3 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.
— 1 Pet 3:1-4 NKJV
Reading Kathy Keller’s teaching on Headship and Submission at Family Life, it is striking how poor a job she does at hiding her rage at what the Bible instructs husbands and wives. She rationalizes that if she is tempted to rebel against submission, this must mean that “the culture” has misunderstood submission:
Long ago, when I was struggling with this teaching, and I did struggle with it, I had to ask myself this question, “If it’s not an assault on the dignity, and value, and equality of Jesus to take the subordinate role to His Father in order to accomplish our salvation, how on earth can I be hurt or devalued when asked to play the Jesus role of subordination in my marriage?” The answer is, “I can’t be. It’s not going to hurt me if it’s defined by Jesus rather than by a cultural understanding.”
This is the foundation for all of the rest of her rationalizations, and as rationalizations go it is especially weak. By “the culture”, she must mean both our current culture (the one which caused her to rebel), as well as all cultures from the time of Christ until now. Only now, two thousand years later with the benefit of Kathy’s emotional state, can the clear instructions of the Apostles Peter and Paul finally be understood.
Kathy explains that “helpmeet” is comparable to the role of God (emphasis mine):
Genesis 2 then—there’s this thing like, “Adam first, then Eve; and she’s the helper?” Like, “What happened to the equality?” The word “helper” in the Bible, azer,—I’m not sure, you Hebrew scholars, if I’m pronouncing that right—it is more frequently used of God. You may have heard this; but in the Bible, the word azer—the helpmate word that is used of Eve in Genesis—is most often used of God—God, our help.
A helper can only help out of strength. The helper helps because he or she has qualities that are needed by the person who doesn’t have those qualities. It is a position of strength. It’s not like “assistant”—you know, “God’s my assistant.” “My wife is my assistant.” It’s a helper who helps out of complementary strengths that the husband doesn’t have. Okay, that’s a tangent; but we needed to do it.
Later she thinks out loud that while husbands and wives are totally equal, wives might secretly be more exalted by God. She does this while simultaneously denying that the thought came from her:
You could actually make the case that, in asking women to be submissive, that they are actually being given a greater calling than the men and will be exalted more highly for it.
I’m just saying, “You could make the case”; I’m not making the case.
The whole piece is riddled with these kinds of painful rationalizations, and reading it gave me great sympathy for the torment Kathy is clearly experiencing due to her rebellious state. This torment has gone on for many decades, and instead of trying to help her escape from this state of constant torment, her husband Tim Keller (a famous pastor) has encouraged it by placing her in a teaching position over both men and women. This not only increases the torment, it makes it visible to the entire world.
It isn’t just her husband who has failed Kathy in this way. Dennis Rainey of FamilyLife is the man giving her the radio platform to teach headship and submission, and Owen Strachan offers her and her husband great praise in his article: Giving Thanks to God for Complementarians Tim & Kathy Keller. Not surprisingly all of this ties back to the CBMW, as Strachan is the Executive Director of CBMW and Rainey is on the CBMW Board of Reference.
Kathy’s highly agitated rebellious state of mind is surprisingly well known within the complementarian world, where it is seen not as a problem but is instead celebrated. It is seen as something for all complementarian wives to emulate. The most famous example of this is what Kathy proudly calls her “godly tantrum”, where she smashed their wedding china in order to get her own way. Tim and Kathy are both so proud of this moment that they feature it in their book The Meaning of Marriage.
In the section titled The Godly Tantrum, Tim explains that Kathy wanted Tim to work fewer hours, but he was focused on the goals of his ministry. Tim offers this story as encouragement to readers “not to shrink from really telling the truth to one another.”
One day I came home from work. It was a nice day outside and I noticed that the door to our apartment’s balcony was open. Just as I was taking off my jacket I heard a smashing noise coming from the balcony. In another couple of seconds I heard another one. I walked out on to the balcony and to my surprise saw Kathy sitting on the floor. She had a hammer, and next to her was a stack of our wedding china. On the ground were the shards of two smashed saucers.
“What are you doing? I asked.”
She looked up and said, “You aren’t listening to me. You don’t realize that if you keep working these hours you are going to destroy this family. I don’t know how to get through to you. You aren’t seeing how serious this is. This is what you are doing.” And she brought the hammer down on the third saucer. It splintered into pieces.
Tim explains that this was the wakeup call that he needed to decide to work fewer hours. Hilariously, he also explains that his wife wasn’t emotionally out of control while she very clearly was:
I sat down trembling. I thought she had snapped. “I’m listening. I’m listening,” I said. As we talked it became clear that she was intense and laser focused, but she was not in a rage or out of control emotionally.
In the preface to the story he makes the same absurd claim:
Kathy talks of what she calls the “godly tantrum.” By this she means not an emotional loss of temper but an unrelenting insistence on being heard.
Tim’s denial here is breathtaking, but it is essential to understand that it is at the foundation of the complementarian perspective. For all of their lectures about believing that men and women are different, their whole edifice is founded on the feminist denial of the nature of women. Complementarians must deny bad behavior of women no matter the cost. No matter how many children grow up without fathers, and no matter the cruelty of parading Kathy out in this highly disturbed mental state for decades, the first priority is and always has been to maintain the denial.
See also:
Pingback: Unhinged | Neoreactive
I always read 1 Pet 3:1-4 NKJV as being ok with three wives. “3 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands…”
Wow. I don’t really know what I would do in such a situation… one thinks of the adage, “Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggie’ while looking around for a rock” … except that Tim kept on saying “nice doggie” forever …
Pingback: Unhinged | Manosphere.com
Flip the script and Feminists would call the man abusive for breaking the wedding china to make a point.
Oh! Look who is having their asses kissed on twitter!
Merry Christmas to Tim and Kathy Keller. Your gift is realtalk from Dalrock blog.
Again, I see this comparison of the relationship between husband and wife to the relationship of God the Father and God the Son, where the man represents the Father and the wife represents Jesus. I understand why Christian feminists take this stance. Since Jesus is the visible glorified image of the invisible God, that means that the wife is the visible glorified image of her invisible husband.
This harridan is feminist not a Christian. Full stop. And Tim? Talk about a pathetic little beta simp. He has no business being a pastor anywhere other than the Church of Feminism.
Go ahead, Kathy. Eat another fuckin’ apple from the forbidden tree. Who could it possibly hurt? You know you want to…
This is taken directly from the National Council on Child Abuse and Family Violence website:
“Emotional and/or Psychological Abuse…
This form of violence has the power to destroy the victim’s self-esteem over time. Although not as visible as physical or sexual violence, the scars of emotional and/or psychological abuse are traumatic and long lasting. This form of abuse is almost always present in families where physical and/or sexual domestic violence occur.
Intimidation, e.g. looks, gestures, yelling, smashing things or destroying the victim’s property, threats to harm a child or children or keep them from the victim, isolating the victim from family and friends and economic domination are common ways in which abusers cause emotional and/or psychological damage to their victims”
So there you go folks. These people, by the feminine imperative’s own allies’ definition, are celebrating the modification of a spouse’s behavior through an act of domestic violence.
Can you even begin to imagine the outcry if the roles were reversed?
This does explain why Tim Keller’s church is so well known for having a whole lot of single young adults. I somehow had never connected him to the Plate Breaking story. Wow, that’s so damn stupid.
On a much better note: Merry Christmas everyone. The Gift of the Lord’s presence is always worth celebrating, regardless of how evil our World is.
Kathy Keller quoted by Dalrock
Long ago, when I was struggling with this teaching, and I did struggle with it, I had to ask myself this question, “If it’s not an assault on the dignity, and value, and equality of Jesus to take the subordinate role to His Father in order to accomplish our salvation, how on earth can I be hurt or devalued when asked to play the Jesus role of subordination in my marriage?” The answer is, “I can’t be. It’s not going to hurt me if it’s defined by Jesus rather than by a cultural understanding
So all of this comes from her own understanding. Not from reading the Bible, not from instruction by her father, not from teaching by a preacher, obviously not from her husband, nope, it came from her own understanding. Well, well, well. That brings me to a conversation from just last week.
Most of the men I talk with in real life don’t do this online stuff. Too busy, don’t type well, don’t find it interesting, whatever. Maybe the millennials are commenting on blogs, I dunno. But these men do think about these issues, in their own way. I’m going to distill a recent conversation between multiple men down to one paragraph. Feel free to insert “older man chuckles” in here as appropriate.
Ready? Here goes…
“Now look here, what these Christian feminist women are really saying is simple and it’s not new. Not at all new. Underneath all their babble talk is one question, just one: Did God REALLY say that?. Just like Eve. Just like Sarah. Nothing new under the sun. That’s all Christian feminism is: Did God REALLY say that?. And the answer they do not like at all, they don’t wanna hear it, that answer is real simple: Yeah, God REALLY said that!. ”
Some of these men are over 70, it’s true. I’m hoping to bring a few Millennials into the discussion from time to time.
It’s statements like these by the Kellers that just reaffirm why I’ve long since avoided listening to churchians about marriage and relationships or even what the Bible says. And if I ever get married there will no marriage counseling unless the pastor is Red Pill, and I would make that call myself. Imagine the kind of harmful advice Keller might give to a would-be husband and his wife-to-be. Imagine if he related this “godly tantrum” story as an example of how to be a husband. I shudder to think of the poor sucker whose wife is told not only is it biblically acceptable for her to throw dishes in anger when she doesn’t get her way, it is a form of godliness!
In fact, I just shudder to think of what most couples are told during marriage counseling by modern pastors.
What makes this so dangerous is that it isn’t coming from cultural Marxists or people who openly hate the church, it’s coming from the church itself and lends credulity to what they’re advocating.
Deranged is indeed the word to apply here. But spreading this deranged attitude as something to emulate is the worse sin. It’s good that Dalrock is pushing against it.
“Godly tantrum”. Snort.
Those readers who were watching TV in the 90’s, I dare you to say those words in the voice of either Beavis or Butthead. Settle down, Beavis, or I’ll have a Godly Tantrum all over you. Or if you prefer, NNGGGGHHHHERRRAAHHHHHWEDD….Hey, Butthead, I’m having a Godly Tantrum, too!.
“Godly Tantrum”. Really?
In Keller land, are 2-year olds the most holy of people? They sure are fond of tantrums…pretty good at them, too.
Lurkers, this stuff matters. It’s trivial to walk into just about any Protestant church and find materials by Rainey or Focus or Keller. I know people who go to “Bible study” classes where they read and discuss books by Keller. Not all of them are aging boomers, either, although it looks like the Boomers really do love them some Keller / Rainey. This is the stuff that parents and grandparents of Millennials are foisting off on them, at least in the Protestant churches.
This woman is bat squeeze crazy
it’s not an assault on the dignity, and value, and equality of Jesus but he did not want to go through it yet he submitted and did. She is right in that aspect that when she submits, it doesnt assault the things she listed. She thinks the ” it cant” part means ” it cant be …..anything that i find unpleasurable”
Long been disgusted by Rainey and his radio scam. But the others are new to me.
Undeniable they have a heavy influence in churches today, which explains a great deal of the problems.
Got to go back to the seminaries that produced these wolves in sheep’s clothing though, this is rooted deep, and isn’t going to change easily.
I see.
So by this logic Eve is in fact the “God” of Adam.
And christo-feminists scoff when I say the FI has replaced the Holy Spirit.
Can you even begin to imagine the outcry if the roles were reversed?
In the unlikely even that I find myself in this situation, I will deliberately make a demand that I know the wife will turn down, then rush to the garage, and smash her car’s windscreens with a sledge hammer, to make a point. That will forever remind her that she will be treated as an equal.
Imagine a time when we’d think to ourselves how foolish to say that the world, and the Church needs a little (in most cases a lot) more Jesus.
My thoughts always go back to one of my all time favorite songs, one by Twila Paris.
Those who practice and teach lawlessness to the lost and impressionable surely need a millstone, a boulder, a stray asteroid…tied around their neck and then be thrown off one of the Cliffs of Dover.
Makes you wanna punch somebody in the face..for real.
To think there was a time, for all of us bygone idealists, that we’d be secure in our faith, in the arms of our lover, in our homes, and in our fellowships, being on one accord with all the brethren and sistren concerning the rightness of our Master, with warm thoughts of this new world/life as God’s peculiar people, resting in the hope of the world to come (as Yeshua/Jesus said “Olam Ha-ba”), only to end up with this shit show that’s been set before us.
It takes a great deal of resolve and strength not to despair and start quoting from Auden’s Funeral Blues:
I mean, really, brothers…it’s almost that damn deep…
Rebellious women can never have good marriages, according to Scripture:
God places the lonely in families; he sets the prisoners free and gives them joy. But he makes the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land. Psalm 68:6
One of the things I find fascinating about this feminist rationalization of rebellion in the name of “equality” between husbands and wives is the comparison between Christ’s submission to God the Father and husbands and wives. Miserman’s explanation makes a lot of sense – “Since Jesus is the visible glorified image of the invisible God, that means that the wife is the visible glorified image of her invisible husband.” However, the actual Biblical analogy is quite different, found in Ephesians 5: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
Is the church in any way equal to the incarnate Son of God? NO! Is it the church’s place to correct Christ, or throw temper tantrums at Him? WTH, that’s crazy-talk, stop doing drugs.
Um.
I went online and looked up the Hebrew word “azer” (Yay internet!) and found:
Azar : http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5826.htm
And
Ezer: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5828.htm
The second refers to Eve. Keller looks to have “misused” and mispelled the word, twisted suitably to fit her purposes. No surprises here…
Mrs. Gamer surprised me, telling me that a show on FotF had featured a woman whose future father-in-law had told her that the secret to a happy marriage is for a wife to overdose her husband on sex.
Get rid of alimony and child support, and I’ll bet very few women (other than the certifiably insane) will be inclined to claim divinity.
Mz. Kellar shows us this phraseology trick….a common one women use…not this one specificzlly but the mechanics of it. Insert something into the teaching that pulls women’s feelings away from resentment (if the husband is the object of submission) and onto a benign meaningless notion of submitting to a role. I guess dadgummit women haf’ta finally accept that they are female and just swallow hard and go with it.
Or get the surgery.
These tricks are numerous….somewhere greater than Avogadro’s number.
I now gotta go submit to my role. and demand a sammich
Something here bugs me in this comment, something subtle, other than the obvious. Need to think on it.
“I know social programming has made me over value your feelings but i must submit to my role as a man and dominate you. See how much internal conflict im in honey? I have to submit to my role and dominate you”
@Empathologism
“If it’s not an assault on the dignity, and value, and equality of Jesus to take the subordinate role to His Father in order to accomplish our salvation, how on earth can I be hurt or devalued when asked to play the Jesus role of subordination in my marriage?”
She is trying to say that “my role in submission should not be something that “I” as the woman, has to feel any unpleasantness about” hence the “how can i be hurt”. She says “she cant” but what she means is submission should not mean i have to do something i dont like.
its ironic because she uses Jesus’s example is doing his father will “Take this cup from me but not my will but yours”
Jesus did something he did not want to do
“An unrelenting insistence on being heard” sounds awfully like a threat to break up the family unless she gets exactly what she wants. Why can’t he hear her and disagree and continue doing the work that supports his family. If that means she has to work harder herself, well, she had better keep up. Instead of her working harder, she wants him to work less so he has more time to be her helpmeet.
Genesis 3:16. Women are cursed and AWALT. It isn’t that she’s deranged or unhinged, God placed a curse on women and this is the evidence that even “Christian” women are still subject to its effects. This is a specific point that is no longer taught and men are afraid to bring up. Because vagina.
Women need to be under an authority that holds them accountable for their bad behavior, and having destroyed all the social structures that would hold them accountable we now see the results. Especially in the church, where any man who brings up passages such as Ephesians 5:22-24; 1st Peter 3:1-6 (which begins with a clear reference to the masters-servants discussion in chapter 2) and other passages instructing women to be silent in church and be taught by their husbands at home.
It is painful for men to bluntly say “women were cursed by God and your refusal to accept God’s Word for what it says is evidence you’re suffering from the effects of the curse and in rebellion against God.”
That will always get an angry response, “blah, blah, blah.”
“I wouldn’t expect any other response from a woman that refuses to accept she’s cursed by God and refuses to obey God and submit herself to the authority placed over her.”
The white knights will crawl out of the woodwork and the only question for them is “Did God lie?”
Framing the argument this way removes it from the realm of emotion and places it back where it belongs: “What did God say?”
The invocation for each of the hours in the Liturgy of the Hours is: “God come to my assistance / Lord, make haste to help me.”
God does not mind being an assistant but a wife sure does.
—–
@Rollo Tomassi: See #1605 in the CCC which says, in part, “. . . she [Eve] thus represents God from whom comes our help.” (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM)
That paragraph was clearly written by a man who had a wonderful experience of Mother and no experience of Wife. Not to mention irony impaired: Adam, surrounded by creation, not to mention the presence of God, whines that none is like him; God’s response, “It is not good that the man should be alone”, is clearly dripping with irony.
Did the FotF host and guest endorse this statement, or immediately repudiate it as an example of men’s unloving attitudes? And did they define “overdose” to mean “a little more often than the wife wants”?
I have been sitting pondering this for awhile. Because of things I have seen in my own real life and some serious twisting of teachings going on online. These are just my observations.
1. The guidelines given in Titus, Timothy and Peter etc for eldership and older women teaching the younger are incredibly wise. While I just kind of past over them about ten years ago, now I can see the absolute clarity of them. If you don’t meet the guidelines, it is real simple, you are simply not qualified to teach or be an elder. Doesn’t matter what degree you have. Doesn’t matter what anointing you think you have. You shut up, learn and soon realize how completely inexperienced and stupid you are privately.
2. When being a Wife and Mother were taken away as being seen as titles and positions that were worthy of training and aspiration…what was left for women? You are biologically equipped to do the one thing that is completely degraded by not only women, but most men. Sure, many men claim they want a feminine women for a wife and the mother of their children but how many of those same men raise their daughters just like sons and want a wife is more then a housewife? There is not even a safe place in so called churches. No seriously. I just left one where one of the “elder” women told me she couldn’t stand children (in front of my children) and was rude to me for my lack of church attendance because I had a baby by C-section. Apparently to the childless, two months is more then enough time to get back in the swing of things.
Quite honestly, I don’t see the women forty and over getting it. I see those younger then forty taking a good hard look at things and either going to hell in a handbasket or fighting the tide tooth and nail and being willing to go it alone like I am. You see, your fruits will tell you. I am the happy wife and mother of many children. They are the lonely, dateless, delusional starting trouble with other peoples families and throwing tantrums because no one will spend time with them.
Make the right choice everyone. You don’t want to be married to the chick smashing china and you sure as heck don’t want to be her.
I sat down trembling. I thought she had snapped. “I’m listening. I’m listening,” I said. As we talked it became clear that she was intense and laser focused, but she was not in a rage or out of control emotionally.
He missed a chance to agree and amplify here. I can’t imagine finding a toddler doing something similar and deciding that it was a sane mind that should be consulted further.
Pingback: Unhinged | Reaction Times
The white knights will crawl out of the woodwork and the only question for them is “Did God lie?”
Framing the argument this way removes it from the realm of emotion and places it back where it belongs: “What did God say?”
And you will have to grab onto that question like a pit bull with a bone in its mouth and hammer it again, and again, and again until you get the two only logical answers they can give you based on the evidence of their words and behavior:
1) God lied, or
2) the Bible is a book of myths written not by God, but by neanderthal misogynists pretending to channel God.
If Tim Keller had not had his balls torn off by Kathy many years earlier, he would have reacted to her china-smashing tantrum by gently grabbing her hand, leading her to a corner, having her kneel, and then telling her “now start praying to God, beginning by telling him what a total bozo He is by putting this submission mandate nonsense into the Bible. Ask Him what He was smoking when He came up with that. Tell Him that He has some nerve asking a woman to submit to her husband! You tell Him what a misogynist He is! Let loose with all the verbal foulness, blasphamy, and obscenity your feeeeeeeeelings can muster!
“And you’re going to stay on your knees letting God have it, with all the poison your tongue can muster, until you’ve made your heart unmistakably clear Him! While I hate rebellion in my wife, I will absolutely NOT suffer dishonesty and obfuscation from her! NOW OUT WITH IT!!!!!”
Well it looks like complementarians have been added to the growing list of “Christian” groups to be deceived and mislead by feminists. Wasn’t the whole point of complementarianism to retain the principles taught in the Bible regarding the roles of men and women? Wow what a train wreck.
What would the agree and amplify look like here, Carlotta?
@jim
This harridan is feminist not a Christian. Full stop. And Tim? Talk about a pathetic little beta simp. He has no business being a pastor anywhere other than the Church of Feminism.
You’re right on about Tim. While I pity a man stuck in a prison like that, he has only himself to blame for getting there to begin with. He’s not setting the direction and calling the shots in his marriage –she is, and for his part Tim is only too happy to skip along behind her. He tells another story in The Meaning of Marriage that shows it was this way right from the beginning:
You can read it here: http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2013/02/14/put-a-ring-on-it/
When she wants a relationship, she tells him to make him her girlfriend. When Tim isn’t at home when she wants, she smashes his possessions to set him straight. When she barks the orders, he stands to attention. And now they sell their crap example to the church as a proper model of manly leadership and wifely submission!
There’s a lesson here, gentlemen; from the very beginning you eat, breathe and sleep Game and always make sure you are using it to keep her in your thrall. Test her commitments early. Tell her how it is going to be. When you see her wavering, it’s time for a “there’s the door” moment. For your own sake, yes, but if that’s not enough then for the sake of your church. A woman can’t submit to God, let alone her husband with only her own willpower, and Kathy Keller just told you so herself. A. B. G. Always Be Gaming.
Is being Beta may a sin? Maybe if you follow Tim Keller’s example. But Game will get you closer to God. And maybe drag the church along with you.
Another job well done Dalrock, though it grieves me to read about what so many deceived people are teaching under the banner of Christianity.
“Genesis 2 then—there’s this thing like, “Adam first, then Eve; and she’s the helper?” Like, “What happened to the equality?””
Logically, if Eve was made out of Adam then it’s impossible for her to be superior to him. You make something out of clay, it’ll never be stronger than clay. Also logically, God would create the more responsible sex first.
…
From OP: “This torment has gone on for many decades, and instead of trying to help her escape from this state of constant torment, her husband Tim Keller (a famous pastor) has encouraged it by placing her in a teaching position over both men and women.”
I’m seeing guys act like this too, especially older men nearing retirement. They’re eager, sometimes borderline desperate to twist women into men. Pointing out female physical/mental weaknesses doesn’t help but neither does pointing out most women are happiest as housewives. Whatever is motivating them is neither reason nor sentimentalism.
Offtopic:
Increased risk of C-section due to Maternal age:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20887538
Dalrock, you’re not even getting the full treatment. As I said, feminism permeates The Meaning of Marriage. Kathy is obviously proud of the “godly tantrum” as she has told the story many times.
I do think we need to avoid being overly critical. In her point of view on marriage, she’s only going along with what is commonly believed, not inventing some new heresy or something. She was raised in an egalitarian tradition and actually came to a belief in the complementarian one through contact with scripture. She was in the process of being ordained in the Pittsburgh presbytery of what would become the PCUSA, and withdrew from ordination after coming to the conclusion God forbade female elders. She was physically booed by about half of an audience of 350 when she did this. She sacrificed a dream to obey scripture. We should honor that. She was obedient, being a helper to Tim, and getting the rewards in terms of his ministry success, and her own rise in stature along with that.
Also, I think we need to have some compassion on the intense pressure she’s subjected to. She recently published a short tract on why women can’t be elders. Here’s an excerpt:
To her credit. she’s clearly exasperated with much of this. However, in this tract and the Meaning of Marriage, they decided, rightly or wrongly to take an approach of scriptural minimalism: what is the absolute minimum difference that scripture absolutely requires between men and women? Everything else is “culture” and thus malleable to conform to current culture.
That may not be the best choice, but those of us sitting here behind pseudonyms while Tim and Kathy are getting pounded publicly in a high profile position aren’t in a position to cast stones.
I strongly disagree with many of Tim and Kathy’s teachings on marriage. In fact, as I noted, I am writing a detailed critique of their book on the subject that will run many thousands of words. But I am not leaping from that to assuming they must be intentionally off base. They have taken some tough public stands on female eldership, homosexuality, etc. I think we should see their errors in light of the totality of their ministry, which has been very positive. I hold them both in high regard and hope that one day they will in fact reconsider some of these marriage teachings.
I really don’t know why these women bother getting married under Christianity. If we Christians are so awful, why marry us and then subvert the Lord’s will regarding submission? Oh yeah, I forgot, they marry us, ultimately, to go off the reservation and divorce for cash and prizes. God is one thing, feminist-ruled courts are another. Broads. A man is an out-and-out fool to trust them.
One woman told me tearfully when she learned Redeemer did not ordain women as elders or pastors, “It was like finding out that your fiancé is a child molester!”…
Another example of a rebellious female hissy fit, the equivalent of a toddler screaming “I HATE YOU!” at a parent who won’t let them stay up past their bedtime or buy them a toy that they want.
Once again, all you rebellious churchio-feminists: it’s God and the contents of His Bible that you have a problem with. Take it up with HIM.
God is one thing, feminist-ruled courts are another.
God won’t beat a Christian husband down and strip him of his property in order to confer cash and prizes upon a rebellious wife. Feminist-ruled courts most certainly and eagerly will. Guess which of the aforementioned two powers is the real God among women, the one they truly worship and respect?
@ferriker, yeah, that’s nuts. Child molester? Puh-leeze. But if that’s what Kathy is hearing, then it’s easy to see how she could come to view her own position as hyper-traditional. By contrast, it is.
@Bob
I mean I can only imagine had I done that. The China is something more important to her and she clearly didn’t start smashing the plates till she knew he was about in the door. My Mother, had I done this, would have tossed ALL the china over the balcony and told clearly I didn’t deserve it. I wouldn’t dare speculate the fun a husband could have had with this.
One woman told me tearfully when she learned Redeemer did not ordain women as elders or pastors, “It was like finding out that your fiancé is a child molester!”…
I would immediately try to determine what else they were ignorant of or rebellious of in the Bible. Ignorant you can work with, rebellion no.
It bears emphasizing again, that what Kathy did smashing the China in front of Tim is now classified as a act of domestic violence. Had the husband done this, he could be arrested (for this alone!) if she claims that his violent actions put her “in fear”. Even though he didn’t lay a hand on her nor even threaten to do so. This was proven again, not too long ago, when a wife had her husband arrested because he was carving up a watermelon with a kitchen knife…and she felt threatened while she watched him do it. (I guess as the husband, you are held accountable for your wife’s feelings…as if you could control them).
And you wonder why so many young men are going on a marriage strike! You have to be crazy to get married today! And coming soon – arrest and jailed for “emotional” abuse. They already have it now in the U.K.
P.S. I wonder if Tim now realizes he is a domestic violence “survivor”?
I do think we need to avoid being overly critical.
Sigh, and the beat goes on.
Yes, being tolerant of blasphemy and conduct unbecoming has worked really well. Why take the hard line of holding to scripture? It has worked so well.
That may not be the best choice, but those of us sitting here behind pseudonyms while Tim and Kathy are getting pounded publicly in a high profile position aren’t in a position to cast stones.
Some of us ARE pounded publicly and privately in our local cities, churches, and church related gatherings for standing up for the truth. I’ve been the brunt of derision more than enough to be able to say, “You need to stand up for the truth or step down from the platform. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen” (metaphorically speaking). And I’m not the only one.
@Neguy:
There’s a subtlety that needs to be taken with Pastors that haven’t sold out to the world completely, but they lack Wisdom and will account to God for that. Though they are the ones that will be open to correction.
At the same time, God isn’t one to give out participation ribbons. (Mt. 25:26-30) Their “hard stands” are on things EXPLICITLY forbidden by the Scripture. Yet on the biggest problem effecting the church in our Western society, they’re not just lost at sea but actively running people into the rocks. But the “missing the forest for the trees” is the general state of Christianity until God unleashes the cleansing fire of the Spirit. The Reformation doesn’t happen if the central authorities of the Roman Catholic Church had removed the corrupted & perverted over the 200 years leading up to a pissed off German pointing out selling indulgences was obscene.
So there is a different approach that has to be taken with them, but there is never an excuse for false teaching by a Pastor. Have the humility to admit you don’t have the answer and you’re still doing the work for it. But that’s a step of taking ultimate responsibility for your actions, which is anathema to Humans. That’s why we need the power of the Spirit indwelling, we can’t do it on our own.
You scrape up a piece of dog shit off the lawn and package it all sorts of way with all kinds of ribbons, bows, stick on decals, and accompanying cards but the moment you unwrap it you clearly see it’s still a piece of dog shit scraped off the front lawn. The dog shit in this analogy is feminism.
In a slightly related topic, an odd bit of inspiration hit me. There’s an anthem for “Lift Chasing”. It’s Billy Squier’s “The Stroke”. The song is about the sleazy side of the Music business, but it fits the exact same effect that chasing the Lift leads you to.
I’m not quite in the spot today to claim divine inspiration on that one, but it seemed oddly fitting today, for reasons I can’t explain.
@JDG:
Keep up the Good Work, brother. It can be very thankless, but we’re playing for the eternal, never apologize for it.
@Bob
Can I change my answer? I think this is the perfect time to call the inlaws. Or how about the person who gifted the china and telling them exactly what she is doing and why. Or video taping it like that husband did when his wife threw a rager because she wanted to go to the lake. Then let the shame begin. I think it would make her shudder to have her Mother in law show up “unexpectedly” for dinner while this was happening. I saw the other comments where a husband is left with no recourse. There are plenty of other cultures where the mother in law keeps the daughter in laws in check. I don’t think she would lose respect for him. I mean if he cried and called his mother, then yes. But to very calmly call her and have her show up is a different story.
It is like children. Find their kryptonite and apply liberally. It worked on me.
All this semantics arguing nonsense! Guys, “submission” is about SEX. Not completely but about 80%. Scripture commands a wife to STFU and fuck her husband when he demands. It says so explicitly in several places, in almost pornographic detail, and could not be more clear.
THIS is the thing they are doing backflips over and trying to avoid. The goal is to avoid handing that power back to husbands and thus forcing themselves to have sex with their weak Beta husbands. This is a fate so awful there MUST be another solution.
They really are unhinged.
“You could actually make the case that, in asking women to be submissive, that they are actually being given a greater calling than the men and will be exalted more highly for it.
I’m just saying, “You could make the case”; I’m not making the case.”
Bwwahahahahahaha! I literally LOL’d at this.
@ Dash Riprock
“So there you go folks. These people, by the feminine imperative’s own allies’ definition, are celebrating the modification of a spouse’s behavior through an act of domestic violence.
Can you even begin to imagine the outcry if the roles were reversed?”
These women are way ahead of you on this
I am profoundly disappointed with CBMW and much of the complementarian content I have found on the web because it is bait and switch. They start out stating emphatically that they are opposed to egalitarian teaching, emphasizing the differences between men and women, but then proceed to arrive at essentially the same destination – FI – via a different route.
The method is ingenious. You start out by boldly proclaiming that the other side’s perceived toxicity (husband’s headship / wife’s submission) is actually medicinal. But you then proceed to dillute the medicine until it can only be measured in parts per billion, at which point there is no longer any medicinal effect. You can thus loudly trumpet your active ingredient while quietly obscuring the fact that it has been so watered down as to be essentially useless in practice.
John Bevere has some excellent teaching on the topic of submission to authority in general. It deals primarily with if/how/when we are to submit to not just benevolent leadership, but tyrannical leadership. He makes a very astute observation: “submission doesn’t even begin until there is disagreement.”
This is at the heart of the fatal flaw with CBMW – they have watered down submission to the point that the wife is only obligated to do so until a point of disagreement is reached. Not sin, mind you, but merely disagreement — at which time one of two things should happen:
1) the husband’s higher calling to “sacrifice” should kick in, underscoring his fierce devotion to protect his “weaker vessel” and give himself as Christ gave himself for his bride.
2) the husband should realize that major decisions require consensus and that veto power is essential if one is going to be a true “helpmate”. After all, God will always lead you both in the same direction since He is a God of unity, not strife. Implicit in this is the unstated assumption that the wife is more spiritually sensitive and thus more attuned to the “leading of the spirit.” Foolish is the husband who does not listen to his wife and proceeds without her consent.
In so doing, submission becomes a zero-risk endeavor on the part of the wife. She is never called to trust or respect her husband unless he suitably passes muster following her God-ordained role of ongoing due diligence auditor. She is never called to crucify her flesh because a true lover will always shelter his beloved under his wings. If she ever feels insecure in his love, he must prove the depths of his affection anew and on demand because love is a game and she has a God-ordained role of moving the goalposts lest boredom stifle the romance. His protests only serve to underscore the necessity of this endless hIde-and-seek and the truly wise man will acquire a taste for the fun of this mystique.
Dear Unhinged Wife:
Under what circumstances may I throw a tantrum to ensure my views are properly heard?
jack you have to be “spiritually superior” to throw “godly tantrums”, and only women are “spiritually superior”. FI 101 the new edition.
Looking Glass thank you for the encouragement.
@Jack,
You simply must keep up. It wasn’t a tantrum. It was a godly tantrum. Totally different. One is an out-of-control rage. The other is a spiritual gift, akin to prophecy, whereby the prophetess can foretell the future if her words are not heeded. Like prophecy, a God-inspired illustration is used. As the one who prophesied over Paul in Acts 21 by using Paul’s own belt, so did the prophetess use their own china to drive home a point. You see, 1 Peter 3:1 was insufficient to address the particulars of her family and her husband. The Holy Spirit had a different plan, and Tim was fortunate enough to be favored by God with this new, better way for his wife effect a change in his behavior.
bluepillprofessor says:
All this semantics arguing nonsense! Guys, “submission” is about SEX. Not completely but about 80%. Scripture commands a wife to STFU and fuck her husband when he demands. It says so explicitly in several places, in almost pornographic detail, and could not be more clear.
THIS is the thing they are doing backflips over and trying to avoid. The goal is to avoid handing that power back to husbands and thus forcing themselves to have sex with their weak Beta husbands. This is a fate so awful there MUST be another solution.
You nailed it there.
But doesn’t the husband have a responsibility also?
Not trying to be the devil’s advocate here, but why would they eagerly want to have sex with an alpha and not with their beta husbands? Could it be that they are naturally repulsed by “betahood”, not specifically by their husbands? Has any of us men here have to deal with wishy-washy people (men and women) who can’t seem to make up their minds. Why are we all attracted to strength and not to weakness? This is not a phenomenon observed among women, but among men also. Men love champions. That is why we know so much about Ali, about Mike Tyson, and Mike Jordans. Men love winners and those with means, and that is why Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are very popular.
I think beta men need to grow a spine too. This will make it easier for their wives to find them naturally attractive. Heck, everyone will find them attractive, not just in a sexual way.
Dave
Nice point about the beta male types. One of the characteristics of beta males is their civility. They tend to honor vows and responsibility. The FI in church and culture in general these same men being the men that they are have no sex appeal at all. The ideal work around and red pill Christian approach is for all men to be red pill and understand “game” especially Christian beta males. When the subject is brought up here the righteous go off like these Christian target drones are going to become PUA and players with harems of sluts.
Just being red pill and having the confidence of understanding with some Christian faith thrown in will open them legs right up. What will likely happen BTW when a man gets to that red pill moment and becomes attractive he is aware and can and will go MGTOW.
The bottom line is all Christian men need to be red pill and with “game” period or the church will lose this has it is now. The ironic thing is all red pill principals and the explanation of game and female nature most likely can be found or interpreted in the bible. Any church that has a red pill hour on Wednesday bible class and a PUA attraction class on Thursday night for male members only will have a lot of weddings to perform. Even the ‘marriage counselors following the same principles will save a few blue pill unions. The fem cunts will leave and the women that choose to be biblical wives will have the herd to give them comfort in their choice.
Notice everything posted was addressed to men do not waste the slightest hint of energy or words talking to a single women. Have faith they will go to the light.
Think about how many Acts 29, Converge, etc Pastors are using Tim Keller for half of every one of their sermons every single week… Scary stuff
For what it’s worth, the pieces she broke were already damaged.
Men marry these slags, the women want the goodies of marriage, they want to play-pretend Christianity, then as soon as their man is collared, the only one yolked is the man. The women can run wild and always, the divorce-threat is hers alone and fully supported by the pastor, the courts, the church itself, who used to shun and shame women that left frivolously.
I’m flat out of sympathy for men in these positions. The script is set; they KNOW how it’s going to go, especially the men that marry slags of 28-35 that want off the carousel for home, hearth and his money and children. They marry these broads anyway. Unless a young man can get the woman to marry and have children ahead of college-age, 18-21 or so, marrying is stupid. At least he gets his woman in the prime of her beauty, looks and ability to love a man. By ten years of riding a million men, 28-35, theses women are ruined, they have toxic wombs, they’re cynical, crafty and calculating. They have lost their ability to love. It is this type of woman that the the “Christian” feminists within the church demand the break from Male Headship and leadership.
And still, the men marry them. Road to ruin, baby!
“empathological
“If it’s not an assault on the dignity, and value, and equality of Jesus to take the subordinate role to His Father in order to accomplish our salvation, how on earth can I be hurt or devalued when asked to play the Jesus role of subordination in my marriage?”
Something here bugs me in this comment, something subtle, other than the obvious. Need to think on it.”
Empathological……..What bothers you about this statement is that the woman really believes she is superior to her husband and just like Christ took the role of submision to humble himself coming to earth the superior wife shouldn’t (even though she is superior) recoile at taking a submissive roll to her husband. There is no real humility or even real submission. It’s really more of a heroic act on her part……don’t ya see…….
Brand
For what it’s worth, the pieces she broke were already damaged.
Really? How do you know this?
And so what? It’s still a tantrum, a drama-queen attention-grabbing ploy that would be unacceptable coming from a teenaged girl or even a grade school girl.
Hello everyone. Just want to wish you all and Dalrock a Merry Christmas for tomorrow.
Hello everyone. Just want to wish you all and Dalrock a Merry Christmas for tomorrow.
Geseënde Kersfees to you too, FH! And echoing to every other reader here, wherever they may be on this blessed day.
“Long ago, when I was struggling with this teaching, and I did struggle with it, I had to ask myself this question, “If it’s not an assault on the dignity, and value, and equality of Jesus to take the subordinate role to His Father in order to accomplish our salvation, how on earth can I be hurt or devalued when asked to play the Jesus role of subordination in my marriage?” The answer is, “I can’t be. It’s not going to hurt me if it’s defined by Jesus rather than by a cultural understanding.”
Apparently Jesus’ submission to the Father by dying in the horrific manner of being nailed to a cross did not hurt at all. The willful delusion of this woman’s thought process is dumbfounding to me.
@Empath,
Yes, it bugged me too. Whether intentional or not, it suggested that the path ahead would be painless and her Special Snowflaker™ status would never be challenged by situations where she might need to – perish the thought – deem others as more important than herself.
It smacked of the all-too-familiar what about ME?.
Ive shot the large fragment of a clay pigeon after the man preceding me in a 5 stand barely breaks it and I get no points for it. She broke broken China and was promoted to King.
@MrTeebs
Its actually something in the way she lays out the Jesus narrative that bugs me more than where she then applies it to herself. . I still dont know why
A “Godly tantrum”!!!! Wow, that is insane. I’ve never heard that women having emotional outbursts was something women were teaching was ok. What happened to the older women being examples that younger ones could follow – teaching self-control, respect, and submissiveness… what happened to “winning him over without a word?” NOT “win him over by breaking all your gorgeous and expensive, gifted china”!
Wow.
And I saw a comment talking about the man quietly going to his mother-in-law… isn’t that promoting just a Matriarchal society? The husband doesn’t have the guts to confront her himself and get her to behave, so he needs his mother to put in her line? That is the definition of a Matriarchal set-up where the women run things because the Patriarchs have given over the role of leadership.
@Empath,
I see what you mean.
One glaring problem – and it has already been noted by others – is that the symbolism of marriage is always portrayed in the New Testament as husband = Christ, wife = church. Here, however, Keller puts herself in the role of Christ and uses the Father/Son relationship to describe marriage – something that is never done in the NT. She then constructs a thought exercise that helps her swallow a pill she finds distasteful: “Like Christ, in the end, I will be more highly exalted if I accept this temporary demotion.” She then distances herself from this suggestion that Christ actually did this to “get ahead,” but I have to wonder why she felt compelled to plant that seed in the first place.
It’s in the book that contains that story. Don’t assume the paraphrased story is complete. I think it is inappropriate as well, but I think the detail is important. We also don’t know her usual day to day behavior, which may or may not be flattering, and this one instance could be overwhelmingly out of character for her.
Dalrock,
Imagine a political movement that was a synthesis of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. This imaginary movement is based on the hatred of corruption, greed, cronyism and all the general “business as usual” of Big Business and Big Government, and willing to put up with the disagreements for the meanwhile. Now imagine that movement was religious; specifically Protestant Christian.
There was such a movement and it was called the “Emerging Church Movement”. It is this movement that produced celebrity pastors such as: Tim Keller, John Piper, Mark Driscoll… It also produced another Mar’s Hill megachurch with a pastor by the name of Rob Bell. He is the poster-boy for SJW imitations of Christianity. (He infamously claimed that there is no Hell.)
It’s against the backdrop of the Rob Bells of the world that the Driscolls and Kellers appear biblically sound in general (including marriage and sex roles), and have convinced themselves and others that this is so.
@Girlwiththedragonflytattoo
Your first paragraph pleads for older women to teach the younger. Your third paragraph says that an older woman teaching a younger is the sign of a weak husband, and that older women teaching younger is matriarchal.
@mrteebs
Several people have said something similar in this thread, but it’s not true. While Kathy Keller is wrong many times she comparing herself to Jesus in subordination to her husband in the role of the Father is not one of them. It is explicitly stated in 1 Corinthians 13
I would be interested to know if she covers her head when in church; as short-haired women definitely should be.
I believe Rob Bell also said in so many words that we can’t really understand the Bible and that when it comes to marriage and homosexuality people should follow the culture instead of those “outdated passages.” Funny that.
Also if memory serves, John Piper was around long before the “Emerging Church” became a thing, and I don’t think he supports it.
@JDG
Yep, that’s Bell.
My recollection is that Piper was before the Emergent movement before he was against it, but I could be mistaken.
You guys are throwing darts at the side of a barn. Including Dalrock. Everything you say is true and it is obvious. What i do not see is narrowing the aim at smaller targets that are even more subtle.
I asked Dalrock about John Macarthur and he said he didnt know who he was. Research the heavy hitters like Allister Begg, R C Sproul, Brad Bigley, Charles Stanley, Jeremiah, Stohl. These guys are listened to nationwide daily right after/before FotF, FLT.
Word needs to go out how these guys rail against feminism, but teach mutual submission and similar that ends with husband suplicating to the wife.
Word needs to go out how these guys rail against feminism, but teach mutual submission and similar that ends with husband suplicating to the wife.
I’ve heard several of these guys preach (specifically, Keller, Begg, and Piper), but haven’t heard their teaching on feminism and marriage. But given the good Bible teaching I heard those three men give on other subjects, if they’re teaching bad exegesis on feminism and marriage, I’d venture to guess that it’s based on misunderstanding rather than deliberate distortion. Which doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be corrected, of course, but it does suggest a different approach to correcting it. When Paul confronted Peter about not eating with Gentiles, he did so publicly, because Peter knew he was in the wrong. But when Aquila and Priscilla corrected Apollos’s mistakes about Christ, they took him aside privately to correct him — because Apollos wasn’t distorting the truth on purpose.
@ Cane Caldo,
“Your first paragraph pleads for older women to teach the younger. Your third paragraph says that an older woman teaching a younger is the sign of a weak husband, and that older women teaching younger is matriarchal.”
Forgive the interjection, but I think Dragonfly does NOT contradict herself here, which is, I presume, your point with this comment.
Older women teaching younger women the right thing is a good thing, which is Dragonfly’s first paragraph.
In her third paragraph she refers to a specific case of a man abdicating his right/duty/opportunity to tell his own wife off. If he must absolutely delegate to someone else, must it be a woman, even his own mother?
This is Dragonfly’s point, and I concur.
This sort of ‘abdication of the throne of the man’, so to speak, shifts the dynamic from Patriarchical to Matriarchical. Not good!
Carlotta is right in that in some cultures, mothers-in-law routinely keep daughters-in-law in check. I know this very well, having married into an Italian family (well, Swiss Italian, to be exact, but they behave the same way, Mamma mia, lol). I find it quite enjoyable, actually, it is nice to have :). But this is done in a general manner, between two women on an almost daily basis.
But in this case to which we refer, it may be a bad move for a man to deliberately miss an opportunity to have a stern word with his wife, and delegate this to his mother, or to ANY woman – for an incident that takes place in private between the two of them. It may be slightly better to delegate this to his or HER father, or perhaps another man…although this strategy is also fraught with risk…
I think this is a case which could easily lead to a dramatic loss of respect for the man, by the wife.
Not a good thing!
Speaking as a wife in this type of circumstance, I would much prefer to hear my husband’s opinion on my behaviour in this specific occasion, from him, and him alone, unless I was behaving badly in public, in which case I should expect a ‘free for all’ onslaught from onlookers as well. Preferably in private, of course.
Is this a reasonable stance, or is this wronful thinking on my part?
I would welcome challenges to my thinking if it is erroneous.
Merry Christmas to one and all from an unusually snowless Switzerland.
Dalrock
I drove to Dallas today and passed exit 64 (Dalrock Road) and thought of you! Merry Christmas to you and Mrs Dalrock and the little ones and may the Lord pour out his blessings on your family and all of your readers
As to the topic at hand I would never have smashed up expensive household items or objects with sentimental value. Wedding china is the classic embodiment of both types of value . Even the silliest girls I knew in high school would not have vandalized their own possessions yet this woman brags about having done so . The people who most want to preach and to be church leaders are often deeply flawed. This couple needs to take a sabbatical
From me also. Best holiday wishes for all you men and women, friend and foe alike. May 2016 be prosperous, interesting, and one year closer to the complete destruction of feminism.
Boxer
To Dalrock, Forum Contributors, Bloggers, Atheists, Theists of other Faiths, Lurkers, Contentious Women, Concern Trolls and their Families:
Merry Christmas to all of you! I have been blessed by all of your contributions, answers, wisdom and even your arguments and trolling! It is my wish that you all know the peace to be found in Christ Jesus.
Peace be with you all.
@Brand says:
It’s in the book that contains that story. Don’t assume the paraphrased story is complete. I think it is inappropriate as well, but I think the detail is important. We also don’t know her usual day to day behavior, which may or may not be flattering, and this one instance could be overwhelmingly out of character for her.
I was almost tempted to write “Trigger warning! Mangina in the house!” But I decided against it:).
Last I checked, when you do something embarrassing and out of character, you don’t go around broadcasting the shameful behavior every chance you get. Rather, if you must mention it publicly at all, you make it clear that it happened out of character for you, and that you are not proud of it. But this couple did not do that. It is obvious that the woman enjoyed bragging about her “godly tantrum”, and her husband is eager to cast it in a good light.
Brand can go ahead and manufacture excuses for this woman’s obvious lack of self control, but he’s not gonna convince anyone.
@Space Traveller
His mother-in-law would be the wife’s mother, not his own. That seems quite plausible to me.
And perhaps the reason a woman would prefer to hear a “stern word” in private from a husband is because she’d not like her behavior known to others.
Any grown woman throwing tantrums and breaking things is an individual who’s lack of self control is exceptionally poor. A grown man who is so easily manipulated by such tantrums is an individual who is exceptionally weak. The fact that these sort of people are in positions to teach what has become an exceptionally dysfunctional collection of churchians comes as no surprise.
@dave
We know virtually no events surrounding the story, and while I agree it is inappropriate (see previous comment) and would not tolerate it myself, that does not mean that we can judge completely accurately her character from this one interaction. While the excerpts above are concerning and consistent with what I have seen taught, I am more interested in the readership’s lack of thought and reflexive nature of thinking, including your passive agressive way of calling me a mangina without doing so directly – a very womanly behavior.
I don’t think it’s such a big deal for somebody to freak out and do something stupid like smash wedding dishes . We are all human. Calling it a godly tantrum is a stretch.
I only wish my wife would have taken such action to get my attention. However the first time she used the word divorce was when she filed. Before I knew what was going on she had emotionally divorced me and just continued down that path .
Yes I was guilty of bad behavior but nothing that warrants divorce . Now I am fighting against cash and prizes including lifetime alimony for a woman with two masters degrees who refuses to work more than part-time and refuses to work at a job she doesn’t like. She moved out a year and a half ago yet I’m still supporting her and my lawyer tells me that I must continue.
In my state, if I quit my job which I don’t particularly like, she can go after the remaining half of my assets.
I only worked hard for two reasons: my kids and my wife. I still have a 15-year-old at home. Parents should sacrifice for their children’s happiness and well-being . Children shouldn’t have to sacrifice the happiness and well-being of their parents.
My kids are almost grown and my wife has left but I must continue to support her who refuses to work. She has the support of our ex-pastor and his wife due to “emotional abuse “. The problem is we never really fought never yelled never exchanged words. We both just stuffed it . I was okay with it but I guess she wasn’t . Don’t get me started on her refusal to do anything that I asked such as having a budget or sex at anytime she didn’t want it. The bargaining could only begin after a mandatory one week waiting period.
The women at the church have crowded around her like a bunch of mother hens around a wounded chick. This is at a conservative denomination by the way
I am biting my tongue not to tell my 21-year-old son to get a prenup.
Off Topic:
Merry Christmas to Mark Driscoll, too.
@Cane,
I think we are both right. 1 Cor 11 is not speaking about marriage specifically, but rather a general statement about submission and authority. While this certainly extends to marriage, it is not limited to it and the biblical symbolism of marriage remains confined to Christ and His church / God and His people – not the relationship between Father and Son. This was the point I was trying to make.
I recommend John Bevere’s book “Under Cover” as an excellent discussion of authority and submission in all facets of life – not just marriage.
@ Boxer
I was reading the comments on that tweet by Mark Driscoll. It’s encouraging to see the pushback he’s getting.
@Regular Guy,
True but have they scratched the surface of his ego yet.
Methinks much excavation would be in order for that the happen.
Re: calling in the inlaws
This was in reaction to comments stating that most ways a husband could deal with this are no longer available.
I was not recommending he say “I am calling my mommy on you!”
I was recommending making her outrageous behavior public to one or all the inlaws for its shame value.
And the biblical commands are for the older women to teach the younger .That is not matriarchy. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Picture this…
He comes home and she is breaking china. He calmly finds somewhere private and invites the inlaws over. They pull up and witness her behavior. If she doesn’t want to stop her father is told she must get in the car immediately with her parents. Or to on be turned over to his Mother for tutoring while he enjoys a short vacation with no contact. Even gypsy culture does this. I have personally seen several types of cultures deal with spouses of both sexes this way. The ultimate shame would be the wife being sent home to her parents. But families and churches are shattered now.
@ Cane,
“His mother-in-law would be the wife’s mother, not his own.”
Ah yes, correct. For some reason I was thinking HER mother-in-law. Excuse my error, and thanks for pointing it out.
“And perhaps the reason a woman would prefer to hear a “stern word” in private from a husband is because she’d not like her behavior known to others.”
Also correct. I am sure there is not one amongst us who wishes for their private misdemeanours to be broadcast to the world. The person to whom this bad behaviour is directed (husband in this case) has every right to react accordingly. The rest of the world? No. Unless said bad behaviour was directed at them too.
The most useful advice I got just prior to marriage (from a divorced woman, no less!) was: Never broadcast your private matters between you and your future husband to ANYONE. It’s your and his business alone.
I see the wisdom of this now, in light of Naghmeh Abedini’s slip-up, assuming she just told ‘a few friends’ in private something that should perhaps not have been shared at all.
Carlotta,
I love the idea of older women teaching the younger ones. As I mention above, it is increasingly a way via which I learn the culture I have married into – Mother-in-law is no longer with us, but I have a wonderful older sister-in-law who is doing a great job in showing me the ropes…
But this scenario you describe is inviting others into marital business that should be strictly private.
I would not recommend this strategy to either the man or the woman.
In the first few days of a marriage where the bride is very young, sure. But not a viable strategy for a successful marriage when it is repeatedly done, I think.
Public shaming for bad behaviour in general is a good idea.
But not when it is done by one spouse to another, repeatedly.
That breeds longlasting resentment.
Solve marital problems privately between yourselves. Even when one of you is breaking china.
If someone is starting to break bones, then I agree – outside help is required.
Something else comes to mind with this story…I don’t know this Kathy lady or her husband, but somehow I don’t feel inclined to join the line to bash them too much.
Has she divorced her husband? Is she looking to be on the verge of threatening to do so ala Jenny Eriksson or perhaps Abedini?
If not, then I find no problem with her/them.
At least she is honest. She told him so when she wanted to be his girlfriend.
She made it known when she was displeased with something he did.
She was SINCERE.
Other women are disingenuous in this regard. They will keep silent, but seething underneath.
Then the next thing you know they hit you with ‘let’s get a divorce’ when the man thought everything was fine.
I don’t like this woman’s methods. Breaking china is not mature, we would all agree. Calling it ‘godly’ is even less so. But at least she is sincere in her dealings with her husband. And she seems to be doing her duty, at his side, where she should be.
That is good enough for me.
He (husband) does not seem to be complaining, so neither will I.
The ones I feel bad for are the ones who have serious complaints about their horrible wives who will NOT break china, but will break their marriages and families – a far worse crime.
“Again, I see this comparison of the relationship between husband and wife to the relationship of God the Father and God the Son, where the man represents the Father and the wife represents Jesus.”
I don’t like that language, males as Holy God and females as his Son. There’s already enough confusion and gender-bending in modern western cultures. Plus we have no business placing ourselves in those roles, even for instructional purposes. That kinda stuff gets out of hand fast.
Similarly, I’m not big on the Jesus as Groom and Church as Bride metaphor. These are some of the most courageous men God ever created, and they definitely don’t relate to Jeshua as a ‘bride’ — except in the area of obedience.
@Spacetraveler
I don’t think you actually read the article by your comments. And it doesn’t appear you understood my comments.
Spacetraveler, she was very clearly talking about the wife’s mother-in-law (see below), either way though, I think the man should have used this as a time to simply stand up to her tantrum behavior and put his foot down.
From Carlotta:
“I think it would make her shudder to have her Mother in law show up “unexpectedly” for dinner while this was happening. I saw the other comments where a husband is left with no recourse. There are plenty of other cultures where the mother in law keeps the daughter in laws in check. I don’t think she would lose respect for him. I mean if he cried and called his mother, then yes. But to very calmly call her and have her show up is a different story.”
Spacetraveler,
You said, “But at least she is sincere in her dealings with her husband. And she seems to be doing her duty, at his side, where she should be.
That is good enough for me.
He (husband) does not seem to be complaining, so neither will I.
The ones I feel bad for are the ones who have serious complaints about their horrible wives who will NOT break china, but will break their marriages and families – a far worse crime.”
It’s not that she’s not broken her family… it’s that she’s broken her **husband.**
Carlotta,
“I don’t think you actually read the article by your comments. And it doesn’t appear you understood my comments.”
You are sadly correct on the first count. Honestly, just too busy, and I haven’t yet taken the time to read the article or study this Kathy woman and her husband, to get a feel for the dynamic between them. Certainly an error on my part. My excuse? It’s Christmas, and I’ve been (aherm) active in the kitchen, so only skimped by with this post. My bad, apologies.
You may also be right on the second count. It is also possible of course that we simply disagree fundamentally on how a husband ought to manage his less-than-pleasing wife.
I am willing to concede that my way is not a universally workable way – i.e. just betweeen man and wife, and no-one else.
I suspect this may well be a personality thing (?). For sure, my way works very well for two individuals who are by their very nature intensely introspective and introverted, I can tell you that!
Let’s agree to disagree here, please.
Dragonfly,
Aha, thanks for clearing up WHOSE mother-in-law we are talking about…
Again faulty reading comprehension on my part.
Maybe the confusion is because Carlotta was talking about HER mother-in-law and Cane was talking about HIS mother-in-law…
I have a question for you regarding the broken husband thing. I think my problem here is that I cannot fathom that a guy who is so content with his wife can be ‘broken’.
I am sure I am missing a trick here. Clearly you and others can see something that has completely escaped me. Please help me understand :). I would like to understand this as I have never considered this a remote possibility. I have a long way to go regarding this phenomenon.
I would love your take on this – to everyone else as well. Please, enlighten me.
Once again, a very merry Yuletide to all of you and your families.
@CaneCaldo, Keller has explicitly denied being an emerging church leader. He acknowledges reaching much of the same crowd (young, urban 20-somethings), but he was never “against” stuff. For example, unlike the uber-hip Mars Hill, Redeemer is a pretty standard issue Presbyterian church in its service style. He founded it in 1989, so a long time back. Piper joined Bethlehem Baptist in 1983. Those guys are of an older generation than the emerging church people. Piper is retired and Keller is on the path to retirement as he slowly transitions out of Redeemer.
Where Keller and Piper do belong with Driscoll is in the new Calvinst movement that dominates certain parts of the evangelical world.
I’m assuming the kind of church you are talking about is something like Hillsong NYC:
http://www.gq.com/story/inside-hillsong-church-of-justin-bieber-kevin-durant
“What would the agree and amplify look like here, Carlotta?”
He silently walks over and takes another plate, throws it at high speed velocity against the wall with a loud smash. Children run and duck for cover.
Where were the children during all of this, I wonder? And what were they learning by observation?
“See, children, when your mother smashes plates it’s all in the spirit of a “Godly tantrum”.
I sit down sheepishly trembling and plead that I am “listening now”. And she is so right! What a woman!”
I only read the “Godly tantrum” section but it was pretty nauseating. If a man had been shattering dishes….good grief, never mind.
SpaceTraveler – Merry Christmas to you, too!
You said, “I have a question for you regarding the broken husband thing. I think my problem here is that I cannot fathom that a guy who is so content with his wife can be ‘broken’.
I am sure I am missing a trick here. Clearly you and others can see something that has completely escaped me. Please help me understand :). I would like to understand this as I have never considered this a remote possibility. I have a long way to go regarding this phenomenon.
I would love your take on this – to everyone else as well. Please, enlighten me.”
I didn’t mean broken in a depressive, damaged, and emotional way, but rather “broken” like how someone would train an animal (horse), to bend them to your will.
Space Traveler it’s time to make another sammich. That hamster is playing with your sensibilities.
Dragonfly,
Thanks for your answer.
I think I see what you mean. I finally took the plunge and read some of the material about this couple. Suddenly less busy, as the ‘rush hour’ so to speak of Xmas is over, I finally took Carlotta’s advice and did the required reasearch.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Mr. Keller does seem somewhat ‘bluepill’ in his writings, but that may be because I, like you perhaps, and many others in this online community are saurated with ‘red pill’ thinking.
Still, he speaks highly of his wife. Should THAT not be the benchmark by which we judge her suitability as wife? If the customer is happy, then what’s the problem?
Should we not be happy for this bloke?
So many other men are not so lucky…
Or perhaps, is it that we think he is broken because but he is so stuck in blue-pill land that he does not realise that he is under the thumb of a bossy wife??
I rest my case here, because I start now to get the impression I seem troll-like with my line of thinking. 🙂
By the way, I briefly visited your blog, and saw a video of yours.
I love your quiet, softly-spoken voice, if I may say so.
I also have the impression that Carlotta and I would normally agree on lots of issues. But sadly, for some odd reason, not this issue about calling in outsiders to deal with a wife who is having a tantrum.
I much prefer yours and Liz’s way – i.e. that the man handles this himself, whether it’s ‘agree and amplify’ or silence, or stern words or whatever. He is the Boss. He is the one witnessing the undesired behaviour. He deals with it. By himself.
JDG,
“Space Traveler it’s time to make another sammich. That hamster is playing with your sensibilities.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahha, JDG. Thanks for lightening the mood. 🙂
The house is currently full of my ‘sammiches’. Leftovers everywhere. I could well make another one, but everyone’s too full, so it would go to waste. 🙂
Pingback: She only acted crazy to get her own way. | Dalrock
Gosh, I just saw this comment by Petw, which makes my point (emphasis mine):
“I don’t think it’s such a big deal for somebody to freak out and do something stupid like smash wedding dishes . We are all human. Calling it a godly tantrum is a stretch.
I only wish my wife would have taken such action to get my attention. However the first time she used the word divorce was when she filed. Before I knew what was going on she had emotionally divorced me and just continued down that path ..
Yes I was guilty of bad behavior but nothing that warrants divorce . Now I am fighting against cash and prizes including lifetime alimony for a woman with two masters degrees who refuses to work more than part-time and refuses to work at a job she doesn’t like. She moved out a year and a half ago yet I’m still supporting her and my lawyer tells me that I must continue.”
Petw, sorry to hear this. really I am.
The blindsiding must have been devastating.
Indeed, better a woman who smashes the china than one who springs a ‘surprise’. Then at least you know what she is thinking and can take appropriate action before things get irreparable. I don’t advocate the ‘wake up call’ thing, but better to have some kind of heads-up that something is wrong than none at all.
The Trojan-horse move, as in your case, is simply atrocious.
Spacetraveler, “Still, he speaks highly of his wife. Should THAT not be the benchmark by which we judge her suitability as wife? If the customer is happy, then what’s the problem?
Should we not be happy for this bloke?
So many other men are not so lucky…”
^^(Thank you for the compliment 🙂 ) The problem is more with the way she acted and how she completely excuses her bad behavior, how she’s using it as a model that other, presumably younger, women should follow, and couching it in a guise of being “righteous and godly.”
Personally, no, I’m not really happy for him and his family… it gives me kind of the same feeling I get when I hear a husband talk about his wife as being his “better half,” or when a man tells me the adage “Happy Wife = Happy Life!” It’s like these poor men are living in a delusion of some sort, and to me, his example in this story fits in with that delusion….
If they have kids, what on earth are they teaching them with this lesson they’re so proud of? That the wife can manipulate her husband through any means she wants? That adult temper tantrums and lack of self control are “godly,” female behavior?
In a marriage, couples need to talk to each other, not resort to manipulative tricks and tantrums. My husband brought up about this example that he doubted she’d even tried to talk to him respectfully about his working so many hours. She may have brought it up, but in an extremely negative and non-convincing way of whining, or complaining or even shaming him for “not having his priorities right!” Nothing makes a man work more than having to face a wife with this kind of approach in “talking” with him. Sure, she should bring up her concerns, but their example is not a biblical model, them touting it as a biblical or godly model is what’s so disturbing.
Women have lost the art of respectfully discussing with their husbands things they wish could be different. It’s totally fine for them to be honest with their husbands, men actually want a wife’s opinion and honesty, but they don’t want to feel emasculated or disrespected when hearing it – so it matters even more the way a wife will choose to say it, and their tone of voice and behavior in saying it.
“Piper is retired and Keller is on the path to retirement as he slowly transitions out of Redeemer.”
The Lord’s servants do not retire. Serving God is not a career. What a farce Christianity has become.
Kathy Keller is a woman in rebellion. She does not respect or submit to her husband. He is the authority in the home and neither of them recognizes this. They interact as if she is, which is upside down and backwards.
recognizes = recognize
Kathy Keller is a woman in rebellion. She does not respect or submit to her husband. He is the authority in the home and neither of them recognizes this. They interact as if she is, which is upside down and backwards.
If there was a “Top 10 Characteristics of a Churchian Woman List,” this would appear near Number 1.
The Lord’s servants do not retire. Serving God is not a career.
Exactly. My own pastor recently reiterated this point while lamenting the fact that some 1,500 pastors per month worldwide are resigning their positions for various reasons. He just turned 74 years old and is no longer in the best of health, but says that the only one who can make him retire will be the Lord – and probably by making him take a dirt nap.
It certainly does seem obvious today that very few clergy go into the field having been led by God to do so. For most it seems to be a career choice that they make themselves, as if deciding to go into law, medicine, or finance and they treat it the same way. This is part of the reason why I would love to see Protestant seminaries and Bible colleges (if these HAVE to exist) refuse to admit or ordain anyone who hasn’t gotten at least one decade of “time in life” first in a real career. This, I think, would go a very long way toward eliminating “careerists” in the pulpits and in ensuring that anyone entering the ministry was following their calling, not their career plans.
ray @ 2:54 pm:
“The Lord’s servants do not retire. Serving God is not a career.”
For clergy, it is a career like any other and there’s no reason it should be a lifetime posting. There’s no shame in admitting you’re no longer the right guy for the job. There’s great shame in making a career of teaching Christianity and failing at it so badly that you don’t trust anybody you taught to succeed you.
Spacetraveller
Or perhaps, is it that we think he is broken because but he is so stuck in blue-pill land that he does not realise that he is under the thumb of a bossy wife??
Exactly. Tim Keller is broken to harness like a mule, and the tantrum was obviously a turning point. I see far too many men his age (65) and younger who kowtow to their wives, and by extension to all women – far too many of them are serious White Knights, or passive-aggressive manginae.
Dragonfly,
Ah I see. Thank you for your very comprehensive explanation!
Of course I agree that the china thing is hardly anything to brag about, and certainly it is not to be used as an example to ‘teach’ others how to behave to one’s spouse.
I am however stuck at the ‘but they are so happy with each other, let sleeping dogs lie!’ stage that I fail to see anything else wrong with this set-up.
Reminds me actually of a joke made at the beatification of one of the Catholic Church’s most recent saints, Dr. Gianna Molla. It was joked that her husband, who was still alive at the time of her beatification was one of very few men who could factually claim that his wife was a saint!
I am thinking, “but Mr. Keller idolises his wife/thinks she is a saint! Let him be!”
Thanks – I see now why everyone is so upset with this woman. I must leave behind this my latest phase of romaticism and look with my red-pill goggles. 🙂
I blame the hormones.:)
AR,
Yes, I see what you mean now. But at that age, perhaps there is something to be said for such blissful ignorance, though, isn’t there…?
Making a 65 year old man ‘take the red pill’ may well be too much of a shock to the system!
feeriker — That’s a good suggestion and I couldn’t agree more. Many of these ‘pastors’ have little or no life-experience before their appointments to office. Hey works great for satan! They know pretty much zero about the actual world, to say nothing of human behavior. They go to Bible School in their late teens or early twenties, and come out thinking they’re ready to lead Christ’s people. :O)
Some years ago in a small PNW town, I lived next to a Christian church, some denomination or other. Once, coming home, the boy living next door stopped my car and asked me when he would see me in ‘his’ church. He was about twenty, soft-whiskered, already engaged for marriage (lol) and already had been named the Junior Pastor. I told him if I attended his church it’d probably combust spontaneously. That was the last time he suggested that.
Whenever I saw him out front after this, I’d stop the car to tell him that serving God is not a career. He seemed like a good kid you know? but utterly mystified by my words.
Kudos to your pastor. Seventy-four yikes, sounds a lot tougher than me. Indeed, the Lord will let him know when it’s time to ‘retire’.
1 Tim 2:11-12 – “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.”
Spacetraveller
Yes, I see what you mean now. But at that age, perhaps there is something to be said for such blissful ignorance, though, isn’t there…?
No. There is not. Because a blue pill life is not blissful, not at all. Ask me how I know…
Making a 65 year old man ‘take the red pill’ may well be too much of a shock to the system!
Statistically he’s likely to live at least 10 more years, maybe longer, so there’s time for him to digest the Red Pill and enjoy the results, even if only by Gaming his wife into a better state of mind. Not to mention helping any sons, grandsons, nephews, etc. smash their blue pill chains.
Someone once said, “I have never known a man to grow old and stop learning, but I have known many men who stopped learning and grew old”. I dunno who said that, I wish I could claim it.
In support of Dalrock’s point that both her husband and other pastors/Christian leaders have failed in their duties as husband(s) and men by not correcting her thinking about the validity of her tantrum, consider the Westminster Larger Catechism on the obligations of “superiors” (including husbands) toward “inferiors” (including wives):
“129A. It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honour to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them.”
AR,
Yes, you make a very good case for ingesting the Red Pill even at such an old age.
You have successfully convinced me.
🙂
I completely agree with you that one should keep learning in life – until the moment of death.
Even if it hurts, as does the Red Pill.
Happy New Year to you, and everyone.
May 2016 bring us all Blessings, Grace and Peace from the Almighty.
Amen.
Did Tim bill her for the smashed China? He should have.
Did Tim bill her for the smashed China? He should have.
He should have let her continue with her tantrum and made her smash ALL of it – then let her reflect on what she’d done after she calmed down and the aftermath of her behavior was staring her in the face.
Pingback: Just shut up and listen. | The Sunshine Thiry Blog
I’ve read the Meaning of Marriage book, and watched the video of the book launch. I think it was in the video that I heard Kathy give her explanation of helper, and I immediately thought something didn’t sound right.
First, Tim and Kathy are great. They are imperfect too though.
I like Piper and Grudem’s definition of helper instead:
“…The context must decide whether Eve is to “help” as a strong person who aids a weaker one, or as one who assists a loving leader. … God teaches us that the woman is a man’s “helper” in the sense of a loyal and suitable assistant in the life of the garden.”
Temper this with the understanding that biblical headship and authority are for the sake of building up others.
Hi Dalrock. You’ve done the world a great service by sharing your thoughts and learning here on the web (I’m writing from Kenya). There’s a Roman author by the name Publilius Syrus (85-43 B.C.) who, in his book on moral maxims, intimates that the submission of wives is actually one half of a paradox. The maxim itself reads thus: ‘A chaste wife, in obeying her husband, commands him’. (for those pedantic enough to crave the Latin original, it reads ‘casta ad virum matrona parendo imperat’) The paradox is that a woman only gains power over her husband by relinquishing it: a husband is more inclined to consult his wife on all matters, and to even do what she suggests on most occasions, so long as he knows that he has the last word. In other words, most husbands would willingly let their wives lead their homes, provided that they (the husbands) retain the power of veto. I have seen this work in practice here in Kenya, where the Patriarchy still reigns supreme, and leads to very happy and stable marriages. The occasions upon which this power of veto is exercised, are few and far between. I could write more upon the subject, but as I have no assurance that anyone shall read my comment, this shall suffice for now.
Many greetings from Africa.
Pingback: A Failure To Communicate | Donal Graeme
Welcome, Shaka!
“The paradox is that a woman only gains power over her husband by relinquishing it: a husband is more inclined to consult his wife on all matters, and to even do what she suggests on most occasions, so long as he knows that he has the last word.”
That isn’t really power over her husband, it’s trust invested by her husband. Most men in authority are willing to delegate and let their subordinates do their thing; that’s the reason to have subordinates in the first place. But he must have that authority and it must be recognized; otherwise, his wife feels like a competitor to be fought.
That’s why I insist wives must obey their husbands unconditionally. It isn’t just Biblical; the women in my California have proven themselves hopelessly untrustworthy. The Parable of the Talents is relevant to marriage as well as heaven.
Dalrock has a post “Yiayia Wouldn’t Approve” that you might like.
“That isn’t really power over her husband, it’s trust invested by her husband.”
Well and accurately observed, Gunner Q! I stand corrected.
Pingback: Boundaries | Dalrock
Pingback: Not listening. | Dalrock
Pingback: The cult of women’s self esteem. | Dalrock
Pingback: It isn’t insincerity, but fear losing women’s approval. | Dalrock
Pingback: All roads lead to Duluth. | Dalrock
Pingback: What happens when society “puts the pussy on a pedestal”. – Adam Piggott
Pingback: An educated guess. | Dalrock
Pingback: Step up, so they don’t have to (part 1). | Dalrock
Pingback: What does the LC-MS document “When Homes are Heartless” Mean? (part 8 of 10) | theology like a child
Pingback: Women’s self-esteem: boosted to their self-destruction - Fabius Maximus website