Chivalry is anti-Christian in action

It just occurred to me there’s an easy way to explain why chivalry is anti-Christian.

A correct marriage analogy is a King and a Queen — the King wields authority over the queen and the rest of the kingdom. Instead chivalry is a knight trying to impress and serve the queen. Remember, chivalry is a knight’s code and not one that a king would follow. The knight is to put the Queen up on a pedestal and serve her whims.

It’s clearly an inverted roles scenario where the Queen is in charge and the knight is serving her. It’s not even the trash term “servant leadership” but literally just serving. No headship and no authority and therefore anti-Christian.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Chivalry is anti-Christian in action

  1. Swanny River says:

    Simple observance that helps me. The test will be if it also helps Jason see why someone like myself thinks that churches pushing chivalry make it harder for him to find a suitable wife that would be pleased with helping him.

  2. Novaseeker says:

    Right. Dalrock basically explained that in a more fulsome way, going into the details of where chivalry comes from and what it consisted of (namely, adulterous love and desire between a Queen and the attractive knights, which was characterized by the submission of said knight to the desires of his Queen). Chivalry is basically “femdom” love, whereby a male supplicates a socially superior female in order to win her love (whether sexually consummated or not), fulfilling her whims and desires, as she specifies, like any “soft dominatrix” would do. It’s a perverted kind of love and affection that inverts sex roles due to the social distance between a knight and the Queen that imposed social difference and made any such relationship of affection, of necessity, a female dominant/male subordinate framework, because she was, after all, the Queen, and he was a mere knight.

    Beyond these old tales, however, the broader evil happened when this was transposed to be the ideal for all men. Instead of men being the Kings to their Queens, men were to be the chivalrous knights to their wives, despite the fact that their wives were — unlike the situation of the knight — not their social superiors, but their social peers (usually). And so, over time, women were elevated socially in accordance with the framework, so that women came to be seen as men’s social superiors in a way that persists today: that is, even for men and women who are, in fact, social/economic/class “equals”, women are seen as the social “superiors”, generally, because they are women. This was never the case historically, and really is something that developed over the past few hundred years, and really took a very significant ramp upwards during the Victorian era in the Anglo world in particular. And it’s all based on replicating the conditions of chivary — woman as man’s social superior (even if she is only “constructed” or “socially imagined” to be so and isn’t actually so), which justifies a man’s fundamentally supplicatory and submissive mode of expressing love for her.

    The Church was quick to embrace this ideal for various reasons (Leon Podle goes into some of them in his important book, but there are other resources as well), and today it is by far and away the default/dominant setting for the way almost all men in churches — from conservative to progressive — view the proper relationship between husband and wife, regardless of how they dress it up conceptually.

    What happened to the “King and Queen” model? That got transitioned away over time. It didn’t happen overnight, but it did happen — again, Podle and other resources discuss the reasons for what happened in the relatively recent past (i.e., past few hundred years), and the contemporary age has its own additional reasons, like the de facto matrilineality of America and much of the West. But it happened, and now the King and Queen model is mostly for a handful of outliers, and lacks all institutional ecclesial support, never mind social approval. It does exist, also in a twisted form, in the fornication culture, however, where women’s desires for a “Kingly” type come out in the realm of shorter-term fornicative liaisons, but these are pseudo-instances, of course, where there is a play-acting going on that is mostly sexual in nature and is not substantive in the remainder of the relationship for the most part, and most of these situations do not last, either.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Deep Strength: legit.

    @All:
    Novaseeker wrote most of what needs to be said, especially riffing off of Dalrock’s pretty exhaustive research. The current model for men in marriage either for church people or not church people is figureheadship. Role playing, pretending, etc. Not actually living out the two currents of authority and responsibility. They are a pair and must match in energy and intensity.

    If a man only gets one half of the pair, results may not be as he would desire.

    Tagging on to the last two sentences in Novaseeker’s comment, from time to time I wonder just how many copies of 50 Shades of Grey are still out there slightly hidden away in the books of oh-so-holy church going women? I do not think the number is zero. There is a desire in women for dominance, full stop, it exists even in very nice church girls. It is part of the earthy side whether we like it or do not like it. As with any other urge it needs controlling, but wishing it away or pretending it’s not there fails as we have seen for years. Women think they want a Knight Errant but what they really need at the end of the day is a monarch. A king. A lion.

  4. @ Nova

    Great summary of the whole thing that Dalrock investigated in greater depth.

    It somewhat also explains the “one upsmanship” that goes into more fancy engagement proposals. The man must to go greater and greater lengths to propose to not only show a woman his love but build social capital to make her feel more special. In other words, she can compete with her peers to see who has the greater status by having a man go more out of his way for her which means her status is superior.

  5. Jack says:

    It’s true that the church has promulgated Chivalry over the last several decades (or centuries?). But this is compounded by the fact that women in general and especially Christian women teach their sons to be chivalrous starting from their youth. I was raised in the church, and my mother, aunts, and grandmothers were this way too. I spent a couple decades of my life waking up from this. So I am inclined to believe this from the opposite perspective — that the church is actually supporting and socially reinforcing this female propensity for exercising control over (younger) men — “dressing it up” (as Novaseeker said) with (in)appropriate rhetoric and (im)moral principles.
    This institutionalized social reinforcement (i.e. churchianity) puts men and fathers at a great disadvantage. It explains why the church has become feminized and why so many men have drifted away from church attendance. I believe many men can sense that the church is somehow their spiritual enemy in this regard, even though they can’t apprehend that on an intellectual level. Dalrock et al. have made this truth available to us intellectually, and for this we are grateful.

  6. cameron232 says:

    Excellent post and great commentary by novaseeker (as usual).

    novaseeker: “It does exist, also in a twisted form, in the fornication culture, however, where women’s desires for a “Kingly” type come out in the realm of shorter-term fornicative liaisons,”

    My impression from adaptations of the Arthur legends is that Lancelot is a more viscerally attractive male than Arthur. So it’s more like the queen being married to Jeff Bezos but fornicating with Chris Hemsworth or John Cena on the side.

  7. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    You have a point but don’t know how literal this is in historic terms. What we know as Chivalry came to us from Moorish Spain. Eleanor of Aquitaine really got the concept going with her Court of Love.

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    It’s true that the church has promulgated Chivalry over the last several decades (or centuries?). But this is compounded by the fact that women in general and especially Christian women teach their sons to be chivalrous starting from their youth.

    It’s both. It’s “church leaders AND women”. It is a self-reinforcing process.

    There’s multiple layers to this. First, women are followers by nature, so the most natural thing for churchgoing women to do with sons is teach them whatever their church expects. I’m reasonably sure that this can be seen in those churches that theologically conservative, especially those that practice catechesis. If the church leadership expects parents to teach their children certain things in a certain way, some will do that. If that includes chivalry, well, that’s what will be done. But on the flip side, those sons who grow up in a church and in time come to be part of leadership will have chivalry printed onto them – they will expect parents to teach it to their children.

    Second, women are a tribe. Let’s stipulate this rather than endlessly wrangle, if possible. Men are not, we are more individuated – although this varies more than I previously thought. Teaching sons to defer to women in a Chivalric fashion serves the larger tribe-of-women, even if it disadvantages the son(s). Chivalry makes men slaves to women at some level, as older Arthurian tales clearly show, and taking advantage of “free stuff” is human nature in general. It’s very much female nature, because women historically can’t really survive long on their own, they have to be part of a group or die.

    Cultural and “brain wiring” combine to make chivalry a really attractive feature, to women. Unfortunately it’s now more like a mental virus than a feature.

  9. Jack says:

    “Teaching sons to defer to women in a Chivalric fashion serves the larger tribe-of-women, even if it disadvantages the son(s).”

    Chivalry serves womens’ sinful self-interest. It allows them to dispense with the humble formalities of respecting and submitting to men.
    It gives them a powerful tool to demand things from men rather than to act as their helpers. It strokes their egos and gives them a sense of control over men. But deep down, women hate chivalrous men, because all this hurts them in the long run.

    “Cultural and “brain wiring” combine to make chivalry a really attractive feature, to women.”

    Just to be clear, the word “appealing” is better than “attractive”. Chivalry is appealing to women in the same way that the forbidden fruit was appealing to Eve. Both give them a false sense of self-righteousness, security, and control. Chivalry is not very attractive in terms of the tingles.

  10. pb says:

    “Second, women are a tribe. Let’s stipulate this rather than endlessly wrangle, if possible. Men are not, we are more individuated – although this varies more than I previously thought.”

    Women will congregate in a herd to socialize. They also in mass politics look out for the interest of women when it is to their benefit to do so: the feminine imperative.

    Men are task-focused so they can work alone, but they also collaborate with other men to attain common goals, and they have a form of friendship that is different from what women have with one another.

  11. lastmod says:

    Game pushes chivalry. It does what a woman wants and expects. It teaches men to decode what they are think, what they really mean evidetly with foolproof results. It makes men only into a one way thinking mode, and caters exactly to whims, trends and what women want in men…….who is being played here?

    I never have defended chivarly. It’s a battle code…….and there is like one line about the treatment of women, and people of an occupied territory. Chivarly probably set the basis for the “Geneva Convention” if the real truth is told of how an officer in war behaves in an occupied territory / town / city / region.

    Even if I found the reddest of the red pilled church………ugly people don’t make babies…….god makes some people attractive and others ugly because he is “teaching the ugly person a lesson” evidently.

    It’s not a “test” women hate ugly men. Case. Point. Match. Set.

  12. cameron232 says:

    lastmod

    Women don’t hate ugly men. THey don’t want to marry or have sex with ugly men unless there’s something else exceptional about that man e.g. Bill Murray who many women would have sex with or marry.

    People’s physical ugliness (and a bunch of other things) is a result of God’s permissive will not God’s positive will. This is a result of the Fall.

  13. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.
    1 Peter 3:5-6

    What is a “lord”, but the ruler, law giver or master to be honored and obeyed. It is simple, the relationship of the wife to her husband is that of subject to lord or church to Christ. The relationship of husband to wife is that of loving head, and sacrificial head. Chivalry perverts the relationship from that of a divine covenant pointing to the gospel of Christ to the supremacy of female feelz over the action of males.

  14. Quiet Desperation says:

    First time commenter on this site. “I believe many men can sense that the church is somehow their spiritual enemy in this regard, even though they can’t apprehend that on an intellectual level.”

    Yes. As I man who was raised in a traditional congregation where the pastor regularly preached Biblical sex roles, I find the changes in the modern church extremely perplexing. Many of the teachings of the current year are the polar opposites of the teachings I received as a child. I was taught that husbands were responsible for provision, protection, and headship of their wives and children, while wives were created to bear and nurture children. I always felt that sex roles defined by God were a fundamental part of Christ’s Gospel. However, the church has been a prime mover in providing and cheerleading alternative modes of provision and protection (mostly government programs) while denying or inverting the headship roles of men. The male role has been devalued consistently in the church for decades if not centuries. Attending men’s groups at church is now almost indistinguishable from the squishy-feely stuff I’m forced to attend by my company’s HR department.

    Questions: Does Christ really approve of the teachings of the modern church about sex roles? Was the church wrong for the last 20 centuries? What is the proper course of action for a man who genuinely believes in Christ and his church but feels current church teachings about gender roles are wrong? As I said, I have seen them reverse in my lifetime. I’m genuinely confused.

  15. @ Quiet Desperation

    Questions: Does Christ really approve of the teachings of the modern church about sex roles? Was the church wrong for the last 20 centuries? What is the proper course of action for a man who genuinely believes in Christ and his church but feels current church teachings about gender roles are wrong? As I said, I have seen them reverse in my lifetime. I’m genuinely confused

    Of course not. There’s plenty of Scriptures like in Timothy and Revelation 2 and 3 that show that the Christians and Churches have the capacity to go off track into false teachings.

    The best we can do right now is keep speaking the truth *and* living it out in our lives. Jesus lead by example and that’s how we should do it as well.

  16. lastmod says:

    Ummm……..To say there is a ‘permissive will of God’ is the same as saying that we have the power to change God’s divine plan for us……..so making someone unattractive physically is not his permissive will. I have heard it said that man looks at the outside, God looks at the inside……God doesn’t really doesn’t care what you look like, though he made this person in his image……yes, I know he allows this to “teach” that ugly person his real, deep, and true love for them (sarcasm)

  17. Quiet Desperation says:

    @Deep Strength: Thank you for your reply. The unceasing feminist gaslighting is taking a toll on me. It is refreshing to find at least one voice of sanity remaining in this world gone mad.

  18. wodansthane says:

    @Deep Strength. Thanks for coming up with such a succinct description. This is going to save me a lot of breath when I have to explain all of this to fellow believers still struggling with all of the nonsense we’ve been fed over the years. Glad you’re posting more regularly.

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    Chivalry-man meets up with “Let’s You And Him Fight” girl. Foolish chivalry-man believes the word of a woman…

    https://www.fox13news.com/news/robinson-murder-trial-thursday

    …one man winds up dead, the foolish one now facing life in prison.

    The girl’s lie? Oh, well, Faire Laydees will talk. So what?

    The video is instructive. Watch the body language.

  20. Pingback: The Friday hawt chicks & links – The fate of the world edition – Adam Piggott

  21. Petrina says:

    People used the terminology lord with a small L to honor people in leadership positions back then. The lingo was different.

    I would be wary of any man who calls himself a Christian who requests his wife in this day and age to call him “lord.” The only time in this culture I hear lord mentioned to refer to people in America is the people who are called landlord, and even then they don’t mean it in the wrong context. Not idolatry or “master.”

    The Bible does not refer to the husband as his wife’s master, no matter how many men wish that it did. The husband is head of the wife. He submits to Jesus Christ and the women submits to her husband. Husband is the most responsible one, provider, protector.

    Many men are obsessed with power and getting people to serve and bow down to them, but this is not what headship is about. Jesus came to serve; not to be served, even though he was in authority, but some men seem to despise their culpability to pioneer in righteousness, be humble about it, and to selflessly love and serve others.

    It is like they try to cancel it out, simply because the husband is in authority over the wife. Got has authorized husbands to to lead in the way that God himself has authorized them to lead. It is the authority to serve selflessly and righteously. He didn’t authorize selfishness, so- called superiority, or dominance, which is what many men crave in their flesh.

    They can’t seem to accept headship for the responsibility and servitude and responsibility to lead in righteousness that it is. They seem to despise the truth of the matter, and they need to examine their hearts and make sure they are right before God, because a man who truly is in the Lord will not despise what God requires him to do, while berating women about submission.

    It is up to the woman to with her free will submit to her husband’s leadership. It is not up to the man to inflict harm, dominance, or control over her to “get” her to submit. He is to LOVE her.

    Why can’t some men seem to accept God’s commands to husbands to love and even gave the example of laying his life down, the way Christ did for the church?
    It is a big responsibility that is not to be run from, but men can only be empowered to do it correctly when they submit to Jesus Christ as Lord.

  22. Petrina says:

    I don’t agree with radical feminism.
    I also don’t pretend misogyny and chauvinism did not exist first likely, is ongoing, and they are reaping what they have sown when radical feminism rears it’s head. Satan is the author or confusion and extremes.

    Misogyny is not the victim. Had men led righteously, selflessly, and sacrificially, things would not have backfired the way they have. Too many men have an aversion to culpability and blame women. It’s cowardly.

    Men have brutalized and oppressed women throughout history, while being self-preserving, self- serving, self-exhalting, attempting to highjack the gospel of Jesus Christ to suit their own carnal desires, and attempting to usurp authority over God.

    Some men want to govern themselves and exercise dominance and control, instead of obeying God to be leaders in righteousness, holiness; to love sacrificially. Why? Because if they lead correctly, it has no fleshy appeal. Dominance, control, and oppression has fleshy appeal.

    This means they are walking in the flesh, not in the power of the Holy Spirit. Where is their godly transformation, if they don’t want to obey God, but blame women and feminism?

  23. @ Petrina

    I also don’t pretend misogyny and chauvinism did not exist first likely, is ongoing, and they are reaping what they have sown when radical feminism rears it’s head. Satan is the author or confusion and extremes.

    Misogyny is not the victim. Had men led righteously, selflessly, and sacrificially, things would not have backfired the way they have. Too many men have an aversion to culpability and blame women. It’s cowardly.

    Men have brutalized and oppressed women throughout history, while being self-preserving, self- serving, self-exhalting, attempting to highjack the gospel of Jesus Christ to suit their own carnal desires, and attempting to usurp authority over God.

    Some men want to govern themselves and exercise dominance and control, instead of obeying God to be leaders in righteousness, holiness; to love sacrificially. Why? Because if they lead correctly, it has no fleshy appeal. Dominance, control, and oppression has fleshy appeal.

    This means they are walking in the flesh, not in the power of the Holy Spirit. Where is their godly transformation, if they don’t want to obey God, but blame women and feminism?

    This is false.

    God lead Israel and Judah perfectly and so did Jesus those who interacted with Him, but yet still people chose to rebel against God. Perfect righteous leadership does not guarantee respect or submission.

    Culpability in any culture that pushes rebellion against God is on both sexes, but women are doing the brunt of the rebellion rather than men because it is still expected of men to be protectors, providers, etc.

    The other big problem with your contention is you’re asserting men were doing these things en mass which is false. Basing an entire argument that most men are abusers is literally laughable when you look at any sorts of statistics on violence. It’s a very few men that are serial offenders which is why telling men not to commit violence or rape is stupid. The men who want to do violence or rape will do it anyway, and the men who already don’t want to do it won’t do it anyway.

  24. Petrina says:

    Deep Strength, Christianity, and masculinit- your statements:

    “A correct marriage analogy is a King and a Queen — the King wields authority over the queen and the rest of the kingdom. Instead chivalry is a knight trying to impress and serve the queen. Remember, chivalry is a knight’s code and not one that a king would follow. The knight is to put the Queen up on a pedestal and serve her whims….”

    Don’t you think it is anti-Christian that you refused to present the correct analogy, which is the one between Jesus Christ and the church, that God uses to describe the relationship between the husband and wife?

    Isn’t it anti-Christian not to relate husband and wife relationship to Christ and the church, the way Ephesians 5: 22-33 does?
    So many men appear to attempt to hijack the gospel and make it about themselves. They want it to suit their fancy, but it is about God, and God’s way of doing things.

    God has given men a big responsibility to reflect Jesus Christ in their marriages. If we read our Bibles, we understand the responsibility there. No control, but pioneering in righteousness, leading by example. How strange so many men professing Christianity seem to read the Bible with fleshy lenses on, and their perspective is warped and fleshy. They crave control, dominance, and power and interpret the Bible accordingly.

    They still need transformation apparently, because the born-again man of God should accept God’s word and be obedient to it; not use a woman’s submission as a cop-out to him leading by love, righteousness and servitude. A woman submits with her free will; it is not up to a man to try to force it on her.

    God does not force people to do anything. Some men don’t want to love selflessly, serve, and obey God. That’s all there is to it.
    Plenty men just don’t want to do what God requires of them, and they teach false doctrine and twist the Bible to fit their wishful thinking.

  25. Petrina says:

    Ok. Based on my observations, and on the way you speak, it sounds like we live on two different planets.

  26. @ Petrina

    Don’t you think it is anti-Christian that you refused to present the correct analogy, which is the one between Jesus Christ and the church, that God uses to describe the relationship between the husband and wife?

    Isn’t it anti-Christian not to relate husband and wife relationship to Christ and the church, the way Ephesians 5: 22-33 does?

    So many men appear to attempt to hijack the gospel and make it about themselves. They want it to suit their fancy, but it is about God, and God’s way of doing things.

    The context of the post is chivalry of which the common examples are:

    1. Knight serving a lady
    2. Lancelot and Guinevere (Knight & Queen)

    Is it any wonder why I actually used the example of King and Queen rather than Jesus and the Church?

    You’re reading what you want to read into my statements without thinking of them critically.

    If you read my site I’ve written plenty on headship and how it is supposed to model Christ and the Church. Husbands are to model Christ’s sacrificial love by exhorting their wife toward sanctification and honor their wife as a co-heir in Christ. Wives are to submit to their own husbands and respect them and obey them.

    The big issue today is not that husband and men in the Church are abusing authority but rather women and wives are in rebellion. Most Churches do not preach that the husband has headship authority in their marriage. Instead, they tell a husband if their wife is unhappy that his job is to make her feel happy which is anti-Christian. Christ love is not to make people happy but to reconcile them to God and to sanctify them.

    They still need transformation apparently, because the born-again man of God should accept God’s word and be obedient to it; not use a woman’s submission as a cop-out to him leading by love, righteousness and servitude. A woman submits with her free will; it is not up to a man to try to force it on her.

    This is where your feminism is showing.

    Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

    As we can see in the verses that you continually say that we should obey, Christ love is for the purpose of sanctification.

    Part of the responsibility of the Church, pastors, and yes even husband and older women is to gently and kindly tell wives to obey their husbands.

    Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

    Obedience to Christ means telling wives that they need to submit and obey their husbands so that God is not dishonored.

    After all, Jesus in John 14 says “If you love me, obey my commandments.” Why? Because a wife shows her love for Christ by obeying the Bible’s marital structure to respect and submit her husband. Likewise, a husband should emulate Christ’s love in expecting obedience from his wife like Christ does the Church and calling her out gently if she isn’t so that she can become more like Christ.

    This is not so husbands can abuse their authority but so that their wives can be sanctified.

    1 Peter 3:1 In the same way, you wives, be subject to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won over without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your pure and respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely the external—braiding the hair, wearing gold jewelry, or putting on apparel; 4 but it should be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way the holy women of former times, who hoped in God, also used to adorn themselves, being subject to their own husbands, 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; and you have proved to be her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.

    Yet even wives of husbands that don’t obey Christ or the Word are to be exhorted to respect and submit to their own husbands in order to use that behavior to win them to Christ.

    They still need transformation apparently, because the born-again man of God should accept God’s word and be obedient to it; not use a woman’s submission as a cop-out to him leading by love, righteousness and servitude. A woman submits with her free will; it is not up to a man to try to force it on her.

    Plenty men just don’t want to do what God requires of them, and they teach false doctrine and twist the Bible to fit their wishful thinking.

    Yes, you are twisting the Bible to your own wishful thinking.

    As we have examined from the Scriptures, calling wives to obedience is the Christian — not just husband — thing to do and it is not trying to force it on her. It should be done in loving kindness. Yes, she has her own free will, but most of the time she is counseled to disobey God and her husband in modern Churches rather than obey God and her husband: “he’s not acting Christian so you don’t have to submit to him” — which is clearly false as per 1 Corinthians 7. 1 Peter 3, Titus 2, etc.

    Even if by some measure men are calling their wives to obedience and abusing their authority they are not wrong to call their wive to obedience. They are wrong in the way they are doing it, and God will judge them for that. Even in those cases, wives should respect and submit to their husbands as per 1 Peter 3 so as to win him to Christ.

    I exhort the same thing of husbands. God does not give a “get out of loving your wife” if your wife is rebellious nor does a wife get a “get out of submitting or respect your husband” card if their husband is not loving his wife.

  27. Petrina says:

    I never denied that a woman is to submit to her husband, ever. Whether he’s doing right or wrong. What I said is that she is to do it on her own, because God commanded HER to do it. He did not command the husband to see to it that she does it.

    The way God set it up, she is submitting to a loving, sacrificial, selfless, husband, which would be very easy. Many men seem not to like that, and the adversary is busy, so some men are mean and make it difficult. As you pointed out to me, and I am well aware of, 1 Peter 3: 1- 6 addresses this.

    A reminder is also in Romans 12: 21 that reminds us not to return evil for evil, but to overcome evil with good. This goes for both the husband and the wife. I am glad you pretty much acknowledged that. 1 Peter 4: 1-2 is also a reminder.

    The command to the husband is to love her as Christ loved the church.
    Chivalry is NOTHING compared to the type of love Jesus Christ currently has and also in the past had and showed for the church. Have you ever investigated what crucifixion is like?

    Jesus died for me while I was yet dead in sin. Rotten, rancid, not respecting him, not knowing him, not submitting to Him. This is another example of why a husband should not only love his wife when she is submissive.

    Jesus is an initiator. I love him because He first loved me. Am I stepping on toes? It’s the word of God and should be embraced- ALL of it.

    So when we talk about marriage, because the Bible uses the analogy of Christ and the church for husband and wife, that is the analogy I use.

    Not a king who is using some kind of control over a queen. A king should treat his queen the way Christ treats the church as well, which is holy leadership, selfless love, harmless; and the queen should submit, the way the church submits to Jesus Christ. Thank God for biblical literacy.

  28. @ Petrina

    What I said is that she is to do it on her own, because God commanded HER to do it. He did not command the husband to see to it that she does it.

    It is a husbands obligation to God to help her obey — Christ’s love is for the purpose of sanctification. I agree that he isn’t to *force* her to obey, but he should be admonishing her if she is being rebellious, contentious, or disrespectful. Discipline too if it comes to that.

    We have the example of Jesus admonishing and telling the Churches that He may have to discipline them in Revelation 2 and 3.

    Do you agree that husbands have the God ordained duty to *help* (not force) her submit and obey and to use discipline where necessary? Similarly, that these things are part of the sanctification process? You can answer with a simple yes or no.

    I’m curious to see if you will acknowledge this since this example is Jesus Himself “loving the Church” by admonishing them and telling them that He will discipline them.

    Might be a hard pill for you to swallow.

    Not a king who is using some kind of control over a queen. A king should treat his queen the way Christ treats the church as well, which is holy leadership, selfless love, harmless; and the queen should submit, the way the church submits to Jesus Christ. Thank God for biblical literacy.

    Yes, Jesus’ love for the Church is quite “selfless and harmless” in that He admonishes them for their disobeidence and tells them that He will discipline them if they don’t shape up.

  29. Petrina says:

    Some men are sick and need to be transformed by the Holy Spirit.
    You are inserting your wishful thinking and carnal desires into how a husband is to love his wife. The Bible specifies the way that he is to love is the way Christ loved the church and gave himself up for the church.

    He mentions nothing about the husband “disciplining” her. Absolutely, it is up to the husband to address sins in her life, but he does not get to discipline her. God does that. A husband doesn’t get to withhold his love or provision from his wife to discipline her. Neither does he get to treat her like a child or spank her.

    Bible was clear about him washing her in the word. He is to live a righteous, holy example before her and share the word with her and remind her as necessary.

    Again I see nothing of disciplining. That’s pretty sick, and some men even use corporal punishment. Some men are a bit borderline deviant and criminal anyway, in that they like much younger girls or child-like characteristics in a relationship between them and their wife.

    Naturally, any woman is repulsed by a dynamic that implies in any way, shape, or form that she’s dealing with her father.
    Some men feel powerful by treating their wives as if they are children. Some men view the husband wife relationship as a parent child relationship and this makes him feel powerful. It is sick.

    Tell me one place in The Bible where it says for the husband to discipline his wife? Certain men are not content with what God has ordained, so to satisfy their perverse needs, they add things to God’s word, so they need to be careful about adding to the word of God.

    Got does not relate the husband- wife relationship to parent -child, even though we are also children of God. There are 2 different dynamics in relationships going on there.

  30. Petrina says:

    He helps his wife in the PROPER, God- authorized way. Discipline is not included. So lol, NO, I DON’T agree about that part! 😂

  31. Petrina says:

    Were you aware that many men have been dead beats for a very long time and not trained to have healthy relationships and be responsible men?

    Due to fathers refusing to train their boys correctly, many men have been simply sperm donors. Often, fathers cherry pick which aspects of masculinity they want to emphasize with their sons.

    This includes failure to properly counteract societies evil influence in glorifying promiscuity among men and training men to believe that men having sex with a bunch of women is what makes a man. Some fathers only seem to care that their son cannot get pregnant but doesn’t care what their son is doing to other people’s daughters.

    They often don’t model or show their sons how to have healthy relationships, value women and express and address negative emotions correctly.
    This results in emotionally unavailable men who have pent up rage who focus on performance in the corporate world to define themselves as men.

    Needless to say, this does not help them to have healthy relationships. Often, the target for their anger is their women; the girlfriend or the wife. They also tend to abuse their children and breed mean angry, abused boys who grow up and repeat the cycle.

    Unfortunately , women can be naive, gullible, and idolatrous and will marry men like this instead of being TRUE helpmeets by requiring of their men what God requires of them, and refusal to marry him if he won’t obey God.

    Because many boys are not bred and trained for relationships and love and loyalty but instead are trained to gain respect in the public, to be good at sports, and to earn money, some do not make good husbands, except bringing home a paycheck.

    Because of this, many women are the ones filing for divorce. Due to the fact that so many women were stranded by deadbeats, they implemented programs to help women. It is amazing to me that some men focus on women’s and society’s response to men being slackers, but don’t even acknowledge that men began to slack and rebel against God before women and society responded to that.

    Some of their responses have not been proper according to God’s word. However, the initiating factor has been men’s refusal to obey God.
    Many men like to associate headship with control, instead of responsibility.
    They also love to self-preserve, play victim, blame, and deflect. This will not solve anything.

    The buck starts and stops with them. Women are relationship -oriented and lovers by nature. Not only does this not come to men as naturally to be lovers and nurturers, but their fathers also often don’t raise them correctly, and society has helped trained them to be toxically masculine, instead of celebrating and living according to the masculinity that Jesus Christ showed.

  32. Petrina says:

    Sorry to have to break it to you, but many men have rebelled against God. Their leadership has not been the leadership of Jesus Christ, the leadership of God.

    Yes, people rebel against God. But with men and women, women have a different nature than men, and women generally are compliant, cooperative, and like to follow and get along by nature.

    After a long time of being oppressed and abused, she reared her head in rebellion herself. Men’s leadership often has not been the leadership of God, because fallen men are not wired to bow down and submit to someone greater than themselves.

    They want to be their own god and run their own show, while cherry- picking the parts of the Bible they want ( like wives submit) while governing themselves and desire to have women submit to that.

  33. @ Petrina

    Yawn.

    You are inserting your wishful thinking and carnal desires into how a husband is to love his wife. The Bible specifies the way that he is to love is the way Christ loved the church and gave himself up for the church.

    He mentions nothing about the husband “disciplining” her. Absolutely, it is up to the husband to address sins in her life, but he does not get to discipline her. God does that. A husband doesn’t get to withhold his love or provision from his wife to discipline her. Neither does he get to treat her like a child or spank her.

    He helps his wife in the PROPER, God- authorized way. Discipline is not included. So lol, NO, I DON’T agree about that part! 😂

    Revelation 2:2 ‘I know your deeds and your labor and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil people, and you have put those who call themselves apostles to the test, and they are not, and you found them to be false; 3 and you have perseverance and have endured on account of My name, and have not become weary. 4 But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5 Therefore, remember from where you have fallen, and repent, and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and I will remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent. 6 But you have this, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 The one who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who overcomes, I will grant to eat from the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God.’

    Revelation 3:15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have no need of anything,” and you do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked, 18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to apply to your eyes so that you may see. 19 Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21 The one who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat with My Father on His throne. 22 The one who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

    In particular,

    Revelation 3:19 Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

    This examples are pretty clear cut. So now you agree that Christ admonishes and rebukes the Churches and is willing to discipline them?

    And that husbands should emulate this example?

    Or are you a weasel who tries to wiggle out of what the Bible says about how Christ loves the Church by rebuking AND disciplining them?

  34. Petrina says:

    Yawn is right. God is the authorizer of headship. He has authorized husbands HOW to apply it and he broke it down in detail. Ephesians 5: 23-33; Colossians 3: 19.
    I am not a weasel. I’m sticking to the word of God and keeping it IN context.

    This why people need the Holy Spirit to understand. If I was ignorant and not discerning, I could take what you just showed from Revelation and erroneously apply it to husbands and wives.

    The Holy Spirit did not write through Apostle Paul about headship in Ephesians or elsewhere IN RELATION TO HUSBAND AND WIFE, IN THE SAME WAY JOHN WROTE IN REVELATION ABOUT THE CHURCH BEING CHASTENED. You are out of context. It is the husbands duty to lead by righteous, living example, and respectfully address any sins of his wife, while standing firm in truth. He himself ought to be walking right first.

    That is all there is to it. I know you are probably disappointed, and like many men cannot accept what real headship means.

    In the passage that deals with husbands and wives, God could have mentioned disciplining wives in ANY of them, but notice he doesn’t do it! Husbands are not authorized by God to do it, but plenty husbands authorize themselves to do what they want to do. They lust for dominance, tyranny.

    God knows how men are and He didn’t give them authorization for such a thing. That’s just not The kind of relationship a husband and wife have.
    She’s not a child, the husband is the greater sacrificer, and often the one in the wrong, stubborn like a wild bull, and the wife is simply responding to his sin, when she sins, in many cases. However, they are both responsible for their own sin.

    Good grief. This is why women need discernment and have to live in truth and have standards accordingly. She must know God’s word and His requirements for both men and women BEFORE marriage, so she can REJECT men who live according to their own fantasy and perverted gospel.
    Satan himself quoted scripture out of context.

  35. Petrina says:

    When men are truly Holy-Ghost filled, born again saints, transformed by the power of God, they will be in RIGHT fellowship with God and will no longer feel inadequate.

    When they no longer feel low and inadequate, they can stop reading the Bible through strange, warped lenses, and stop looking to oppressing, demeaning, and mistreating women to get a feeling of elevation for themselves. They will be elevated in Christ Jesus.

  36. @ Petrina

    I am not a weasel. I’m sticking to the word of God and keeping it IN context.

    This why people need the Holy Spirit to understand. If I was ignorant and not discerning, I could take what you just showed from Revelation and erroneously apply it to husbands and wives.

    The Holy Spirit did not write through Apostle Paul about headship in Ephesians or elsewhere IN RELATION TO HUSBAND AND WIFE, IN THE SAME WAY JOHN WROTE IN REVELATION ABOUT THE CHURCH BEING CHASTENED. You are out of context. It is the husbands duty to lead by righteous, living example, and respectfully address any sins of his wife, while standing firm in truth. He himself ought to be walking right first.

    Revelation 1:1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

    Revelation 2 and 3 are indeed talking about Christ admonishing, rebuking and disciplining the Church in love for the purpose of the Church’s sanctification. Coincidentally, Paul mentions the Christ and Church model in Ephesians 5 for the purposes of sanctification that husbands are to emulate. A direct example of the Christ-Church marriage, and you’re calling it out of context.

    It’s honestly pretty sad how you want to reference Scripture and then ignore the ones you don’t like especially that are in direct application of the Christ-Church analogy. Pretty much modern buffet “Christianity.”

    This is the big problem with complementarianism. It warps headship into something that is unrecognizable in the Scriptures by implicitly marrying the Bible to feminist philosophy. If you want to do that, be my guest. I just hope that you don’t have to explain this before God on judgement day why you said that husbands shouldn’t emulate Christ.

    I’ll be making a post about this soon if you want to try to continue to defend your feminism.

  37. Pingback: Modern Complementarianism weasels | Christianity and masculinity

  38. Petrina says:

    Where is the command for husbands to discipline their wife? Ever? In the Bible? Books, chapters, and verses please?

    Adam did not need to, or have the right to discipline his wife. He also did not have the desire I believe. He should have corrected her verbally, and reminded her what God had commanded them.

    That is what he should have done. All he had to do was get her back on the right path. It is not that a man should never listen to his wife. He should not listen to her when she’s leading him astray from God.

    I don’t believe Adam was a sadist who was itching to give some kind of punishment or discipline to his wife. He simply should have corrected her verbally. But he didn’t. He followed her into sin, even though he was not deceived, so he sinned with his eyes wide open.

    I am glad you mentioned Adam. Again, it is proof that God disciplines. Notice, He didn’t command Adam to discipline Eve. God did that Himself. He pronounced the judgement.

    I wish more men would do what they are supposed to do in training boys and young men in the ways of the Lord, so they don’t come up with all kinds of strange doctrines and interpretations of the Bible. The sad thing is, a lot of men don’t even preach on these topics enough and teach men the full unadulterated truth about Christ- centered headhship. Certain men who feel inadequate end up with a skewed fleshy interpretation of headship.

    In addition, some men are misogynists in the pulpits, and they teach stuff that is mysoginist, and try to make the Bible fit it. These men who feel inadequate and are fleshy enjoy these types of teachings and adhere to them.

  39. Petrina says:

    “I just hope that you don’t have to explain this before God on judgement day why you said that husbands shouldn’t emulate Christ.

    I’ll be making a post about this soon if you want to try to continue to defend your feminism.”

    In response to ^^^…What in the world?

    First of all, you shouldn’t be lying on me. I never said men should not emulate Jesus Christ. Men ought to emulate Jesus Christ according to how God is authorized them to. You want them to emulate things that God does that men are not authorized to do.

    How can you say I said men should not emulate Jesus Christ? I have repeatedly acknowledged the analogy that the Bible gives of the husband and wife as they relate to Christ and the church.

    They should emulate Jesus Christ the correct way. It’s very simple: men need to obey the commands that God gave them, without adding to them or taking from them. Women need to obey the commands that God gave them, without adding to them or taking from them.
    It is many men who seemed dissatisfied with what God has ordained when it comes to roles so they add a bunch of stuff to it based on their wishful thinking, insecurity and carnality.

  40. Oscar says:

    Don’t you think it is anti-Christian that you refused to present the correct analogy, which is the one between Jesus Christ and the church, that God uses to describe the relationship between the husband and wife?

    Isn’t it anti-Christian not to relate husband and wife relationship to Christ and the church, the way Ephesians 5: 22-33 does?

    Is Jesus a king?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s