus, a concept such as game is incompatible with Christianity.
However, the failure of the Christians to understand what the Scriptures state on attraction and sexual desire has impeded us from becoming proactive in our faith. This is the reason why I am excited because Christians now have a rational, logical, Scripture-based reason to understand the nature of attraction and sexual desire from a Scriptural standpoint.
Attraction
- The nature of attraction is rooted in God’s command to humans to have dominion over the earth, and in a husband’s dominion over his wife.
- A man that has dominion over his personal life and environment will be attractive.
- A man that lacks dominion over his personal life and environment will tend to be unattractive AND almost always in sin.
As you can see, this unites the commands of God with how Christians are supposed to live their lives. When Christians fail to do what God commands, not only are we generally more unattractive but we are also in sin.
Sexual desire
- A wife that desires to usurp dominion/authority from her husband will have no sexual desire toward him. This is typically involved in the context of nagging, disrespect, and otherwise inward or outward rebellion against authority.
- This desire — teshûqâh — is not mutually exclusive although often results in a mutually exclusive outcome. Either the wife will desire to usurp authority from the husband, or she will sexually desire him.
- A wife who submits to her husband dominion over her will have sexual desire toward him.
- A husband whose wife wants to be possessed by him — she wants to be under his authority — will have sexual desire toward his wife.
Post up any discussions, thoughts, or critique.
Christianity and masculinity 
I am going to need to chew on this for a long while. It suits your name, as it is really deep. A couple of quick thoughts:
1) I might slightly quibble with a section in part 2- namely that a husband will be sexually attracted to his wife whether or not she submits. However, it will be a superficial desire, and he won’t long for her in the meaningful way that God intended.
2) On a related note, it is interesting to wonder if a woman’s submissiveness will heighten a man’s desire for her. The Madonna/Whore complex would seem to argue against that, but since those who suffer it are disordered, that could explain why that response doesn’t show up.
3) In my initial reading your part 1 makes perfect sense. I tried to get at it before when I wrote that guest post for SSM, but you distilled it all to its perfect essence- dominion. Women are attracted to a man who has built, or is building, a dominion.
@ Donal
I would generally agree with this. I think you analogy about modesty a couple months ago fits this scenario:
A husband may be able to be physically aroused by the woman who is dressing like a slut, but he will want to possess the beautiful woman who is dressed modestly but prettily.
Based on the definition of Teshûqâh I think it means the latter where the husband will want to possess the wife.
I would suspect that. Most of those in Churchianity are deceived and believe heresy like egalitarianism.
Of course, we know that submission doesn’t mean “doormat” or whatever but that’s the common presumption.
I think you’ve found the elusive missing link here, DS. I don’t know if every word is 100% correct or not, seeing as how Donal made good points there. But overall this is fantastic. It kinda shows that a man’s faith can in fact make him attractive, IF he is becoming the man that God wants him to be, not who Churchianity wants him to be (aka, pushover nice).
It’s ironic too ~ I actually have talked with someone recently about the concept of a woman belonging to a man, not just being with him, but being *his*. This pretty well explains why it is the only good way to exist together. Nothing else makes sense IMO.
Very well done DS! I think I’ve probably said this a time or two before, but this is now my new favorite post of yours.
It isn’t so much the Faith itself that makes him attractive, but the works of his Faith. Which actually makes a lot of sense in light of scripture:
(Matthew 7:17-20)
It isn’t possible for a human to know another human’s heart, which would include their faith. So instead we are to examine the works of the Spirit- that is, the fruit that their faith bears. It seems eminently reasonable to me that women instinctively evaluate a man not by any professed sense of faith, but by the works of his faith. Which, for a truly devout, and not Churchian, man, should manifest in the exercise of dominion on the world around him.
Continuing this metaphor, Game can be compared to highly processed food that looks pleasing to the eye, and tastes great, but is actually poisonous for you. It can seem an awful lot like “good fruit” and so will get past a woman’s defenses. Only careful discernment and wisdom (highly lauded traits for women to possess in Scripture) allow them to see past this.
I was thinking along the lines of “faith without works is dead” when I wrote that. Your second paragraph perfectly explains what I meant. You’re right though, it’s the works that we see that stem from the faith that we can’t see that are attractive rather than the faith itself. I should’ve thought my wording through better before hastily putting my two cents in.
Still though, this post goes to show that a man can grow in his faith, and as long as his works follow proper suit (in the way this post points out, not churchianity’s way), he will become more attractive. He doesn’t have to be a bad boy to be attractive to a woman like most of the ‘sphere would claim. He can have his cake and eat it too, so to speak.
@ Donal
Excellent analogy with the processed food.
Everything is about action in the end.
We tend to tout beauty as something that is more superficial, but for someone who looks good it does take a lot of time and effort to make it so. Even beautiful girls or really built men have to work at it unless they were supremely blessed by God with extremely good genetics.
The problem is that too much time is focused to appearance rather than building godly habits.
Or in the case of the Churchianity too much time is focused on neither looks or godly values. Lip service is given to God, and no time is focused on cultivating a non-slovenly appearance.
@ FBNF
Well, it depends on your definition of “bad.”
Some would say that standing up to a woman or correcting her is “bad” but in various instances it’s a righteous action.
Likewise, breaking a law of the land such as house churches in China or other Islamic countries. They’re “bad” and “lawbreakers” for not obey the government.
Bad is too much of a nebulous word. The better word is righteous/unrighteous or good/evil actions.
@ DS,
Good point. When I said “bad boy” I meant the dark triad / evil / unrighteous / pump-n-dump types.
The works of his faith … which is really that dominion in action. For only by action can a man know himself and only by action can a man be respected. That respect being so vital to a woman’s relationship to her husband that Paul specifically called it out. An extraordinary post … thank you
Let’s see if I can put all of that post in pictures, it allows me to understand what you are trying to say better.
Attraction -> Christ on a Cross.
Christ willingly sacrificed Himself on the Cross to save Mankind from it’s sins, unifying the Divine (Christ, who is perfect), with the Cross (The Human Tree of Sin, supposedly juxtaposed to the Divine Knowledge Tree of good and Evil).
Through this event Christ showed us that he had dominion over all of Human Sins.
Now Jesus, who commands us to be perfect, (Matt 5:48), shows us – the Way, the Life, the Truth – a path to Heaven via overcoming our own Crosses (our own Sins).
Take that Cross and dominate it. Or hand it over to Jesus as he is meek and will help you.
Either way, It all starts with the mastery of our Self.
Once we own our Crosses, then we can help others own their own Crosses.
Just look at the extraordinary lives of the Saints for example (St Padre Pio, St John Vianney, St Augustine of Hippo etc).
Sexual Desire -> … I’ve got nothing, though this picture comes to mind: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_Ivanov_-_Christ%27s_Appearance_to_Mary_Magdalene_after_the_Resurrection_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg#globalusage
Basically the Christ’s appearance to Mary Magdalene and her first reaction to it should summarize sexual desire, though looking at the picture again, I think it’s more of adoration.
Your Cross analogy works too.
What do you think DS? Awesome job by the way, much blessed that I have the opportunity to read this article.
“The greatest battle a man can ever partake is with himself.”
@ Random Angeleno
Bit of a quibble.
Respect is commanded from the position. A woman goes from being under the authority of her father to being under the authority of her husband as his wife.
Though, in general, a man looking to marry by his actions would be wise to show that he is a man that can be respected through his actions.
@ aquietmimic
Correct. Christ’s love is an accurate analogy.
To be a bit more clear you could say that dominion of the earth fell into the hands of Satan. Through the new covenant Jesus commands us to make disciples of all nations, which is essentially to take back dominion over the earth. And it is through the Holy Spirit that we work in power.
Women with respect or adoration for men will tend desire him sexually… though the sole exception tends to be a daughter for her father. In that respect, you can see the adoration a daughter has for her father without the sexual desire (aside from incest). I believe this imprinting is why daughters tend to marry men who are like their father.
I need to elaborate on this concept further in the next posts and rebuild the pyramid I have on the categorized lists of post. I still have a bunch to think through as well.
“If we take this into context with the passage from Genesis, we see that the wife will sexually desire her husband when he has dominion over her. This is the good side of submission to authority for the wife — she will overflow with sexual desire for her husband. See the rest of Song of Songs for more details, or alternatively look no further than romance novels or 50 shades where the protagonist ravishes the woman.”
The woman has to be willing to submit to his dominion. It has to be voluntary on her part. He cannot force her into submission. She has to choose it, generally and specifically – she must decide that the nature of her relationship with the dominant men in her life will be one of submission to whoever those men are: her father. The elder men in the family. Her older brothers. Then, on marriage, she must choose to submit to one particular man.
Where most women sin is in their inability or unwillingness to submit. Most women have not learned this; most women have in fact been taught NOT to submit. Most women are taught that submission in sex is exactly what they should NOT be doing; because maleDOM/femSUB = rape. MaleDOM/femSUB=abuse, subjugation, violence, predation. Most women are taught the “bad” side of female submission. They are taught and encouraged to subvert male authority – to ignore it, undermine it, usurp it, and when the time is right or if a man allows her, to steal it.
@ Deti
Yep, hence the two sides of the coin.
1. Wife submits to dominion = sexually desires the husband
2. Wife rebels against dominion and wants it for herself = will not sexually desire her husband.
She is either sexually desiring her husband, or desiring his authority. Submission or rebellion.
“She is either sexually desiring her husband, or desiring his authority. Submission or rebellion.”
Yes. But the point I was making was going one step further back and making clear it’s the woman’s choice. She has full agency in the matter – she can choose to submit to the loving protection of a godly dominant man; or she can choose to rebel and go it alone. Most women today choose the latter, with full approval of everyone else around them (including their dads, brothers and husbands).
The way to go at it I suppose is to make clear that a woman’s choice is one of obedience, submission and blessing; or disobedience, rebellion and curse.
For a man, it’s obedience, dominion and blessing; or disobedience, subjugation to the world and curse.
@ Deti
Yeah, I changed the wording of that section to make it more clear:
Deep:
It’s easy to see why men who follow this pattern aren’t finding women. When living in a thoroughly modern society and culture that corrupts all it touches (even ourselves), the usual Christian ways of living and which lent themselves to men and women quite naturally finding each other (with some help) just don’t work anymore, or at least they aren’t working well at all.
A man who built, or is building, something for himself, who is more or less self contained and in control of himself and his urges, is going to appear as something of an oddity to most modern women. A woman who is demure, doesn’t put out, who submits to her dad, and who concentrates on the domestic and culinary arts, will get passed over by most modern men.
It used to be that these young men and women were encouraged by parents, society, church, et al. to find each other, get to know each other and marry so they could start having sex (if that’s what they wanted). Some men and women didn’t have a problem with this. Others needed some help. the older parents knew this; and enlisted themselves in helping their kids find suitable mates. Parents knew their kids and knew what kinds or sorts of people would be best for them.
Not the case now. Many of these kids are left completely to their own devices; or told to avoid it entirely because it’s evil and perverse (until they get married). Now, the girls are encouraged to put off marriage for as long as they can so they can get educations and jobs; while the boys are pilloried left and right for having normal sex drives.
@ deti
Yep. Unfortunately, there’s no going back on most of the societal changes which is why I am loathe to discuss it in all but analysis.
The direction I want to head now is with understanding the Christian attraction paradigm to hash it out to a place of actionable advice for Christian men. That has always been the purpose of this blog — to move away from the secular neo-reaction ‘game’ and to empower Christian men in the faith as well as build themselves into godly masculine men.
I think I have a good start here, but I need to explicate it further.
Deep:
What do you mean that you’re “loath to discuss it in all but analysis”? DO you mean you don’t talk about this IRL with people; just online on your blog?
Empowering Christian men in faith and helping them build themselves into godly masculine men are both noble and worthy goals. But the truth is that the pool of suitable women for these men is small and probably getting smaller. Most women aren’t interested in such men. Most of these men want to marry whereas most of their female counterparts of roughly the same age don’t want to marry. For the time being, most of these men are not going to marry because there aren’t suitable women for them. I suggest that part of that “actiionable advice” for men is going to be facing life as a celibate man and making peace with that, because a lot of men are not going to marry. I would also suggest that part of that advice is going to be teaming up with other Christians (not churchians) in an attempt to find spouses. That really can’t be done in nearly all churches.
@ deti
Nah, I discuss it with some of my friends. Though I don’t go out of my way to bring it up. Most people haven’t looked at the problems the manosphere has discussed in depth than to offer an uneducated opinion on it. It’s difficult to get good discussion on these topics for that reason.
I would agree with making peace with celibacy. I have come to peace at that with myself already.
As far as teaming up, there are some potential plans in progress. I have been proactive as such in my own church employing the married people to look for me, but such is life. There needs to be a bigger network, and online dating sites are not included.
Deep:
Well, let me ask you. Chad said something quite a while ago somewhere that really stuck with me. He’s a recent catholic convert. He meets women at church. According to what he says, most women of his rough age cohort just aren’t interested in marriage. For them, marriage is something they’ll do someday, when they feel like it or the time is “right” or they run out of options or whatever else. Besides, they’re girls, and they “naturally gravitate toward relationships” according to conventional churchian thinking, so if they’re not interested in marriage it’s all because there aren’t any attractive men.
Do you see this too? Men wanting relationships and marriage; and women don’t? For women, marriage is for “someday” a long way off? That women aren’t interested in marriage, but are instead interested in careers and fun and dating (i.e. sex with nonChristian men or nominally Christian men)? Because I have to tell you, it’s definitely what I’m hearing and seeing from others.
@ deti
I go to a Church with an outreach campus ministry. Pastor is excellent by the way. I think you would like him. He has preached on sex roles in marriage, not withholding sex, and the old 1 Timothy 2 passage on women not having authority over men in the church. Though he did have to preface it with “not politically correct” blah blah blah. But I’ll take it.
Anyway, most women are focused on their degrees and careers and relationships are just something on the side for them. Great if it happens, but if it doesn’t then oh well. There’s still time. Most will put off marriage for years to play BF/GF in order to finish school and get their career started.
Of course, the same women lament the lack of attractive Christian men.
My pastor preached on submission earlier this semester, and I was in mixed company was talking about it later. One of the women stated that “well, I don’t think I would be a very submissive wife.” Not exactly something I’m looking for as a Christian man looking to lead a family.
There are a few women that “get it.” They keep themselves pretty, cook, and are feminine. Predictably, they’re all engaged or married.
That’s what you have to work with now as a single Christian man. It’s pretty much what you would expect.
I just read your last reply.
I’m pretty sure I’d like your pastor, but perhaps not so much your congregation. Your church and its people sound typical of evangelical bodies – focused on ministry to the body and on the personal self-actualization of each member. Most of the single girls and young women aren’t at all attracted to any of the single men in church except for maybe one or 2. Most of the single girls are pretty enough to attract a guy long term.
Most of the girls would like to get married “someday”, after all their career goals are met. They’re not willing to marry now. Any marriage “now” would have to be absolutely perfect in every way – he would have to be the absolute perfect guy, with the perfect job and living in the perfect house so she will not have to struggle. They all think they have all the time in the world to marry and that men will still be ready to marry them when they are 30, 32, 35 on up. And they think they will have no trouble at all starting families then. I will bet most of them are not virgins.
Most of the men have no idea what they’re doing with anything in their lives, mentally, physically, professionally or spiritually. They’ve probably been told to go for a Christian girl because no unequal yoking, Christian girls are better than other girls, etc. They are attracted to most of the girls in church but are too fearful or apprehensive to do anything about it. The few who try are shot down, usually nicely, sometimes nuclear.
I’ll give your pastor the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he understands most, if not all, of this. And he knows what the problem is. But he feels that he really can’t say much about it for fear of offending anyone, and he certainly cannot do anything about it.
Most people in your congregation only vaguely know this is a problem. They just see that the guys and girls just aren’t connecting. But they really don’t know why. They probably think it’s a problem with the guys, because those girls are all so awesome and wonderful and talented and special. “What’s wrong with those guys!? How come they won’t man up and marry those girls?”
No one ever considers that maybe the girls are the problem.
@ deti
Sent you an e-mail
A man who built, or is building, something for himself, who is more or less self contained and in control of himself and his urges, is going to appear as something of an oddity to most modern women. A woman who is demure, doesn’t put out, who submits to her dad, and who concentrates on the domestic and culinary arts, will get passed over by most modern men.
Deti,
I could almost kiss* you for saying this, from both sides! Thank you for your apparent evolution.
I had occasion to think about this recently when a young woman whose blog I used to read (daughter of famous pastor), finally announced her engagement even though she’s been looking and waiting for a husband since she was very young. She should be in her late 20’s now. It is just harder sometimes for devout Christian young people to get together; attractive or not.
*Christian kiss on the cheek like a brother, LOL.
Elspeth:
The women who seem to have problems finding marriageable men are the ones I described — demure, don’t put out, submit to their dads, and are specifically preparing for marriage and motherhood. But that group of women is vanishingly small — I have only heard of them, and only from you, SUnshine Mary, FBNF, and a tiny handful of other commenters in and around these parts. So perhaps I’ve “evolved” on this issue, but only to a point, because the types and kinds of women you’ve been trying to get me to see exist only in infinitesimally small numbers.
In every church I’ve ever attended regularly, I wouldn’t have been able to identify any women who fit that description: demure, chaste, submissive and domestically skilled. The churched young women between 18-25 in my experience were just “turned down” versions of their secular, unchurched sisters. They dressed the same, were unsubmissive and “modern”, lacked domestic skills, and would have sex with the right men. They weren’t preparing for marriage or motherhood immediately. They were told they didn’t have to prepare; they would simply come by it naturally because women are just more naturally family oriented than men are.
It’s a complete myth that most church women are there to meet husbands or to prepare for marriage or motherhood. Far, far from it.
I watched a TED talk on aspects of love and how they drive our biological impreatives.. don’t remember it 100% so I might mess the terms up.
Attraction tells us what we are looking for in a partner.
Desire / Lust causes us to seek a physical relationship with our mate to produce offspring.
Love / bonding enables us to create a long term relationship to provide an environment suitable for raising young.
This is a really secular / biological point of view, but I think it is interesting.
@FBNF,
“It’s ironic too ~ I actually have talked with someone recently about the concept of a woman belonging to a man, not just being with him, but being *his*. ”
This was a breakthrough in our marriage when my wife started to believe this. She was reading Exodus 20:17 and realized that a wife belonged to her husband.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
She started telling me that she belonged to me. This helped me be more confident to lead.
As her submission has increased my desire and love for her has also increased.
@DS,
Great post.
Young, Christian men need to be taught to take dominion, starting with themselves as you outline here.
I like Wayne Grudem and Michael Pearl. Unfortunately, I have heard/read them say that men should not be taught dominion because that will lead them to be abusive.
If young, Christian men are not taught these things they won’t know what to look for in a potential Christian wife. Is she submissive? Does she want to be a helpmeet?
@ Bee,
Sounds like your wife found the not-so-hidden secret to being a good wife. When you know that you know that you belong to your hubby, how can you not joyfully submit to him? It’s so simple as to pass right over peoples’ heads.
@FBNF,
I am very thankful and grateful to be blessed with a good wife.
For a husband, submission is sexy and endearing.
Pingback: Dominion | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
You people do not understand this at all… You’re totally missing the mark… People, why are you reading 50 Shades of Grey for relational understanding???! Really???! You think the Truth lines up with that at all? NOOOO! Also, before the fall, Adam and Eve were made equal. God brought the animals to Adam BEFORE Eve was taken out of Adam. Adam means mankind, male and female, and in that state He was completely made in the image of God, then Eve (living one; source of life) was taken out because “it was not good for man to be alone”, he needed someone with him. But realize the command to rule and have dominion was given to male and female… The curse, due to sin, sin always has bad consequences and brings destruction, was that the husband would rule over her, but news flash people, Jesus hung on a tree for that and broke every curse so a man would be enabled to love his wife the way Christ does and lay down his life for her. Christ came as a humble servant and said to follow His example, if you want to be greatest, the superior, you must be the slave or servant of all (words of Jesus). Also you need to look up what a helpmeet even means in the original translation. Helpmeet comes from two words, ezer kenegdo.
Strong’s # 5828 (Hebrew = ezer) aid: — help
Strong’s Root = # 5826 (Hebrew = azar) azar = prime root: to surround, ie, protect or aid: help, succour
(Hebrew = kenegdo) corresponding to, counterpart to, equal to matching
By the way, the word ezer which relates to the word help, is the same word used to describe God as our helper and is used twice in the OT to describe Eve and 14 times to describe God. Therefore, it in no way implies being under, or subjugated to, if it wasn’t for the 2nd word kenegdo, it would actually imply superiority as it also is translated to savior and is used to refer to God.
You men strive to find out why your wife isn’t “submitting” to you or “sexually attracted” to you, it is because you’re not following God’s design for true manhood. If you start acting like Christ and standing for righteousness in humility and love and stop trying to be lord, she will adore you and run to you and desire you deeply. The enemy leads people by manipulation and control, God simply loves unconditionally without ever lording it over and encourages us to do what is right, He led by example (Jesus). So we should too, the way to be a leader is to live it out and speak the truth in love, not dictate like evil rulers. Why do we love God? Because He first loved us, even in our sinful state. Let go of the illusion of control and start praying and putting things in the hands of Him who is able!
@ Gabriella,
I appreciate the reply. A couple of your premises are incorrect which renders your points incorrect.
1. The evidence points to the fact that husbands had authority over the wives before the fall:
2. The problem you’re having, I think, is that you don’t understand that authority is good. I addressed that in this post:
3. Based on the available evidence, it seems to be that God implemented authority of the husband over wife prior to the fall, and then affirms it in the curses. The curses laid upon Adam and Eve are not bad. The curses are good because God’s judgment is good. I addressed this in God is good:
4. The fallibility of humans means that authority can be abused for evil. But this does not make authority an inherently bad thing. This is why the Scriptures, as inspired by God, reaffirm authority of the husband over the wife from the beginning until now.
There is no illusion of control. Perfect authority is about love — For God so loved the world he sent his only begotten son that whosoever should believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. The problem is that most husbands don’t know how to be a head in this day and age, and wives are told not to submit to their husbands. They are told to do things to make their wife feel good or serve her so she is happy rather than stand on God’s truths.
@ Deep Strength
Where exactly do you find fault? If you can please make specific points for your assertions that would be very helpful for the discussion. You have some good points, but I still believe it is clear that submission is a mutual thing and that it is not indicated that God’s original intent was that man rule over women. Furthermore, a curse is never God’s will. You state that the curse was confirmation of the supposed order, however, God simply stated the consequences of their sin (sin allows the influence or the devil, it’s his dominion). Therefore, things changed from the way they were, as God made them to be before sin, his intended design, to a cursed way, a broken way of a perverse world. Things were one way and then they became different. God would never desire the consequences of sin to be upon us and they are certainly not His will. That is why He doesn’t want us to sin at all and payed the price for our sins so we wouldn’t have to. So it seems to me that your premises are slightly misled and that’s all it takes to be in error DS. I thank God though that you realize that a man who has dominion over himself, or bears the fruit of self-control, is very attractive. He is disciplined and submits to God, that’s hott and such a man wouldn’t be a tyrant so there’d be no struggle or competition for who is boss nor any need for rule.
Dear brother, I have no issue with authority, just misuse or misunderstanding of scripture. I would mutually submit to my husband whether or not he was obeying God in honoring or respecting me as well, but that doesn’t mean it right for him to see me as beneath or less than him (Eph. 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Phil 2:3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;).
And curses are never good. You said “The curses are good because God’s judgment is good.”. If so why would Jesus become a curse for us so we could be free from every curse? They are the works of the devil that Jesus came to destroy. However, God can use what the enemy means for evil for good, but that doesn’t mean that what the enemy does is good in His sight nor His perfect will. Quite the contrary my friend.
I completely agree with your last paragraph with a slight difference. That husbands and wives honor and love each other by submitting themselves one to another in the fear of God and esteem each other more highly than themselves, then we will return to God’s original design and be truly blessed, having the unity that Ps. 133 talks about that brings a commanded blessing and the power that Acts talk about when they were in one accord and the Holy Spirit came in power.
There’s nothing wrong with a wife submitting to her husband, but both would be happier and better off (and more in God’s will) if they submitted one to another and loved and valued each other as equals. As you cannot fully love someone as you love yourself if you do not consider them equal. Food for thought brethren. Blessings and peace to you all.
@ Gabriella
Mutual submission applies to a very specific circumstance. See analysis of the context.
Again, you’re assuming authority is bad here. Authority in a relationship does not mean someone is beneath someone or less than someone.
Having authority does not mean you’re not operating in pride. Nor does it mean you can’t have humility.
Jesus is a clear cut example of this. He is the Son of God and He acted humbly here on earth even though He has the authority of God.
Don’t confuse these concepts. It’s very easy to do so, but we have a clear cut example in Jesus where they are not the same thing.
This is not correct. Everything that God does is good because He is good. Consequences and curses, though they are “negative” to us, are good because they honor the free will that God has given to us as humans.
Additionally, none the curses were revoked by Jesus except that we would not die (and only in the context of a spiritual death). We still die a physical death.
This is completely false. Again, you’re coming from the perspective that authority is bad. Authority is created by God. It is good.
Jesus has complete authority over the Church and wields His authority as love (thus dying for us and our sins). Likewise, Christian husbands are to wield the authority they possess in marriage as love.
I don’t think there is a way for us to agree because you’re approaching this argument from the perspective that “equality” is “good.” I dispel this notion in the article below.
We live in a culture which disdains authority and holds authority to be bad. God delegates authority to human institutions (e,g.Jesus speaking to Pilate) not the people to human institutions such as in the US constitution.
Oh, one more thing… I read what you said about the curse of Eve meaning she’d want to usurp his authority when it says her desire will be for him and he will rule over her and actually, what I believe that means is her identity, the “who am I?” that every one is desperately looking, which is suppose to be hid in God, she will look for in him, making him an idol that she will in a sense worship and desire. She will thinks she needs a man to be happy or satisfy her rather than God, she will therefore have too great or distorted of a desire for her husband and because of that, she will never be satisfied or content as an individual. What a cursed and miserable existence to never find your unique God given identity because you think you were made to be a mere appendage to some man. God made her a unique individual, but for millenias, women have been finding security and a sense of themselves in the men that they marry instead of God, keeping the world from experiencing the uniqueness of who God made them as individuals because their too preoccupied with their man as that defines them sadly (women we’re made in God’s image and are a counter part of His image along with men, they are needed to fully represent God and need to find their identities in Him). Since many women look to a man for their sense of worth or identity, he thus rules over his wife. This is not God’s design, but is the way of this world is it not?
@ Gabriella
Likewise, that thought assumes that the curses were evil, which they are not.
It’s pretty clear to me, based on the historical teaching of Christianity, that egalitarianism is not correct. There is no logical sense in egalitarianism because it means throwing out too many Scripture verses and saying some are better than others..
The nature of God as triune in unity and existing in hierarchical authority within Himself shows us the very nature of authority is good.
Egalitarianism assumes “authority” is bad and “equality” is good. The Scriptures support “authority” over “equality.” With authority you are able to have unity as demonstrated by Father > Jesus > Holy Spirit. With equality there is no unity because subverting authority means you also subvert unity. Without authority God does not send Jesus as a sacrifice, and the Father and Jesus don’t send the Holy Spirit to us.
The good thing is that I don’t think this is particularly an issue of prime importance to salvation. But subverting authority leads to rebellion, and it is clear by the divorce rates that egalitarianism has failed.
You may continue to post if you wish on this topic if you want others who may read this post to see your arguments. I have already laid out mine in the posts I have linked, so feel free to disagree.
Deep Strength,
Please, do not simply dismiss my arguments with unsupported opinions. I cannot read hours of articles you have written so if you could please explain here on the thread that would work. Please directly and clearly respond with scriptural support as needed to the points I make that you try to negate and the one’s you try to prove as we want to possibly go somewhere in this convo and we need to be able to follow each other and have scripturally validated points. I think if we cannot come to an understanding it is because one party is not looking to understand, but only be understood. Again, I have no issues with authority, I simply cannot see how Genesis doesn’t show that man and women were created equal and commanded to rule together. You responded rather fast, maybe if you regard what I am saying a bit more you will understand and hear something else. And the idea concerning curses, God doesn’t carry out curses, He simply removes His protection which is found in His dominion, when someone sins they are allowing satan’s dominion over themselves and then satan does the dirty work, never God. For how can God do evil?Think about Job and how God let satan smite him, He didn’t smite him Himself. And God shed His blood for our sins, but hung on a tree to free us from curses. He received stripes for our healing. They’re specifically mentioned for reasons. I’m living proof of such having been delivered from severe menstrual cramps after the Holy Spirit led me to apply the finished work of Christ on the cross to the situation and break the curse of Eve, when I did, instantly the insatiable pain left. Have you received the Holy Spirit yet? Not just confessing Christ or water baptism, as I assume you’re Catholic and already have, but have you asked God to be filled with His Spirit? It may be a while until I respond as I am going on vacation and have to pack now. Will be away about 1.5 week. God bless, and I hope you don’t take any of this the wrong way… Shalom.
ahhh, another lightning response, I guess there’s not much to think about or consider in your mind, you know what you know and it has been established…
@ Gabriella
I already laid out the Scriptures in the previous articles. I’m not going to copy and paste them here. You can read them if you want or not.
Curses are a form of righteous judgment which is good. God can only do that which is good. No, God does not only remove protection because He also carries out righteous judgment Himself. I can easily name 3 examples, and I’m sure there are more: Noah and the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and striking down Uzzah for touching the ark.
No, I am not Catholic, and yes I am spirit filled. Honestly, I’m stunned that you’re say you’re spirit filled, and don’t believe what the Scriptures say about the authority in the marriage relationship.
Just as the Godhead mirrors authority with unity, and Christ and the Church mirror authority with unity, so too does the husband and wife mirror authority with unity. Authority wielded perfectly is love. It’s clear as day in the Scriptures, and yet you would deny the Christ-Church analogy of husbands-wives saying that they should live as egalitarians?
We will just have to agree to disagree. Have a blessed vacation.
@ Gabriella,
Regarding submission, you must have glossed over Ephesians 5:22-24,33… (22)Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (23)For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and he is the savior of the body. (24)Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing….. (33)Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
It’s easy to gloss over this, considering how most Protestant Pastors do so in their sermons. But these commands (not suggestions) are equally as important and part of God’s design for marriage as the verses for men to love their wives are. They aren’t made null and void by the verse just before them about how Christians in general are to submit to each other, which tends to be wrongly used as a marriage verse when it is not. You really should read DS’s posts on these things that he linked here, as he does a fantastic job of explaining everything you are asking him.
Also, just because a husband has absolute God given authority over his wife doesn’t mean she is less than him in value. Parents have total authority over their children, but does that mean the children have less value as people than the parents? Of course not. It just means that someone has to be in charge for there to be order instead of chaos. It’s called hierarchy. Like at work, you have an employee that submits to the manager, that submits to the owner. The employee is valuable to the higher-ups (or should be) but cannot be in charge for obvious reasons. Same with a wife who submits to her husband, who submits to Christ. You can’t have two people being in charge of a family and expect it to go well, seeing as how they might not come to the same conclusions about what should be done in certain situations. Someone has to be able to make the final decision, and God’s design is for the husband to have that responsibility. It is what it is whether you like it or not.
Also, if Ephesians 5:22 is to be understood in light of 5:21 as the egalitarians claim, why stop with just reading that one example of a submission/authority relationship in light of the “mutual submission” concept? Ephesians 5:22-6:9 gives three examples of submission/authority relationships, all with the same structure (person who must submit, submit; person in authority, be kind/loving/gentle). There’s wives and husbands, children and parents, slaves and masters. Why should only one of those three be read in light of the “mutual submission” concept, and not the other two? The reason why, of course, is because if you were to try to read that “mutual submission” concept into the other two passages, it would be obvious for the nonsense that it is. Fathers have to “submit” to their children? Masters (who are Christians) have to “submit” to their slaves (who are fellow Christians)? Obvious nonsense. The person in authority is called to use that authority for the good of the other person: to nourish and cherish them (husbands to wives). to bring them up in the knowledge of the Lord (fathers to children), to refrain from threatening them (masters to slaves). But nowhere is it suggested that husbands, fathers, or masters are to “submit” to those placed under their authority.
The egalitarians’ own arguments, if examined fully, turn against their position.
Hey guys I’m back, in that I decided not to leave today for my mother’s sake. I’ll be leaving in a few days =) Thanks for the vaca blessing DS. So yeah, to all of you, here’s a link with the original greek that shows where discrepancies can be made in translations concerning women. http://www.godswordtowomen.org/women_and_scripture.htm
And no, I haven’t glossed over Eph. 5:22 just understand it a bit differently taking it in context of the whole chapter, especially the previous verse 21 that I have already quoted and other factors. It’s all covered in the links 😉
this link is pretty good too…
http://www.godswordtowomen.org/krupp.htm
And even in a logic or common sense way, if a man alone was meant to be leader it would indicate he is more equipped for the job in every way no? What are the qualities for leadership? Wisdom, management, good listening and communicating skills, ect… Men use to claim women were not intelligent and would not allow them to go to school so they couldn’t even show that they were capable. I know this may sound arrogant, but if I were to look for a man superior in every leadership quality I don’t believe I would ever get married (at least not to someone close enough to my age that I’d ever encounter), maybe one who complimented me, but not superior in every area or even most. I use to not care to marry, God was enough for me, but being a parent is one of the most influential positions one can have and I knew God wanted me to have children and my other half one day, for two is better than one. I’m currently engaged and no, he’s certainly not more equipped than me and he’d admit that (love the humility), he appreciates my aptitude and I know we compliment each other because we’re different, not the same, but equal/complimentary. Therefore we work together, he’s not my boss nor should he be, he’s a co-laborer and we work things out together, although I respect his decisions and he mine.
As our society which has been changing, in good and bad ways (wheat and tares maybe growing together?), women have been enabled to use their God given gifts of intelligence, creativity and whatever else, for the benefit of society. We all know patriarchy condemns this as I have read in posts above. I happen to be a college student and honestly, I normally tend to be the smartest in my class having a virtually perfect grade point average and was usually praised and sought out for tutoring, so why would God make me so intelligent and inventive if I wasn’t meant to use it? Every good and perfect gift comes from God. Also, the valedictorian this past year was a female.
I personally, was not designed to be a woman who stays home and serves a husband all day and have my identity and life found in him, but rather in Christ. Nor were all my spiritual gifts meant to be hid under the ground like the wicked servant, but to be used to edify and build up the church. Since a young age, when I would attend youth bible studies, teachers would take note of the understanding and maturity God had given me so young. What options do I have for a superior? And wouldn’t that take away from all God has called me to do if I let him lead in everything and don’t put enough of my dreams and ideas out there? What about the destiny I have in Christ? I need someone who compliments me and sees my calling just as important or great as his and where his calling is in conjunction with mine. Naturally, I’m rather passive and submissive, contrary to how it seems, but God has called me out many times to be a leader, personally and through many pastors and prophets. There is something about every member of Christ’s body that no one else can be to the world and too many women never find their identity that is hid in Christ because they live for their family alone, bogged down with taking on all home responsibility with no time to grow as the individual they were made to be. They put their husbands and children above God thinking that that’s how God made it to be. Go ahead and look at the church and tell me it’s not true. So if mutual submission isn’t truth, even though verse 21 says it is and in verse 22 the original greek doesn’t actually have the word submit there (why not obey??) it is added in to make a complete sentence, why would God have created me with so many gifts and talents that are contrary to being a f/t homemaker? This is the kind of attitude patriarchy inspires…. “A man who built, or is building, something for himself, who is more or less self contained and in control of himself and his urges, is going to appear as something of an oddity to most modern women. A woman who is demure, doesn’t put out, who submits to her dad (dad only?), and ***who concentrates on the domestic and culinary arts***, will get passed over by most modern men.” I get tired of saying this, women are more than house maids friends… I’m a chaste vigin @ 25 who doesn’t put out and serves God, I respect and honor my parents to a degree that people around me think is a bit absurd (Christians included), although lately being 25 I have had to respectfully disagree or decline, but no, I do not only see child-rearing in my future although it will be a very important thing that my husband and I will do.together and no I will not have a small little side job that only adds to my husbands superior job so I don’t hurt his ego. I will also take dominion over the earth for the kingdom of God, in the work place and in the church. I will be all God has called me to be and who ever understands that can co-labor with me and I with him. That whole attitude that women should be completely docile makes my heart burn with righteous anger as on a large scale it keeps the kingdom of God from going foward and coming into it’s fullness as it’s functioning at half capacity with only men. I defy stereotypes because God doesn’t make cookie cutter people, he makes individuals and being “subject” to another person completely negates that. But submitting to each other in the fear of God doesn’t. Also, if you submit one to another, you can make decisions as you will seek God on the issue together and if I know God is telling me one thing I cannot take someone else’s advice, even if they are my beloved husband or as the past has been, think they are. I will respectfully decline as that is what submission would entail when necessary as God has been teaching me to do. A woman of valor has a backbone and a mind of her own and isn’t afraid to hold her ground when necessary and has the wisdom to do it with the law of kindness on her lips. She’s an individual not a child who imitates her mom and dad or husband in this case. She follows God along with her husband and follows or imitates him as he follows and imitates Christs, which is the same as following Christ. That is unity. That is the unity of the Godhead, distinct, but equal, yet all in agreement and reasoning together. Btw, Paul mentions wives, children and slaves because they were mistreated and regarded as nothing with no respect in those days and needed to bring a balance. So this rare word in Eph 5:21 Hupotasso, was coined to bring a new way of thinking contrary to that of the culture which lacked equal treatment that’s why right before mutual submission is mentioned, he talks about once being in darkness but now being in light. Also, the sectioning off of verses was added in translation and was not the original way letters were meant to be read and understood, so it makes it easier to take things out of context, especially when a title is added. Here’s a quote from an author:
“”Two words are constantly confused in reference to woman’s duties, “subjection” and “obedience.” . . . The noun “subjection” is not found (in Classical Greek) outside the New Testament, and we are left to infer that it was coined to describe a relation peculiar to believers. Had the word merely meant “obedience,” such an invention would have been needless. . . . The true sense of the word describes the Christian grace of yielding one’s preferences to another, where principle is not involved, rather than asserting one’s rights.
When submission between Christians is referred to in the New Testament, it generally means an open attitude of mutual acceptance, sharing ideas, and yielding to the desire of the other, not mindless obedience.””
The first link in the beginning corrects all misguided interpretation on scripture that asserts men over women. You should all when you have time take a look because if you do not know greek or use a strong’s concordance for all words when you study, you can easily misinterpret scripture.
I know who I am in Christ and I will not let the idea of having a man “above” or “greater” than me lower who I am in Him so I can let him play tour guide and keep us from the fullness we can achieve together. I have a lot to give in every area of life to a man and I know he will be the same for me. I am Gabriella, daughter and student of a prophetess named Deborah (literally) and the most loving pastoral hearted father named Carlos (meaning free man).
Gabriella (Hebrew) God is my might (Italian) Woman or heroine of God
I cannot stay under false humility and pretend I am less than God made me to be so everyone else can feel comfortable and good about themselves anymore.
Pingback: What I believe regarding marriage | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
@ Gabriella
I responded to your comment with this post.
I dispel multiple misconceptions that you have about my particular stance on marriage as you are assuming I am a traditional complementarian or patriarchal advocate which is far from the case.
Peace be with you as you go.
@Gabriella,
Joanne Krupp’s article is actually one of the first egalitarian articles I’ve seen that looks at all three of the areas touched on by Ephesians 5:22-6:10, even briefly. Good for her. However, her desire to come to the “mutual submission between husband and wife” conclusion leads her to make a huge error, which becomes obvious if you look at this sentence from her sixth paragraph:
Fathers are to submit to their children? Masters are to submit to their slaves? That is obviously nonsense. What the passage actually says is that fathers are to do good for their children, and masters are to do good for their slaves. Fathers must bring up their children in the disciple and instruction of the Lord. Masters are to “do the same” for their slaves (what this means isn’t entirely clear, as it can’t be “obey” — I think it refers to verse 8, “knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free”) and stop threatening them. In both of these two examples, it is abundantly clear that the relationship is one where one person has authority and the other person is under that authority. And I firmly believe that Ephesians 5:22-33 should be read just the same way as the other two examples that follow it. All three are examples where the principle of 5:21 comes into play, but that principle does not mean that both sides of the authority relationship are to submit to each other. Rather, it means that the one under authority is to be obedient and respectful, and the one holding authority is to use it for the good of the other, and never to abuse it.
This is a reading of Ephesians 5:21-6:10 that is entirely consistent, and doesn’t suffer from the “well, this first example is just different from the other two. Why? Well, … because I want it to, that’s why!” problem. No egalitarian wants Ephesians 5:22-33 to mean what it plainly seems to mean, and so there’s a great temptation to commit eisegesis. But if you look at the next two examples, and the obvious parallels between all three, the proper reading becomes apparent.
Oh, and there’s one more argument for this reading: Colossians 3. (I noticed that Mrs. Krupp completely omitted covering Colossians 3 in her article, which is suspicious. If you leave out a piece of evidence against your position, you’re either underinformed or deliberately omitting information.) Colossians 3 is almost a parallel passage to Ephesians 5. Paul starts by listing the sins that we are to stay away from: sexual immorality, covetousness, and so on. Then he gives positive instructions on how Christians are to live their lives in the Holy Spirit: teaching each other in word and song, and so forth. Then he gives instructions for wives and husbands, children and fathers, and slaves/bondservants and masters, pretty much repeating in Colossians what he says in Ephesians. Except for one thing: have you spotted it? Colossians doesn’t mention “submitting to one another”! If Ephesians 5:21 is the lens through which all of 5:22-6:10 is to be viewed, thereby changing the meaning of “wives, submit to your husbands, and husbands, love your wives” into “both wives and husbands should mutually submit to each other” — then why would Paul omit such an important concept from his other letter? Instead, he repeats the same instructions (“Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.”) in Colossians 3:18-19. But this time, without any framing verse that could lead to a different reading.
Gabriella, your love for the Lord is admirable and your desire to serve Him is commendable. Don’t let your incorrect view of submission (it doesn’t mean that your husband would be “greater” than you are in God’s eyes, just as my boss at work isn’t “greater” than I am in God’s eyes) lead you into the error of eisegesis. The meaning of the text is clear — and while we may not like it, or (sometimes) even understand why God gave those commands, it is still God’s Word. To quote from one of my favorite TV shows, “Understanding is not required. Only obedience.” (Lennier speaking to Delenn in an early episode of Babylon 5).
DS- you may not be left wing traditional, but the basis of your beliefs have that undertone, at least, it seems to me … and there were things you said like about curses and animal naming that didn’t agree with my spirit… I think your writings encourage those who do disdain women or see them as inferior in their beliefs.. I understand what you’re saying and I think it’s mostly good, like a man should lead a wife with the love of Christ, that is good, but God is perfect and is fully able to lead or rule perfectly not being a imperfect person who sins or makes mistakes, so we have to hold each other accountable and both seek out God’s will together in the fear of the Lord and show preference to each other so that we can actually die to our flesh and become one in the same mind and spirit…
Robin, you’re real sweet, but did you happen to look at the first link? Verse 21 and 22 were meant to be together as verse 22 did not have the verb that is translated to submit, they added it in to make a complete sentence, but it simply said, wives to your husband as to the Lord. And there is usually only a shallow understanding of what submit even means which makes all the difference.. Paul also tell children to obey their parents in the Lord, but obey is different than submit and obey is used for slaves as well, which there shouldn’t be slaves anyway, so why is submit always used for wives instead of obey even in col 3 and what exactly does this word mean in the original text? As it was a word not originated in classical greek but as earlier stated, a word peculiar to Christians. It was a word that was not understood, known or exhibited in that culture and maybe not in this one either… Why make a new word instead of saying obey like they did for children and slaves, why go through all the trouble to make a distinction and new term? Most people define submit with the american dictionary but don’t study the original word that was translated to the word submit. I personally am still working out exactly what I believe in this specific area as we all should be open to the truth as we continue to grow in understanding. I desire to learn language of the original text and work with experts to see for myself because I feel like this is a big part of my calling, to help women and also men and bring godly unity and understanding between them one day… God put these things in my heart and I know certain things were revealed to me by him, like how things were different pre-fall before sin brought perversion to truth. It’s clear the church hasn’t hit the mark yet. There’s much cleansing and renewing of the mind to go before we are the spotless bride He returns for… we all see in part and we probably all have some part in this thread but I really need something to be solid and have the Spirit within me testify to it to have my mind changed at all, but I am open.. let God show us all where we may be wrong…
Also, your boss is superior in regards to your line of work. He or she knows more about it and is more skilled in the field. That is why your boss is your boss and why you can be promoted in a company. Although sometimes the worker is better suited than the boss, but that’s not how it should be… So why should a man be boss? Is he more knowledgeable or skilled about how I should live my life before the Lord? Do I need another Lord over my life? I don’t think anyone could ever add to His Lordship… Although having a helper would be profitable and someone to help direct me and add accountability before the Lord, their unique gifts, insight and strengths would be so beneficial! But people need that men and women, not just one of us… and men, being people who sin and make mistakes need certainly need someone to be accountable to who can help them in their walk. Who would be fit for such a job? Who can bring something to the table? An equal who is not like them, but comparable, a true friend and companion…As genesis 2 say in lit someone corresponding to him…
The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
[u]She shall be called [v]Woman,
Because [w]she was taken out of [x]Man.”
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
A man becomes one with his wife because they are two corresponding part that need each other to be a full functioning and whole unit. That’s like having a bow and arrow and and using only one part or saying the arrow serves the bow. That would all be a matter of perception as you can also say the bow serves the arrow. Neither is greater or in charge except for the maker or wielder of the bow and the must work together properly to be effective. We are like a bow and arrow in the hands of God when we work together. It’s also like the two corresponding angles of a triangle and God is the one that holds them together although they’re equal and opposite, set against each other.
@ Gabriella
1. I’m not left wing traditional. I’m pro-God and pro-Scriptures.
There is a difference because there is a lot of freedom within the Scriptures in various contexts. Something that may be “right wing” may be godly and something that is “left wing” may be godly. Something that is traditional may be ungodly. Everything must be checked against the Scriptures.
2. I believe I have been sufficiently clear that the Scriptures state that men are to use their authority for love.
Those who do evil will do evil regardless of what I write. There are lots of evil people in the world. You can’t go through life worrying about these people.
3. Lastly, the fact that men are not perfect is not an excuse to disregard the Scriptures on authority.
As I note in “Is there mutual submission or not” the mutual submission in the context of Ephesians 5:1-21 is about Christians pointing each others sins so as to step into the light. This is the accountability that is supposed to be there via Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5.
It does not mean that men should submit to their wives in other things that are not sin. But a husband may choose to delegate authority to his wife in order to act for him and even the family; however, this is not submission.
Ok Gabriella, think of it this way: suppose you and your husband are trying to make a decision together and you come to an impasse. He has good reasons to want to do it one way, and you have good reasons to want to do it the opposite way. If you have equal authority, then you’re stuck. Someone has to have the final decision. Who will it be? Him, or you?
**note ~ you cannot answer with “we’ll do what the Holy Spirit tells us to do” because let’s face it, far too often when someone says the Spirit told them something, it actually violates Scripture, is the exact opposite of what the “Spirit” told their spouse, and is oftentimes just their own feelings and desires speaking, not the Holy Spirit Himself. So for the purpose of this conversation, your only two options are:
1) my husband will make the final decision, even if we don’t agree.
2) I will make the final decision, even if we don’t agree.
hey femme, we contimued the convo here..
Pingback: Authority, submission, obedience, and servanthood | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: I want you versus I need you | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: Dominion Part 2 | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: The sexual marketplace and marriage marketplace | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: Christian Dating Guide: How to Start Dating the Right Girl - Success & God
Pingback: Identity Part 6 — performance and desire | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: My 5 step process to maturity in relationships | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Talking about attraction without touching the “looks” department? If she is does not find him hot there can be no attraction. You can have her respect being glodly masculine but she will not be bearing your children – unless she is bound to an arrenged marriage, lol.
Pingback: A detailed timeline and how to guide on the process of finding a wife | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
This is completely true. I have felt it…
Pingback: Let’s talk about marriage, fear, and dread | Christianity and the manosphere
This assessment of attractiveness in men runs congruent with my beliefs and feelings as a woman. I never knew this kind of love or desire until I met a man who’s ambition is to “take dominion over his life and circumstances. He reminds me of a fierce warrior who goes out to do battle every day. He keeps balance in his life too and I find all of this highly attractive and comforting.
I feel that an inner strength in a man is something that can be felt with a woman and she knows if he is taking dominion or not. I had a great role model because my dad also was one of these men.
Humility which is”strength under control” is a huge part of this. Humility isn’t some namby-pamby limp-wristed approach. It is complete power, but under control, of itself.
Of course looks matter. That is the initial attraction and without that, a woman can’t know if the man has any further attributes she would be interested in. But without this attraction, nothing is going to work. Or at least not for me.
Watching a Godly man who is under control and taking authority and dominion of his life and surroundings is an exciting thing that a woman longs for.
Pingback: Navigating the Biblical basis of attraction and marriage with others | Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: Not curses but punishments (Genesis 3) Part 2 | Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: A Christian understanding of attraction and the role it plays in marriage Part 2 | Christianity and masculinity
Your Hebrew translation is wrong. You’re taking a text that was translated into English and taking it back to Hebrew but using different words than in the original. in the original Hebrew text those are not the words which appear.
I don’t know if you are Catholic but it is also not the interpretation provided by the Church in the catechism.
I like your analysis so I wish your textual evidence was correct. But you’re wrong.
@ Chevalierdejohnstone
If it’s wrong I would appreciate directing to any Biblical resources that show that the wording is wrong. As far as I know, these are the Strong’s Hebrew words that were used there.
I’m not saying all the translations are wrong. Just a few things off.
Pingback: How is Godliness Attractive? | Σ Frame
Pingback: Unlucky in Love? | Σ Frame
Pingback: Only Hunky Monks can find a Sanctified Marriage | Σ Frame
Pingback: Roundup on Attraction and Marital Sanctification | Σ Frame