Pastor Matt Chandler is at the nexus of the modern complementarian movement. He is a contributor to The Gospel Coalition (TGC), the president of the Acts 29 church planting network and a council member of the ERLC. In the video below Chandler explains to Vice TV why so many evangelicals support President Trump. Chandler argues that as great as President Obama and our recent social justice advances are, the social progress has been too fast for evangelicals to accept:
I think people are frightened. I think people are frightened at the speed at which things are changing culturally. So I think they begin to grasp for something that might help. The Obama presidency, great man, some of his policies and the way he rolled out his policies really really scared evangelicals. And without any kind of real help from Pastors and ministers to help us understand, the news media just whipped us into a frenzy and made people feel desperate.
According to Chandler the problem with the modern church is that it isn’t on the social justice bandwagon, and this is leading to declining membership:
My experience with the de-churched, thats what I would call them, those who grew up in the church and have left, is that it is a sense of hypocrisy they have picked up on, a kind of cowardice among the church to address things that are serious and significant pains of our day. So whether that be domestic violence that the church has been just painfully quiet on or even things like racial reconciliation. Which means that if you step into these spaces you are going to draw a lot of flack from the evangelical world.
He is especially concerned that Christians are sinning in their opposition to the gay and trans agendas:
But I think especially around topics like homosexuality where we are quick to say it’s a sin. Which I’m not going to disagree that I would think from the scriptures that it’s not ultimately what God intends, but to pretend like we’re not talking about human beings with souls, who sometimes are deeply conflicted it’s just a great error. And to be right the wrong way is to be wrong.
…
I think some of the blind spots on the left is that the left, specifically city left, feels like the country is more progressive than it actually is, and the more it presses, the more it makes conservatives dig in their heels. The bathroom bill had passed, and I’m telling you people were terrified by that bathroom bill, more than anything else the thought that their children were going to be in a bathroom with the opposite sex, and I know all of arguments around that, but I’m using the language that I think would make sense to most conservatives, that made them go “whoever the opposition is to that I’m voting for” and then they lost their soul on that, many of them did.
Chandler looks back and sees Christianity as having been on the wrong side of history when it comes to the culture wars. But oddly he doesn’t see the accelerating social justice movements of the last 50 years as an assault on Christian morality. He sees the church as having suddenly and mysteriously started to mistreat women, gays, and transsexuals over the last 50 years:
I think you are going to see what we’ve already seen probably three or four times in Christian history. There are going to be those that try to reach the world by becoming like the world. And then there are going to be those that try to by the grace of God hold fast to orthodox Christian faith in a way that’s compassionate and kind, and they are going to have to weather the backlash of all of the wrong that has been done in the name of Jesus in the last 50 years.
This is the complementarian frame in a nutshell. Christianity existed for 2,000 years, and then a group of social justice reformers decided that Christianity was anti woman. Complementarians responded by agreeing with nearly everything the anti Christian “reformers” had argued, but kept just enough of the old teaching to be able to point to themselves as theoretically different from the reformers, even though in practice there is virtually no difference. Then immediately after praising the reformers, complementarians denied that the reformers ever existed. This way they can deny that they are at war with 2,000 years of Christian doctrine, because the only thing that changed was the church suddenly started mistreating women (and gays, and transexuals) 50 years ago and complementarians are restoring the old order. This kind of doublethink is farcical, but it really is baked into the complementarian view.
H/T Darwinian Arminian
I suggest that men with The Glasses view this vid twice, first with the audio off, second with the audio on. The body language of both Chandler and the girl from Vice is easier to read without audio. Then with the audio on pay no attention to what either is saying, just listen to the tone and pacing. Who is really in charge in this interaction? Who is self confident and who is self-doubting, maybe even self-hating?
Chandler is typical of far too many church leaders in his cringing, self-abasing, Betatude. It wouldn’t be so serious if he weren’t a major factor in the Protestant church world.
That’s so brave of him to completely agree with the world.
Group 1:
There are going to be those that try to reach the world by becoming like the world.
Group 2:
And then there are going to be those that try to by the grace of God hold fast to orthodox Christian faith in a way that’s compassionate and kind, and they are going to have to weather the backlash of all of the wrong that has been done in the name of Jesus in the last 50 years.
What tragic blind spot to have, that he can’t see that he is part of group 1 but thinks he is part of group 2. Provided this is a blind spot and not just a cynical lie to decieve the members of group 2 and convince them to join group 1.
“…the way he rolled out his policies really really scared evangelicals.”
Scared? Hardly, you weasel. It freaking disgusted us.
Chandler is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
“Depart from me, I never knew you.”
1- chandler isn’t a qualified elder
2- no one ever said trump wasn’t immoral. Quite frankly, he isn’t a Christian. But he has been Christianity’s greatest friend in the whitehouse for decades, if not since Truman
Does anyone else get the vibe that chandler is gay?
I’m confused, I thought that Complemetarians were red pill and Egalitarians were blue pill. Doesn’t ‘Complementarian’ mean the belief that traditional male and female gender roles of headship and submission complement one another?
Chandler sounds he is 100% behind Obama, 100% against Trump, and thinks pastors just should have helped Evangelicals better in order to side with Obama, whereas he thinks Evangelicals were whipped in a frenzy by the media, which caused them to vote for Trump. Chandler : “they lost their soul in it”. He talks about Evangelicals and “all the wrong that has been done in the name of Jesus in the last 50 years”.
I don’t consider myself a core Evangelical, but I deeply sympathize with the movement, especially as it was in the 70s and 80s, it produced some great men and theologians, I still enjoy to read. Since the 90s it seems to have taken some turns for the worse. If Chandler is the future of Evangelicalism, I don’t have high hopes.
I see some major issues within the movement:
1. no focus on holy living, no focus on avoidance of sin, no focus on discipleship
2. big influence of feminism, which has led to a feminized, over-emotional church
3. “Divorce is now the scandal of the evangelical conscience” (Albert Mohler)
4. lack of focus on doctrine
5. unhealthy influence of all kind of charismatic/pentecostal heresies/cult behavior.
Matt Chandler is one of those pastors who makes me wonder if an overwhelming number of “church leaders” in America don’t actually believe in Christianity, and the congregations are unaware of that fact or in denial about how bad their theology is. Every answer Chandler gives indicates he is embarrassed to be associated with Christianity and would prefer to be associated with people from VICE, if only his sheeple would get with the program faster.
Trump was certainly immoral, but is he now? Was Obama a paragon of virtue in the past? I find that very hard to believe.
@Lexet. In another era I would posit whether the Pope’s Catholic (but that seems moot now). His interpretation of muscular Christianity (https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/mad-dog-chandler-on-toxic-masculinity/) was so flaming it looked like a closeted vignette from an ’80’s sitcom.
The problem isn’t (as BillyS alluded to) that Chandler is as wolf in sheep’s clothing, It’s that he’s a sheep in suspenders trying to be a wolf.
Yes. Though he’s possibly an omega male thrust into a position of authority by becoming a pastor and doesn’t know how to lead. He does so by fragging all of the men around him and elevating their women as his base. He seems to be particularly against the sins of the past which means, “old people.” When the new guard starts throwing out all of the traditions and customs of the old guard in the name of progress, progress is what you’ll get and you’ll get it good and hard.
The SBC, TGC, and all of these other acronym organizations are on their way out, along with the PCA. I suspect there are fewer than 30 million Bible-believing Christians in the US at this point.
The Question: Matt Chandler is one of those pastors who makes me wonder if an overwhelming number of “church leaders” in America don’t actually believe in Christianity, and the congregations are unaware of that fact or in denial about how bad their theology is.
An awful lot of “Christians” (especially women) think that being judged is heinously anti-Christian. (I say “being judged,” because these “Christian” women have no problem judging others.) For them, Christianity is about an all-loving, all-forgiving, nonjudgmental God. What I’ve termed the Mr. Rogers version of Christianity:
I mentioned a “Christian” woman I once knew. An fortysomething “actress” in Hollywood. (Hardly ever worked.) Very high N count, abortions under her belt, hardcore Democrat, defended her gay nephew’s lifestyle, and considered herself a devout Christian. Favorite TV show: Touched by an Angel. Angels were a big part of her theology.
She hated Republicans, and felt justified as a Christian in doing so. Republicans were so judgemental. She liked to say (of any Christian who disagreed with her), “They have the Word, but not the Spirit.” She claimed to have both Word and Spirit.
@A Dude
The confusion is intentional. Just like Chandler is claiming orthodoxy while pushing the gay agenda, complementarians (including Chandler) push feminism while pretending to follow biblical sex roles.
Chandler is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I’d take it a step further and opine he’s the Hamster incarnate.
To have total victory is not to defeat your enemy but to have them adopt and promote your position. What is the HBO agenda is it to communicate the gospel ? Why are they giving evangelicals a platform ? Is this just a victory lap to show how much progress the left has made in the war ? It doesn’t seem like propaganda then it must be something else
“Not ultimately what God intended” is not even close to how the Bible handles sodomy.
Wow. I never followed Chandler when I used to read TGC, but what you excerpted is stunning.
He really believes what he is saying.
Now you guys know what it’s like going to my church, one of the ones Kevin Deyoung of TGC pastored. Not a Trump supporter or voter in the elder or leadership circle.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Pingback: Loud and proud complementarians: Pastor Matt Chandler. | Reaction Times
haha. Good one. It is disturbing how many “reformed” people are into this guy.
No. You would think that complementarians would view marriage from the “helpmeet” perspective, but in reality, the husband has a symbolic spiritual role, and scriptures commanding women to work at home, etc. are written off. They can be confused with traditional values, though, because their deviation from it does not look significant on paper.
“According to Chandler the problem with the modern church is that it isn’t on the social justice bandwagon, and this is leading to declining membership”
Ha ha. If anything, the embrace of the social justice crowd has driven many great members away. Including me. I had a great, traditional pastor of a PCUSA congregation (he was probably one of the last) until he retired seven years ago. The second time I heard the phrase “social justice” spoken seriously by the new pastor I walked out the door and never returned(the first time I heard it, I was unsure of the context, so I gave the benefit of doubt).
Does anyone else get the vibe that chandler is gay?
While I wouldn’t go so far to call him a homo, I’d admit his mannerisms are clearly unmanly. Those gesticulations are sometimes overdone.
Trump was certainly immoral, but is he now? Was Obama a paragon of virtue in the past? I find that very hard to believe.
Aren’t they all the same? Clinton is a philanderer, and got a blow job in the WH from a 22 year old smitten intern; Obama is a habitual liar, and was into weeds; the rest of his history is carefully hidden; Trump paid prostitutes. And, when you go back far enough, you realize that most presidents have done horrible things both before and during their tenures.
Matt Chandler is one of those pastors who makes me wonder if an overwhelming number of “church leaders” in America don’t actually believe in Christianity, and the congregations are unaware of that fact or in denial about how bad their theology is.
Your observation is right on the money. The Church has long been infiltrated by nonchristians who pretend to be ministers. The Roman catholic church was infiltrated by homosexuals during the Stalin era, long before all the scandals in the church became commonplace.
Unfortunately, most Christians don’t study their bibles on their own, so they are easily deceived by unscrupulous pretenders in the pulpit.
If Chandler isn’t out and proud he’s a closet case, guy looks and acts queer as a 3 dollar bill.
Pingback: On Biblical Divorce, Pt. 2 | The Lexet Blog
This is modern Molok worship.
Feed your child into the fire of the feminazi %98 female K-12 “system.”
Dave,
I remain convinced that Obama forged the leaked birth certificate, but he got away with it so it is irrelevant. (Though it puts to a lie that we are really under laws now – laws are for the little people.)
I doubt Trump is doing that now, nor that Reagan or even Bush I or II did those things in office. I would have to go back to Carter to find one I expect was relatively moral in office. (Many of both parties were stupid, but the Democrats have a lock on sleaze in my voting lifetime.
@Keith To have total victory is not to defeat your enemy but to have them adopt and promote your position.
One of the most shocking examples must be the priest played by Liam Neeson depicted in the excellent and overwhelming Scorsese movie ‘Silence’.
I remain convinced that Obama forged the leaked birth certificate, but he got away with it so it is irrelevant.
If that were true, what does it say about the abilities of the CIA and the FBI to vet political aspirants? Remember that there must have been whistleblowers in those organizations when Obama was being vetted, such that, even if there was a cover up by the government, some people would not have been on board.
I once worked at a military hospital. The FBI did a background check, and I have to tell you, they did a thorough job before I was employed. If Obama was an implant, he would have been exposed, not only by the intelligence organizations, but by his political opponents.
I believe the guy was born here. As a student, he presumably enjoyed all the benefits of a citizen. As an employee, long before he ran for office, he probably enjoyed citizenship status.
Dave,
It is called the deep state.
And by his birth certificate, I mean he was not properly born in the US as is required for a president, not that he was a foreign plant. I think he was a useful idiot for those behind the scenes, but that is another story. The Deep State also exists. They can cover for whoever they want.
Hillary Clinton’s email server shows that the ones you note don’t give a hoot if the politics are correct.
You simply don’t get to be President by being a “good guy”. The position is too powerful, and it is too competitive to get it, so you have to have a ruthless personality, inside, in order to get it. The difference with Trump is that he shows this ruthlessness publicly, whereas most of the past Presidents have hidden it — that’s the “rule” that Trump broke, primarily. Everything else about him that the elite class hates flows from that.
Obama had a very well cultivated public image. Prior to entering politics, the details of his life are more obscure,and that was deliberate. We know he was a smoker (even when he became President he was still a smoker),but that was hidden away. We can reasonably guess there was drug use. We also know that he used to date white women before he became more interested in pursuing politics, and that his marriage to Michelle, who was from a very politically well-connected, very credibly black (not 1/2 like Obama) family in Southside Chicago that could help him brand himself in a way that was politically useful for himself. But otherwise we don’t know many details, because his life story has been heavily curated. We know Trump’s details because he has lived a very public, and very messy, life. The messiness in Obama’s life is hidden. Bush 41 was also very private, but by the time we got to Bush 43, his entire life history was quite well known because his father was 41. The last President who had an obscure and relatively unknown earlier life when elected was Bill Clinton, and of course he turned out to have massive skeletons in the closet hiding in plain sight.
Power doesn’t attract saints, folks. People who want power want it for a reason — either to empower themselves personally (power trip) or to impose their ideas on everyone else (idealists … note idealists aren’t “good” or “saintly”, most of the time, they are just motivated by wanting to impose their ideas on others). You have to expect that this what we’re going to have as Presidents, even if in some cases you can’t see the grime that arises from that because they have covered their tracks well enough.
“… what does it say about the abilities of the CIA and the FBI to vet political aspirants?”
Neither the CIA or FBI vets political candidates. It’s not their job.
“You simply don’t get to be President by being a “good guy”.”
And that includes Jimmy Carter. Carter rose to governor in GA, when Georgia was a one-party (Democrat), good ol’ boy political system state, where politics was done in back rooms (this is the reason so many of Carter’s appointees–like Burt Lance–got in trouble once under a national spotlight). You don’t get the to the top of that kind of state system by being a boy scout, and Carter wasn’t.
“And by his birth certificate, I mean he was not properly born in the US as is required for a president, not that he was a foreign plant.”
Obama had one parent (mother) who was a US citizen. Same as Ted Cruz, who was born on foreign soil, yet considered a natural born citizen by the GOP faithful.
Personally, I consider the murkiness of Obama’s background compared to the spotlight shined on other’s backgrounds to be a sign of a double standard in the press and academia. Heck, they even made an issue out of Romney’s high school activities. But, Obama’s life (including passports, school records, applications, associations, and wrong SSN) is still a mystery.
Every couple of years the media celebrates a new generation of Evangelicals who are bravely questioning the old doctrines without realizing that this has been the pattern of American religion since colonial times. Liberalism and Evangelicalism both have no historical memory so both always think it is a struggle between brand new forces of progress against old time religion when it is a 300 year old pattern. Liberal Christianity is in fact the traditional default religion of America and there are various reactions against it: the great awakenings, fundamentalism, “small-o orthodoxy”, etc.
Liberal Christianity is unstable because people eventually figure out that you can be a better liberal if you drop the Christian part. The reaction movements are unstable because they unconsciously accept a lot of liberal presuppositions. So what you get is this repeating fugue.
Truman? What’s he got to do with it? Ike maybe.
Probably TRYING to be a sheepdog, but hasn’t learned to distinguish between the sheepdogs and the wolves, so he’s picked the wrong role models.
It comes down to this, behind all the fancy differentiation: wolves serve themselves and their packs. Sheepdogs serve the Shepherd.
Okay, for those three of us from the backcountry, what’s a “very high N count”? Number of notches in her heartbreak gun?
If his mother (one-parent rule) was a US citizen when he was born, then he WAS
… born a U.S. citizen, even if he was born in Kenya. Non-issue.
Good write up. Amazing anyone goes to church.
No U.S. soil requirement exists, I believe. The POTUS just has to be a citizen from birth.
His religious convictions are the reason the US recognized Israel and supplied them with armament
It’s her number of sexual partners. As to what “very high” means, it depends on who you ask, In this forum, anything higher than 0 for a never married woman is “very high”. Out in the secular world double digit counts are considered acceptable, and you can still put a ring on it without being considered a chump.
In fact, marrying a woman with offspring from two or more lovers is also considered acceptable in the current secular culture.
I didn’t know that. Thank you.
From Chandler:
“My experience with the de-churched, thats what I would call them, those who grew up in the church and have left, is that it is a sense of hypocrisy they have picked up on, a kind of cowardice among the church to address things that are serious and significant pains of our day.”
Hey, that’s true!
“So whether that be domestic violence that the church has been just painfully quiet on or even things like racial reconciliation.”
Aw $%*#! Full cognitive dissonance. What does Chandler hear when he sees our lips move?
“Which I’m not going to disagree that I would think from the scriptures that it’s not ultimately what God intends, but to pretend like we’re not talking about human beings with souls, who sometimes are deeply conflicted it’s just a great error. And to be right the wrong way is to be wrong.”
Okay, fine, I asked a stupid question and got a stupid answer: CARE-BASED MORALITY!
What about Jefferson and that fifteen year old quatroon? American politics is immensely interesting and equally confusing – as is American religion. It was only a few weeks ago that I suddenly realised that a song that I have known since it was new – Satisfaction by The Rolling Stones – may not be as I had assumed about different brands of cigarettes. Call me naive. Never done drugs (other than the legal ones like Paracetemol).
No, complementarian means that the husband is the wife’s servant. He is responsible for all her bad behaviours. He has an obligation to meet her every demands, but she has no obligation to meet any of his demands. He has no authority over his wife. He is a LINO (Leader In Name Only).
@ JJ Griffing
“If his mother (one-parent rule) was a US citizen when he was born, then he WAS… born a U.S. citizen, even if he was born in Kenya. Non-issue. No U.S. soil requirement exists, I believe. The POTUS just has to be a citizen from birth.”
Why are you rehashing Obama’s legitimacy for the presidency, and why are you injecting your own interpretation of things instead of the law at the time he was born? You are wrong.
Barack Obama Senior was not an American citizen.
The law, as reported on the Snopes article, was that, in the event of being born outside the country, where one parent was a citizen, it would have required her to have been a citizen residing in the US or US Territory for at least 5 years after her 16th birthday. Ted Cruz’s mother met this hurdle. Stanley Ann Dunham did not; she was under 21 when Barack Obama was born.
Therefore, it could ONLY have been by being born within the territorial boundaries of the United States that he would have been a citizen from birth. Otherwise, he would have been a Kenyan. Now, he was born in Hawaii, and so he has citizenship by location of birth.
This seems really off-topic, but you’ve come here to say a weird falsehood, and I’m not sure why.
A Dude,
Your understanding of complementarian is strictly correct, however the general belief here is that it means something entirely different. That is, complementarianism was never intended to mean such a thing, but was simply a false front, a means to induce Christians to accept feminism and other progressive philosophies as acceptable Christian beliefs. Reading the recent posts on “loud and proud complementarians” and the comments may help with your confusion.
Obama’s real father more than likely is Frank Marshall Davis. Obama called him Pops in his book and spent most summers with him. He is tall like Frank and has skin tags and the chin and the crease between the top lip and the bottom of the nose. Frank was the photographer for Obama;s mothers nude pics in the 50’s.
http://www.obamasrealfather.com/
…(and gays, and transsexuals)….
As if the two even really need to be discussed separately. The only difference between the two is that a tranny relies on false advertising.
This angers me.
As a Christian who abandoned the stupid accommodation with Progressivism about 10 years ago ( out of university, I never questioned it), I have had to stand up to the retarded idea that I’m somehow ”scared” of:
-”Strong, Independent women”
-Homosexuality
-Intersexuality
-Transgenderism
-My wife earning more than me
-My children developing unbiblical sex lives
I have consistently found the premise insulting, I’m not scared by any of this. I just see it as tragic – because it ends in nothing but self-harm and loneliness. I am angered because I see it as immoral, in that it is being rammed down our throats with a zeal that if only our evangelists could muster.
This agenda is not ”progressive”. It is regressive: It will turn our youth into underachievers, shrink our tax base, and generally make our futures unsustainable.
\As such, it has never scared me. It has mightily angered me. At least I could find refuge in the church….
….And here we have an evangelical, Chandler, rolling with it.
Matt Chandler: the Risen Christ is going to have a message for you on That Day:
”14To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Originator of God’s creation. 15I know your deeds; you are neither cold nor hot. How I wish you were one or the other! 16So because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to vomit you out of My mouth!…
Revelation 3:14-16.
“This is the complementarian frame in a nutshell. Christianity existed for 2,000 years, and then a group of social just reformers decided that Christianity was anti woman. Complementarians responded by agreeing with nearly everything the anti Christian “reformers” had argued, but kept just enough of the old teaching to be able to point to themselves as theoretically different from the reformers, even though in practice there is virtually no difference”
Really into statement. Social justice Warriors are a bane of Christianity
A Dude,
Complementarianism, as OKRickety said, is a lie. The problem is, it sounds great on paper. They say one thing but mean something else entirely. The goal, this something else, is feminism and ultimately the destruction of the church. Thus has already happened in Europe and in the old mainline dominations here. I’m speaking from a Protestant prospective.
A perfect example is the below linked broadcast from Dobson, a heavyweight in the movement. He started Focus on the Family, which went overtly progressive/feminist after his departure. During his tenure it was quite hidden unless one knew how to look.
http://www.drjamesdobson.org/Broadcasts/family-talk-weekend-broadcast?i=2ac3b63e-676f-44f8-8eb3-7853bc7705d4
I encourage you to listen carefully to this drivel. The guest started the Love and Respect ministry and became a millionaire due to exposure on FotF broadcasts. He uses the usual script to blame mean old men for everything, but does it in a way that’s difficult to spot. One example:
But I came across The Ephesians 5:33, and it’s the summary statement to the greatest treatise in the new testament on marriage. And it’s a summary that says, “A husband must love his wife and a wife must respect her husband.” Now, I knew there wasn’t any controversy with the first part, that husbands ought to love, but I realized, “Whoa, this isn’t particularly a welcomed idea that women ought to respect their husbands,” ’cause women have said, “Well, Dr. Emerson, I don’t feel the respect for him, it’d be hypocritical for me to show it, he’s not superior to me, that’s the dictionary definition of respect. You show respect to your superiors. I’m not inferior to him, I’m not gonna be treated like a doormat. I’m not gonna give him license to do what he wants. I really think you’re trying to return to male patriarchy and I’m not gonna do that. I’m not gonna lose a sense of self or identity, I’m not gonna set the feminist team back 50 years. I’m not gonna subject myself to emotional abuse, but”-
From the very beginning, Eggerichs accepts the feminist revision of biblical commands.
Then he says this:
”
“You can win a disobedient husband,” verse Peter three, verses one and two, “through respectful behavior,” and I realized the bible never commands a wife to agape love her husband, only husbands are commanded to do this unconditional God-like love. And so, I began to sense that I was on to something, ’cause I had missed it myself as a pastor and I realized, “Whoa, no one’s talking about respecting a man because that flies like a Led Zeppelin right? I mean no one really buys into that.”
”
Sounds great, right? Listen for the rest. It turns into *men submit to your wives’ wants and needs* without actually saying it.
https://www.drjamesdobson.org/Broadcasts/Broadcast?i=96c51734-28ae-41a9-aa03-c06872814ab9
There’s Part 2 if you can make it that far.
Chandler is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I seriously begin to wonder if there are any real sheep left, or were they all devoured and “skin-suited” by the wolves they thought they could defeat by befriending and accommodating?
Dalrock nailed this one. The only national pastor that speaks correctly on this is John McArthur to my knowledge, and he says it in as gentle a fashion as he can. Both my wife and I have a favorite verse when it comes to our 37 year relationship. It is the warning to Adam that “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, cursed is the ground on account of you.” I do hear and “listen” to my wife on every major decision. I place great weight on her opinions. However, she is very glad that in the end it is my decision, under God, and that I alone must answer to God for our disobedience of Him. For decades I have gone to a small men’s group at 6AM. She once physically kicked me out of bed when I claimed to be too tired with the admonition that I had to go pray and seek pardon for our sins (not in terms of salvation, but in terms of discipline here). My wife understands that her obedience to me is a shield for her, as my obedience to Christ is a shield to us (on those occasional times I do obey). The parliamentarian position of today is a rear guard action of a surrendering Church. Even so, the great apostasy must come before His return as Laodicea replaces Philadelphia. My wife is a precious ruby, and just as rare.