Southern Baptists Are NOT Calvinists

I read something today that I found to be rather amusing. One lady wrote, "Southern Baptists are Calvinists". To which another lady responded, "Southern Baptists can be both Calvinists and Arminian."

I just want to set the record straight by saying that the Southern Baptist Convention's 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is undeniably NOT Calvinist. It stands in direct disagreement with  Calvinism on at least 3, if not 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism.

A reminder of the 5 points:
T - Total Inability (or Total Depravity)
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible (Efficacious) Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints

 Here is part of what the Southern Baptist Convention says about "Salvation":

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

We can contrast that with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is arguably Calvinist, and what it says about Effectual Calling:

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]
II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

The Southern Baptist Convention does not entirely line up with Arminianism, either. Especially with the last point, "Falling from grace", as the Southern Baptist position could be described more as "once saved, always saved."  Here is a review of the 5 points of Arminianism:



1. Free Will or Human Ability
2. Conditional Election
3. Universal Redemption or General Atonement
4. The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted
5. Falling From Grace

While there are some people who call themselves "baptist" AND "reformed" or "Calvinists", this is definitely opposed to the official position of the Southern Baptist Convention.  This includes such notables as John Piper. I believe a reformed baptist is a Calvinist who ascribes to baptism after profession of faith rather than infant baptism. Infant baptism is the traditional Calvinist teaching. Correct me if I'm wrong, please?
 

Red Herring

As I began this post, I realized that I do not know the origin of the term "red herring". I shall detour to wikipedia, then return to finish this.

Ok. I'm better informed now and may continue without distraction. The subject of my writing today is PORN. By that I mean primarily images of nude women or images of people engaging in sex. There are pornographic magazines and, of course, the now ever ubiquitous internet porn.

It is my assertion (although I didn't come up with this on my own, my genius husband pointed it out to me)that someone, perhaps Satan, is using the issue of men (primarily, although not exclusively)viewing pornography to throw us off the trail of identifying other harmful and sinful habits and practices within the church.

For example, instead of focusing on the lusting going on within the congregation, and instead of being concerned about women clothed immodestly, we will just harp on pornography every week so we can sit smugly in our pews and say, "Well, at least I'm not doing that!"

In the American church today, a person would be tempted to think, based on the number of websites dedicated to eradicating it, that "viewing pornography" was the worst sin mentioned in the Bible, instead of one of many. Oh wait, it isn't mentioned at all.

What do we mean, anyway, when we say that a man is using porn or has a problem with porn? What is he actually DOING? Basically he is looking at naked women to whom he is not married. Is that sin? Is it always a sin to look at a nude woman who is not one's wife? What about doctors and other medical personnel? Don't they do the same act?

For a moment, let us turn our attention to Scripture. Matthew 5:28 says,

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

That is the verse most frequently given for why men should not view pornographic images. What I noticed about the verse is that it does not say anything about a nude woman. As a matter of fact, it is likely that Jesus was referring to a woman who was fully clothed. But it really doesn't matter, because the sin is not in the looking, it is in the lusting. It is a sin that happens within the heart of the man doing the looking. It is not what he sees or whom he sees that makes him a sinner, it is what he thinks about what he is seeing.

So, we don't condemn the doctor for looking at the nude woman because we assume he isn't lusting. Of course, we don't know his heart. And we don't condemn the man who uses the internet for reading the news, because we assume that he isn't looking at the female newscasters in order to lust after them. Again, we don't know his heart. But when a man is viewing pornographic images, we assume that he is looking at them in order to lust after them because there is really no other reason to be viewing them. Yes, yes, I know, some men read Playboy magazine for the articles.

To return to my original point, why do we focus so much on the object of a man's lust, rather than on the sin itself? Why is it so hideous for a man to lust after a nude woman and not such a big deal for him to lust after the youth pastor's wife? Of course they are both equally sinful. Although, in reality, lusting after women that are in one's acquaintance is much more likely to result in adultery, the destruction of marriages and the destruction of churches. Lusting after a woman whom one does not know and with whom one has no contact is not likely to evolve past lusting.

Again, why then the focus on porn? Simply because it reveals the sin. The man was a lustful sort before he dialed up those images. But we didn't know it because he can lust secretly. Thus, the devil would have us pour out our wrath on the man caught in his lust so that he (the devil) can continue his evil work in the lives of the women and men who don't have their sinful hearts on display.

All the psycho-babble about viewing pornography leading to more and more debauchery and to serious crimes like murder is just another means Satan uses to steer us away from much that is evil in ourselves. We do what God does not, which is to make one sin, like lusting, worse than all others. Or to say that lusting after nudes is more wicked than lusting after the clothed, which the Bible also does not say.

I don't condone viewing pornographic images. I'll come right out and say that I think men shouldn't do it. But I won't say things about it that the Bible doesn't say and then try to attach some superior holiness to my condemnation.

Daughters of Disappointment

There are some vocal elements of the now adult home educated daughters that are a huge disappointment.  Knowing full well that their children won't be perfect, home educating parents nevertheless are hopeful that their children will face challenges and address problems in a manner that rises above the more common shrill rhetoric of mainstream feminism and for Christians, in a manner that follows the teachings of the Holy Bible. Alas, in that respect, many have failed.

In places like quiveringdaughters and recoveringgrace we see young women complaining that their parents and others involved in the home school movement misused the Scriptures which resulted in these women suffering unhappiness or worse. Some are claiming "abuse" with varying definitions, when they bother using definitions. The irony is, that at the same time they are decrying the misuse of the Scriptures, these women are ignoring them altogether in response to the alleged wrongs. They also blame their own moral failings, their own sin, on others. While calling for others to repent, they ignore or excuse their own sin.

Especially amusing, or perhaps sad, are the ones boldly proclaiming that everything taught by Bill Gothard is nonsense at the same time that they demonstrate their violations of the "principles" resulting in their own misery and, dare I say it, "youth conflict". Can you say "root of bitterness?" How about "balancing guilt with blame?" Do any "take up the offense of another?" Is a lack of gratitude contributing to mental instability?

If they wish to take the moral and Scriptural high ground, it would behoove them to bring their accusations from Scripture. It would be appropriate for them to follow the procedures taught in Scripture for confronting offenders. Otherwise, all of their pointing fingers should be pointing right back at themselves.

In spite of their bitterness, lack of witnesses, inability to describe how they were sinned against, for the sake of argument let us agree that some egregious wrongs have been committed against them. What then? How does that make them so very different from every other young woman who has ever been raised on this planet full of sinners? What makes them believe that every woman who is not making a global case of her dysfunctional childhood has had some sort of perfect or charmed upbringing? What really sets these women apart is their response -- their belief that they are somehow special, or different, or entitled. This is where their home schooling parents have failed them. Somehow this is a generation with an unreasonable number of entitled-minded children. A generation who had their every triumph, from peeing in the potty chair to graduating kindergarten recorded and perhaps even uploaded to the internet. They were taught that everything about them was special and different. And they believed that.

"God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" was transformed in the minds of these youths to "You alone matter in the world, and everyone else should order their life in such a way that you are recognized and pampered to the fullest." If their parents held opinions or made decisions with which these women disagreed, the parents are now labeled as "abusers" and "legalists." The parents couldn't possibly have been trying to protect them, but were simply trying to make them miserable and prevent them from having fun. It is all so obvious to them now, and thank goodness there are other women out there who recognize and will acknowledge their mutual pain.

If any of these women truly desire to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, if they truly want to do what is right, I hope they will consult the Scriptures. I hope they will seek out God's plan for people with hurts. I hope they will follow his commands for confronting a brother who sins. I hope they will uphold the law of God above the law of their own feelings. Because there is so much more at stake than their hurt feelings. There are homes and families that could well be damaged or destroyed by their selfishness. Their attempts to get others on their side rather than to do what is right will cause division in families and churches.

Proverbs 14:1 Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.

If it is foolish to pluck down one's own house, it is downright evil to pluck down the homes of others. This would include the ministry of others. Those who do no trust God, but believe they are the arbiters of what shall stand are dangerous. The desire to destroy rather than to reconcile is an evil desire. To gloat and cheer over the fall of a brother is evil. It is not righteous. To break up relationships between parents and their children for the sake of gaining victory is evil. Do not do it. I will not end well for you. God is not on your side.

Exodus 20:12 Honor thy father and they mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Ephesians 6:1-3 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and thy mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

It is one of the big 10. Honor your parents. Paul extends that with "obey" your parents. It could be understood from these verses that when a person doesn't honor his father and mother that it might NOT go well with him and he might not live long on the earth, couldn't it? To whom was this command given? To those with perfect parents only? No, to everyone with parents. That includes parents that aren't so great. This command used to be taken pretty seriously. Even when a man had pretty rotten parents, and that man was given some sort of forum like a book or a newspaper, it is rare to see a man dishonoring his parents in words. At least until pretty recently in history, when it has become vogue to do so, almost required.  You would think that some Christians believe they have some sort of DUTY to dishonor their parents instead of honoring them. Perhaps God won't know their parents were bad parents unless these women expose them? God says not to do that. God says to honor them. Let God judge. He sees. Ladies, for your own good, don't do it. Obey God rather than Oprah.

Matthew 18:15-17   Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Dear lady, if you believe you have had a trespass committed against you while you lived at home with your parents, and your parents are believers, then it falls upon you to go to them and see if they will hear you. If you have not done this, then YOU are the one in sin. Note also, that this is for sin. Your parents are entitled to believe differently from you about how to raise a daughter.  Just because you didn't like the household rules does not make them sinful.  Search the Scriptures and see if they have violated the law of God concerning you.

Here is the advise that your friends are not going to give you. Move on. If you have left the home of your parents, if you are married, if you  are a mother, take this opportunity to become the great mother that you think your mother was not. Using the Scriptures as your guide, form your own family standards, direct the upbringing of your own children in the best way you can. Stop blaming your unhappiness or your lack of achievement or, God forbid, your sin on your parents and others. That is a cop out and it doesn't bring healing, no matter what you may hear from psychology or your friends.

Take responsibility for all of your own behaviors. Find your own happiness.  Be a grown up and stop acting like a toddler.

On Being a Subject

Subject, verb  To bring under the power or dominion of.
2. To put under or within the power of
3. To enslave; to make obnoxious
4. To expose; to make liable
5. To submit; to make accountable
6. To make subservient

Subjection, noun The act of subduing; the act of vanquishing and bringing under the dominion of another
2. The state of being under the power, control and government of another.

The above is from The American Dictionary of the English Language  by Noah Webster, 1828. Please keep those definitions in mind when meditating on the following:

 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

1 Peter 3:1-6

No exposition of this passage would be complete without examining and understanding the very first word, "likewise." Like what? Well, we are supposed to follow the instructions that Peter is about to give in the exact same way, or "likewise,"  as what had just been described, which was Jesus' commitment to giving His life, to suffering on the cross for our sins. We are to be in subjection to our own husbands with same unwavering commitment with which Jesus based his actions to save us.  For a more thorough understanding of Jesus' submission to the Father's will in that matter, read the Gospels. 

Now, to the meat of the passage, the command: "be in subjection to your own husbands." This word "subjection" is not a word of nuance, is it? None of this egalitarian nonsense about partnering with your husband in leadership. The English word "subjection" probably meant pretty much the same in 1828 when Noah Webster was putting the definition down for the record as it meant in 1611 when the translators used it for the Greek word "hupotasso."  I am not qualified to discuss whether the translators chose an appropriate English word, so if your argument is that they didn't, then you are more of a Greek scholar than those translators and I can't really dispute it with you. 

Looking at the passage again, we can see that Peter clearly meant that wives should be in subjection to their own husbands. Wives are to be under the authority, power, government, control and dominion of their husbands. This brings me to the related word "subject". When one person is the subject of another, it makes us think of a king, prince or lord, does it not? A king is surrounded by his subjects, that is, those people who are subject to his rule. So what Peter is describing is a king/subject relationship or lord/subject relationship. And I can say this with authority because Peter himself sums up the passage by telling us that Sara obeyed Abraham calling him lord. There it is. Even as Abraham was a lord to Sara, our husbands are lords to us. Or, it might be said they are lords over us. (I can hear the feminists and egalitarians cringing now.)

What is interesting about Peter using Sara for an example is two-fold. First, he uses Sara as an example because his readers would have been familiar with the life of Sara. Peter is referring to something, some event, about which all of his readers would have known. He has not been given special knowledge by God about Sara obeying Abraham, he is talking about something well known to those who had read the Old Testament, which is the only Scriptures Peter's readers had. It would seem that Peter, then, is talking about Sara's obedience to Abraham when he told her to say that she was Abraham's sister, to conceal that she was his wife, and, if necessary to commit adultery with king Abimelech on one occasion (Gen.20:5) and with Pharaoh on another (Gen. 12:13). I don't know of any other circumstance where we see Sara obeying, and interestingly enough, it is a very serious matter, not a small matter. 

When women say that they would obey their husbands unless he was asking them to do something they believed was sinful, they are not following the example of Sara. Sara obeyed and was not afraid with any amazement.

Second, this was not a contemporary example for Peter's readers. Sara lived close to 2000 years before Peter. Her culture could have been as different from Peter's as Peter's would be from ours. The argument that Peter was describing a cultural practice makes no sense in the light of the wifely example he chose.  He didn't argue that it was current custom or that his contemporaries in the Church had the practice of wives being in subjection to husbands. He claims that holy women, like Sara, have always done so.  It is the evidence of a woman who trusts in God, according to Peter. Which implies that women who will not be in subjection to their own husbands do not  trust God. 

We don't really have a choice as believing wives. We can trust God and be holy like Sara, obeying our own husbands and calling them, "lord," or we can be distrusting of God, disobeying our husbands and refusing to be subject to them. But if we choose the latter, then our actions show that we really aren't believers at all. 

As James said, "Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."  James 2:18

To Obey or Not to Obey, That IS the Question

Do non-Christians stalk the blogs of Christians in order to trash them in the comments? If so, why do they do this? Do they believe the credibility of the blogger is lessened by their histrionics? Case enpointe:

Stop Calling Your Wife "The Boss" - by Matt Walsh

I have another question. Do any of these commenters advocating for egalitarian marriage consider themselves to be Christians? Do Christians even agree that the Bible is our only authority for faith and practice?

What would so-called egalitarian Christians do with words appearing in the Bible such as "obey" and "subjection" in relation to husbands and wives?

I keep coming back to the basic principle that either what is written in the Bible is inspired by God and means something to us, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then throw it out. If it does, then obey. Full stop. Am I right? How can it be something in between? How could mere mortals assume they know which things God intended for us to obey and which things He intended for us to ignore? Does God sit on his heavenly throne wringing his hands saying, "Oh no! They are obeying what I said AGAIN! Don't they know I was just kidding?"

Ridiculous. I know.

Judge Not Thy God

Have you ever wondered if you have the mind of Christ? Do you believe that God's thoughts are actually higher than yours? Do we agree with God? In all things? Has God ever said something at which you took offense? Does the Bible actually teach the things that you have been taught by your parents, your Sunday school teachers and your pastor? If you were to be shown that God does not endorse your morality, would you change what you believe to align yourself with what God has said?

During worship this past Lord's Day, the pastor reminded us that we are to be renewing our minds. He stated further that what we read in the Bible should be changing us. I just had to shake my head as he just had a woman get up front and "lead" us in lighting the advent candle. She spoke for a full five minutes. So much for women "keeping silence" in the church. I took that opportunity to let my mind wander a bit and to question whether I am currently harboring any wrong thinking that directly contradicts what God has revealed about Himself and his requirements for me. I couldn't think of anything but I'm sure there is something.

In the recent past, within the last 5 or 10 years, I have had to completely revamp my understanding of marriage and the regulation, by God, of sexual relations between humans. Why, I even had to change my definition of adultery to make it line up with the Bible! Yes, I just said that my definition of adultery was not the same as what is described as adultery in the Bible. How could that be? Don't be so surprised, because yours is probably wrong, too. Words mean things. Ideas have consequences. Take care to get it right.

How does the Bible define adultery? It doesn't have a verse that says "Adultery is...." But, we can find several verses which show us what adultery is and, equally important, what it ISN'T.  When a woman who is married or betrothed has intercourse with a man other than her husband (or betrothed) both the woman and her paramour are committing adultery. Adultery always, always, always involves a married woman. If sexual intercourse occurs between a man an unmarried woman, it is never adultery. I don't mean that it isn't some other sin, but it is most definitely not adultery. Likewise, a man having sexual intercourse with a woman to whom he is married (assuming the woman is not already the wife of another) is never adultery, regardless of whether he has one wife or 20. A man may have more than one wife, and this is not adultery. A woman, however, may only have one husband at a time and if she has sexual intercourse with another man, or marries another man while she is married, she commits adultery.

I don't know about you, but when I first discovered this, I was quite shocked. A married man, who has sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman is not committing adultery. You can't swap the words around in the Bible and make it the same for husbands and wives. Men and woman are not the same. When a marriage takes place, the man and woman are not doing the same thing and assuming equal positions in the relationship. A man takes a wife. A woman is taken "to wife" by a man. She is pledged exclusively to him. He is not bound by exclusivity.

Rather than take my word for it, and I hope you won't, please check the Scripture and study it for yourself.  Here are a few examples where the concept is covered:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:10

There is no corresponding verse about the woman who commits adultery with a neighbor's husband. The marital status of the man in an adulterous relationship is never mentioned in the Scripture. If the woman is married and her sexual partner is not her husband, both of them are guilty of adultery, regardless of the man's marital status. In the same way, regardless of the marital status of the man, if he has sex with an unmarried woman, it is not adultery for either party.

In Numbers chapter 5, verses 12 - 31 we are given a  program to be followed when a husband has a "spirit of jealousy" and believes his wife is committing adultery. He brings her to the priest and makes an accusation against her, she drinks a special drink after swearing her innocence. If she is innocent, she will conceive, if she is guilty, her thigh rots and she becomes cursed in their neighborhood. She isn't put to death because this would fail the required "two or three witness test" for putting people to death. There is no corresponding law for a wife who thinks her husband is sleeping around. Is this an accident or oversight on the part of God? I can say with much confidence, "No."

What of a man who keeps marrying women after he already has a wife? Is this adultery? Is the modern crime of bigamy prohibited by God? Clearly not. There is no command not to do it and there is no mention that God is even displeased with it. Unlike adultery, which God has claimed is evil. Consider King David. He had plenty of wives. I was able to find the following list in less than 5 minutes of searching:  Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah. He took these wives, sometimes two at a time, such as Abigail and Ahinoam, and they barely get mentioned. But when he committed adultery with Bathsheba, God noticed. This was not just another wife. This was the wife of another man, one Uriah the Hittite. Even after Uriah was killed in battle, God continued to refer to Bathsheba as "the wife of Uriah." There is a clear difference between adultery and a man taking more than one wife.

The New Testament is a grand commentary on the Old Testament. No new law. No destruction of the law, just a better explanation. Paul sums up the law concerning adultery in Romans 7:3 "So then, if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." This was not so for a man, in that while is wife lives, he MAY marry another as long as he doesn't  put away his first wife to do so. (See Matthew 5:31-32) That would cause his first wife to commit adultery and he, himself, commits adultery by putting away his wife according to Matthew 19:9.

Now, back to the original point of this post. If I accuse God of being wrong or unjust or unfair for not calling it adultery if my husband should have sex with some other woman, then I am judging God. If I think in my heart that God is evil for putting different requirements on men and woman, then I need to be rebuked and I need to renew my mind and conform my thinking to God's. Not the other way around. After all, where was I when God caused the doe to give birth in the forest? (paraphrasing what God answered Job)

Why, oh why does any of this matter? It matters because it is the first step in admitting that the standards for righteousness don't come from us, or from our wicked hearts or our puny brains. They come from an almighty God whose thoughts are actually higher than ours. After coming to grips with that understanding, we will be less shocked and more willing to yield to God when we see that his definitions for other things that we imagine are one way, are actually not that way at all. We won't attempt to set ourselves up as more holy than God when we see, for example, that there is no such thing as "rape" as we currently define it, in the Bible. Our indignation and desire to put "rapists" to death does not come from God. We aren't exercising a "godly anger" when we wish castration upon so-called "child molesters." Those ideas come from somewhere, but they don't come from God or what He has revealed to us about Himself. And really, all we know about God is what He has revealed. We have no other way to know Him. No one has special knowledge, apart from the Bible, about God's opinion of forced sexual intercourse and how it should be handled. Can we trust God to make the proper judgment? Or is He in his heaven wringing his hands because we are obeying Him and what he commands rather than going our own way? Can you imagine God saying, "I know I told you that if a man forces himself on a virgin that he must marry her, but what I really meant was that he should be put to death!"?

"...to love their husbands..."

Titus 2:3-4

The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children. To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

When I read this passage, I paraphrase it something like this, "You, woman, if you do not do these things, will be blaspheming the word of God." I can't say with authority what it means to blaspheme the word of God, but I'm pretty sure it is bad and that I don't want to be associated with that. As a young woman, it was my duty to learn these things from the aged women, and as an aged woman it is my duty, yes, my duty, to not only control my behavior in these areas but to teach the young women to do the same.

Before I even begin to analyze what behaviors are required and proscribed I must acknowledge this is talking to me and about me and that this is a relevant and serious matter. Otherwise, I would be asserting that this passage has no modern relevance and serves only as a window on women of the past. And I would be asserting that with no authority and it seems sort of nonsensical to say that God no longer wants women to love their husbands and children, which I would be saying if I say that women do not need to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands. To deny that some parts are applicable is to deny that any of it is applicable.

This text was brought to mind today by reading this post at Rational Male. Tomasi is a blogger within the so-called "manosphere", sometimes referred to as "Game" bloggers. For those unfamiliar with that world, some of the terminology in the blog post and the comments may be unfamiliar and the post may sound a bit harsh on women when read outside of the context of other blogs posts and outside a basic understanding of Game Theory. But even  a woman unfamiliar with androsphere blogging can grasp the basic notion that wives tend to be unkind towards their husbands when husbands are ill or injured. The post and comments engage in some analysis of why wives are like this, which is interesting to me, although not entirely relevant to the thoughts I'm sharing here. Women act that way because their feelings are dictating their behavior, regardless of the source of those feelings. My concern is this: Does that sort of behavior (lack of empathy and even unkindness towards an injured husband) fall under the scope of the above Scripture and therefore result in a wife blaspheming the word of God?

Being the solipsist that I am, I consulted my own feelings on the matter and attempted to understand why I might behave in that manner and whether it results in a failure to love my husband. As I read Tomasi I found myself wanting to ask, "Well, well, what about when a wife is sick? How is she treated?" I can say that in a very real sense, people, little people, could die if their mother doesn't get out of bed and do her job every day. Her job being to watch the little people. It doesn't matter if she is sick. It doesn't matter if she has a broken leg. Babies need to be fed, toddlers need to be supervised. When mommy is ill, does her husband get a day off from work? No, he has to do his duty, which is to go to work. Or maybe daddy is in the military and is gone for an extended period of time. For this reason, when a husband is ill or injured, the wife is probably thinking that she is doing him no favor to permit him to shirk. Unlike a wife, and more like a mother, she probably thinks that she can shame him into overcoming the pain. "Man up!" After all, that is what the wife must do, and it hasn't killed her yet.

In spite of being able to offer what seems (to me) a very rational explanation for why I might not be empathetic or even sympathetic with my husband when he is ill, I can't help but notice that it just isn't loving. It doesn't show my affection for him. It doesn't show my concern for his well-being. That means that I am not loving him nor teaching young women how to love their husbands when I behave in that manner. I am blaspheming the word of God. "Ouch" doesn't begin to express how hurt I am to discover this. It could be that this requires repentance in sackcloth and ashes. Lord, forgive me!

I can't recommend enough this blog post by Sunshine Mary on What to do when your husband is injured or ill. Read it and learn. If your husband is seriously wounded, you may even need to get an older woman or two to encourage you and to check your faithfulness in this matter. This can be a marriage killer if you aren't diligent to nurture your marriage through such a difficult circumstance.

There are aspects of Game that explain why women lose interest in their husbands when husbands show weakness. It wouldn't hurt Christian women to learn these things in order to be better equipped to identify them when they crop up. Regardless, you have the Scriptures and you must continually ask yourself, "Am I loving my husband?" If you aren't sure, maybe you should ask him. But don't do it unless you are prepared for what he might say.