I think you want a wife...

(Tim) I received a poem by e-mail this past week and asked its author if she would allow me to post it. Here we have a short summary, wonderfully conceived, of the two paths women choose today, one which ends in death and the other in life.

The last few days, our home has been graced by my mother-in-law, Margaret West Taylor, who's visiting for the week. As I think about her sacrificial life, I also look around at other women of my own family and church and I praise God for their godliness! It's hard to conceive of the full spectrum of leadership these women exert among the sons, brothers, pastors, elders, deacons, and husbands, let alone children and other women, as we watch them lose their lives.

Here, then, is the text I received:

* * *

I Think You Want a Wife

Written by, to, and for a woman who thinks far too much of herself to surrender her life for her husband; but ultimately, to God.

I think you want a wife, not a husband.
Someone to join with
you, to make
you into your true self, to follow
you wherever
your heart leads.

A man to validate
your feelings, make
you sure of who
you are.

You realize your full potential.

I think you want a wife, not a husband.
 

One to support
your work, to stand by
your side,
affirming, affirming, affirming, affirming, affirming, affirming
affirming, affirming, adoring, affirming, affirming, affirming

to make you feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel
Worthy of you

A wife - who worships
you.
sleeps
dreams
wakes
lives
for you.

Who demands no loss of self
no submission
no obedience.

Who is your god?

You
are salvation
a deity
Isis herself

---------------------------------------

Will you be a wife?

Lay
you in the casket

To be one man's
Help
Mate

To follow
respect
submit
obey

Will you stand behind a man?
Purge
you of dignity
you of self-determination

Will you be weak
so He will be strong?

Will you be a wife?
to
one
man

Rid
you of ambition

He
is you now

u
disappear

-Mrs. Joseph Tate Bayly VI

Comments

Ouch! It's beautiful. Thank you, but Ouch all the same.

Kamilla

This is really interesting, looking at this and thinking what a secular woman would think. My boss is a woman who's got pictures of Rosie the Riveter all over her office.

A woman doesn't have any fulfillment until she fills the role God created her for, just as a man doesn't. The poem for a husband would be, you don't want a wife but a husband or rather, you don't want a wife but a mother. It can be very appealing to a man to have a woman take care of things - after all, she's just a capable woman, nothing wrong with that, but both are diminished in such a relationship.

That was wonderful. Thanks for posting.

Would anyone here have examples of single Christian women doing this? (how the world acts is not my immediate concern).

Challenging Christian single men to 'want a wife, not a mother' (Clint's comment above) does have some merit, and is something to think about, indeed.

Clint asks "what a secular woman would think"-- and ta da! here I am! A couple of thoughts sprang to mind when I read this poem.

My first thought was, "Bwahahaha! Of course I want a wife! Who doesn't want a wife?" Even Gloria Steinem noted this a million years ago when she said, "Every woman needs a wife." As I strive to meet the example my father set for me in his professional life, I often think of how wonderful it must have been for him to have my mother doing all the routine tasks of home and child care, so that he could focus on his work like a laser beam. Indeed, when my mother stayed with me for a couple of days once when I was working, it was wonderful to come home at the end of a long day and find that she had scrubbed my kitchen floor, scrubbed my bathroom, had dinner-and-a-cocktail waiting for me, and was eager listen to all my adventures of the day. I thought, "No wonder so many men of my father's generation opposed women in the workplace! Who would ever want to give this up?!?"

My second more serious thought was that, in reality, luxurious though it may be, neither my husband nor I would want the other to take on the traditional helpmeet role of the wife. We would both feel uncomfortable accepting that type and level of sacrifice from a partner (regardless of the provide-and-protect reciprocal sacrifices traditionally expected of the male partner). Regardless of how comfortable and pleasant it might make our lives, that kind of arrangement would be (a) inconsistent with our values and (b) put a wedge in our relationship.

My third thought is that this poem seems to confirm a lot of the stereotypes secular women believe about the concept of wifely submission. Submissive women are constantly saying on blogs, "We are not door mats, we have dignity in our marriages, we feel important, we are not children or slaves." Yet this poem talks about the wife worshiping the husband, thinking of him day and night, being purged of her dignity and autonomy and ambition, and essentially disappearing. This poem confirms every secular woman's worst nightmare about traditional marriage, and seems to contradict a lot of efforts by religious writers to minimize what a wife's submission really means.

For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 16:25)

Ross,

No single woman can ever have this relationship with any man apart from grave moral peril to them both. And today, the interaction of men and women in the workplace is a prime breeding ground for domestic train-wrecks, particularly when the relationships in the workplace between a man and woman mirror the relationships in a marriage. Chesterton explains one reason why this is so:

… much of the recent official trouble about women has arisen from the fact that they transfer to things of doubt and reason that sacred stubbornness only proper to the primary things which a woman was set to guard. One's own children, one's own altar, ought to be a matter of principle -- or if you like, a matter of prejudice. On the other hand, who wrote Junius's Letters ought not to be a principle or a prejudice,it ought to be a matter of free and almost indifferent inquiry. But take an energetic modern girl secretary to a league to show that George III wrote Junius, and in three months she will believe it, too, out of mere loyalty to her employers.

Modern women defend their office with all the fierceness of domesticity. They fight for desk and typewriter as for hearth and home, and develop a sort of wolfish wifehood on behalf of the invisible head of the firm. That is why they do office work so well; and that is why they ought not to do it.

To be sure, single femininity and married femininity share a common foundation, viz. femininity. A truly feminine woman will be an industrious mistress of her domain, no matter what it is. Her orientation to others will be helpful and lifegiving. She will, if she is a wise woman, prove a font of counsel to others around her, particularly her leaders. And in all her relationships and works, her modesty paradoxically attracts the approving attention of those responsible for her welfare as well as the solace-seeking attention of those for whom she is responsible.

But, for all the foundation shared by a single woman and a married woman, a single woman does not hold the office of wife to any man--not to her father, nor her brothers, nor to her pastor, nor to her boss in the workplace. That sort of focus, the jealous focus of the wife described in this poem, is for a husband and only for a husband.

Oops. I forgot to give the source of Chesterton's words above. They're from his book What's Wrong With The World, in "Part III: Feminism, Or the Mistake About Women," at the conclusion of the section headed "The Emancipation of Domesticity."

The entire text of this book may be found here:

http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/

Chesterton says: "They fight for desk and typewriter as for hearth and home, and develop a sort of wolfish wifehood on behalf of the invisible head of the firm . . . "

Of course, unlike Chesterton's era, some of us are the head of the firm. :)

To Fr Bill - not sure you understood me - what I was wondering, was whether there was a particular problem with young Christian women choosing to be independent in the way the poem proposes, over getting married.

As for the "you want a mother, not a wife" - this remark is intended for the too many single Christian men who in wanting to be married, are looking for the wrong thing in marriage, as Clint's comment (further above) had identified.

But, Maggie ...

Your situation is not so much a difference between today and Chesterton's day; but, rather, an evolution of what he saw as something wrong with the world.

Women heading the firms is just a different version of women heading the marriage, dontcha know.

Praise God for women like Mrs. Joseph Tate Bayly (VI?), who give me great hope for--or, perhaps more accurately, redirect my terribly wayward focus toward the ultimate Hope-Giver who has the power to redeem--women like Maggie Fox.

"Who demands no loss of self

no submission

no obedience."

According to this great poem, Maggie's husband is her wife.

> [Maggie:] My first thought was, "Bwahahaha! Of course I want a wife! Who doesn't want a wife?"

If your husband doesn't lead, you've essentially got one. Or maybe a girlfriend, since he might not scrub floors and have dinner-and-a- cocktail waiting at the end of your commute.

Egal marriages don't appear to be anything new. They just seem to be old-fashioned female assertiveness blended with male capitulation to the same for the sake of domestic peace and quiet. In other words, I expect egal marriages are female-run (by default, if not overtly). They hold the trump card, since submission is a dirty word, and him expecting anything is a hold-over from caveman days. It is downright abusive (for him) to expect anything. He's got to be re-trained and repent of any of those unpleasant tendancies. A woman is still allowed to expect things, though, starting with her rights. The woman has to always be affirmed with "You go, girl!" It is an artificial equality at best.

> [Maggie:] Regardless of how comfortable and pleasant it might make our lives, that kind of arrangement would be (a) inconsistent with our values and (b) put a wedge in our relationship.

(a) What if your values are inconsistent with God's values? (b) And where does the "wedge" come from, if it would be, as you said, so "comfortable" and "pleasant"? You said yourself, who wouldn't want this sort of wifely devotion? Men need that sort of helper, but some decide it isn't worth the "wedges" of resistance they get.

> As I strive to meet the example my father set for me in his professional life, I often think of how wonderful it must have been for him to have my mother doing all the routine tasks of home and child care

Interesting you say you "strive" to copy your father and not your mother. Sounds pretty backwards to me. Another clue egals seem to tend towards role-reversal. Women must be competitive, men are urged to get in touch with their feminine side.

> [Maggie:] This poem confirms every secular woman's worst nightmare about traditional marriage...

The Bible says [Gen. 3:16] that women will resist the leadership of those they were created to help and desire to rule over them instead. They think that self-assertion is the road to happines and fulfillment. They are sadly mistaken. Feminism teaches competiton with men. Men are not naturally drawn to that in women.

> [Maggie:] ...and seems to contradict a lot of efforts by religious writers to minimize what a wife's submission really means.

Secular women (and men) do not want to submit to God the Father, either. They think they know better and are certain they are happier ignoring God. That is the truoble with sin, it always looks more appealing than obedience. But obedience takes faith, sin doesn't. Obedience is rewarded, sin isn't. Feminism is walking by sight, not by faith. Bad news in the long run, though it may look good from a short-sighted perspective.

--Michael

> [Ross:] Would anyone here have examples of single Christian women doing this? (how the world acts is not my immediate concern).

The former in most cases act like the latter, unfortunately, if you ask me. The culture has saturated the Christian family even more than the church. Yes, there are plenty of exceptions, but they only occur due to a serious commitment to go against the flow and deny self.

Maggie said:

We would both feel uncomfortable accepting that type and level of sacrifice from a partner (regardless of the provide-and-protect reciprocal sacrifices traditionally expected of the male partner).

This is one of the cruelest forms of masturbation I can conceive of.

It is this sort of "value" that requires no sacrifice, and no change...you are who you are apart from your husband...it is this approach to marriage that is the product of a man (or woman) thinking in reference to himself (herself) to the exclusion of the other person...you only see yourself.

When I look at my wife, I see myself.

Craig,

I didn't say that neither my husband nor I believe in sacrificing for each other. Indeed, we have both sacrificed things in our marriage so far, and would even die if each other if we were ever in a situation that called for it. My words were chosen carefully: it is the "TYPE AND level" of sacrifice expected of the woman in wifely submission that is inconsistent with our values, not the concept of sacrifice itself.

Hi Maggie,

I think you're missing Craig's point, though you may need to remove the word "sacrifice" in order to see it. I cringe at the word he used in his first line (it is so very ugly a word) - but I think it is also precisely the right word to use.

There is a beauty in the Christian doctrine of marriage, because it is an icon of the relationship of Christ to his Church. And in that relationship, we must never forget whose life was required. Just so, in marriage, though to our "enlightened" way of thinking a wife's sacrifice may seem to require an unreasonable level of self-denial, it is much less than that called for by the husband.

In my email signature, I quote a writer whom I greatly admire, Anthony Esolen. When discussing some of these same matters he said, "Love does not speak the language of equality. Love speaks the language of wonder, gratitude, and reverence."

Kamilla

Forgive me for questioning what may be obvious, but is the poem suggesting that the wife needs a wife?

Michael,

Lots of points to respond to.

1) I would say my marriage is qualitatively different that just being pals with my husand. Most people who are just pals don't make mutual oaths of loyalty, sexual fidelity, and companionship unto death regardless of circumstances of sickness and health, wealth and poverty, and the other travails of life.

2) I don't think that egalitarian marriages are female-run by default, or that women hold some kind of feminist trump card. The dynamics vary among marriages of course, and "leadership vs. consensus" is often fluid and undefined. Obviously, both parties ought to operate in good faith and not press an advantage over the other -- but that is true in traditional marriages as well.

3) You asked about the wedge that I think would arise if my husband and I took traditional roles. I think separate, strictly defined roles can breed misunderstanding and resentment. Haven't you ever heard a man complain that his homemaker wife doesn't understand the pressure he is under to earn a living? Haven't you ever known a woman who feels her husband doesn't appreciate how hard it is to take care of a home and children all day? Mightn't a husband in a leadership role fear confiding any vulnerability to his wife for fear she won't trust him to lead any longer? If a husband overrules a wife, doesn't resentment and passive-aggression often result?

Sure, having a helpmeet sounds pleasant on the surface, but I see lots of problems.

4) You noted that it seems backwards that I strive to copy my father not my mother. Please note that I said I strive to meet the example he set IN HIS PROFESSIONAL LIFE. I also try to emulate my mother in many other areas. Your main point stands, however, that yes, I was raised to follow in my father's footsteps. I don't think it is backwards. I am living the life my mother should have had the opportunity to choose for herself. My father may be my professional example, but my mother is my inspiration.

5) You mention that it appears that egals are striving for role reversal because we encourage girls to engage in so-called "masculine" behaviors and boys to engage in so-called "feminine" behaviors. But you are perhaps assuming that you can EITHER be "masculine" OR "feminine" whereas egals think you can be BOTH AND. It is not about role reversal. Girls are already encouraged to be nurturing and boys encouraged to be competitive, so there is no reason for egals to make a special point of these things. The idea is for everyone to have an array of qualities and behaviors to draw from rather than being stunted in certain situations because of one's sex.

6) You say Feminism teaches competition with men. Men are not naturally drawn to that in women.

That is contrary to my life experience. As my husband always says: "Confidence is sexy." I think that most people are attracted to members of the opposite sex who display confidence. Also, in America, 88 % of women aged 32 - 44 who earn more than $100,000 a year are married compared with 82% of other women in the same age range* -- so it seems that men are overcoming their supposed lack of attraction to competitive women.

*Source: http://stephaniecoontz.com/articles/article36.htm

Best wishes and thank you for the time you took with your comment,

Maggie

My Dear Sister,

A poignant poem--beautifully sad. Thank you.

Hi Kamilla,

Thanks for your comments. The Esolen quotation has a great deal of personal resonance for me. I agree that power struggles are antithetical to a loving relationship -- been there, done that (prior to my marriage). Love doesn't speak the language of equality because it shouldn't have to.

I do understand the idea that the man is to sacrifice his life for his bride if the situation calls for it. I do understand the reciprocal provider/protector role.

Maggie,

Love doesn't speak the language of equality, not because it *shouldn't* have to, but because it doesn't *want* to. Love seeks the best and thinks the best, equality isn't even in the vocabulary of lovers. Read the Song of Solomon sometime, or the scene in The Tempest were Miranda and Ferdinand declare their love for each other.

That is love. And love, for the husband, is laying his life down every day in little sacrifices. It's easy to step in front of a bullet and say, "Take me instead!". It's not so easy to take the trash out without grumbling.

Kamilla

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to read all of this blog as a husband who loves his wife I can't spend all day doing this while she does work - hopefully later.

Kamilla pointed out what I was gonna say is that a husband must be Christ-like. When my wife and I met, we were both pre-med at Vanderbilt University - she was already accepted to med school there. At that time we sacrificed hugely for that. I didn't feel as a then non-Christian that I could expect her to give up her career - Thankfully she was a Godly woman who helped me to see that she wanted to be a Godly wife even though I couldn't yet see why that was so great.

In the process I gave up my career goals of being a doctor as well and I have given up many jobs I very much wanted so that I could be a true provider for my family - by making sure I was home often, helping in various ways.

The biblical husband sacrifices in countless ways as well - I love the story - don't remember where it was - where a Christian man talks about how his father was a janitor - that he gave up all his own ambition so that his family could have the best. I know several fathers like that - and the wife has the place of honor in those homes while the husband clean toilets etc. As for me I make more money doing computer work yet still have time, but I would be a janitor if it meant being there for my family rather than take the professional job and not.

The poem was one picture of one side of marriage - it takes three to tango.

Clint,

It sounds like you definitely have your priorities in order! I have total respect for people like you who make the tough decision (or perhaps not-so-tough decision, depending on your perspective) to place greater priority on home and family rather than a workaholic work life. I can think of no reason why your wife shouldn't appreciate that.

Side issue -- I have to admit I am dying of curiosity about your relationship with the woman boss with the Rosie the Riveter posters. How do your views on gender roles affect your working relationship with her? Does she know your views? Frankly, I would be shocked if I found out that a man I worked with didn't think I should be in the workplace. I think I could still manage a good working relationship with him assuming the person behaved professionally did not allow his views to affect his work or behavior towards me; but I might be worried that he is trying to undermine me when I am not looking.

Kamilla,

I agree that love doesn't speak the language of equality, AND doesn't want to. But I don't think that love speaks the language of hierarchy and authority either.

Your point had great resonance for me for personal reasons. As a very young woman many years ago, I was deeply in love with a non-egalitarian man. It was a nightmare. His deeply entrenched beliefs in traditional gender roles made me realize (after 3 long years -- yeah I am slow on the uptake) that I had three choices: (a) submit, (b) engage in constant ugly power struggles, or (c) leave. Choice (a) conflicted with my feminism and choice (b) conflicted with my love for this man. Clearly, I had to leave for his sake and mine, and I did. I think a lot of women believe that the only choices are (a) and (b). (In fact, that's kind of the theory behind the Surrendered Wife.) But there is a third way -- to be on the same page with the man as to gender roles before taking vows or falling in love, and if you aren't, get out while you can.

Dear Maggie,

Despite your kind and reasonable and calm presentation, you are a rebel against the order of nature God Himself has ordained. And speaking personally, I wonder at your audacity using my dear daughter-in-law's testimony as a means to seduce others for your rebellion.

Above, you mentioned three options you had to resolve the dilemma of being in love with a man who honored God's commands. There was a fourth.

You could have repented of your rebellion against God and lived with that man in love--as a woman.

Yes, yes; I know you can write endlessly of how unreasonable God is, and how enlightened you are, and how your choice was for the best for everyone, and that the whole world would be a better place if women were free to be men. And of course, how sorry you are that I take offense at your trampling my daughter-in-law's godly witness, and how that wasn't your intent at all, and how you respect her for her choices--oh yes, always those precious little choices--and that it's the sign of weakness to shut down dialog.

Well, my dear woman, despite all this would you please be quiet, here under this post? I would be grateful--I can't bear your charming, enlightened, and ever-so-reasonable armed revolt against God any longer.

Thank you,

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. (Proverbs 14:12)

So, to paraphrase Mrs. Josephy Tate Bayly VI:

Husbands get to go wherever their heart leads (and women are not supposed to).

Wives are to help their husbands realize their full potential … but husbands are not supposed to reciprocate.

Husbands get someone to support their work, stand by their side, and affirm them … but wives are not supposed to want that.

Husbands need to be worshiped by their wives (idolatry, anyone?)

Husbands are not supposed to submit to their sisters in Christ (despite the plain teaching of Ephesians 5:21) and loss of self must not be demanded of them (despite the plain teaching that men are to give their lives for their wives).

Yes, who IS your God, woman? If it's your husband (whom supposedly needs worshipping) you are an idol worshipper.

Wife, you must be weak, so that he can be strong. (Forget that you're an ezer, the Bible must not really mean that.)

. . .

How sad. I've never heard such tripe in my life.

To paraphrase even further, in the words of Warren Jeffs:

"Women, stay sweet."

What a dishonest mischaracterization of Mrs. Bayly's writings.

Does it make you feel better, though, KDH? Because that's what's important.

KDH,

If you claim to be a Christian, you would do well to consider God's Word on the matter:

“Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.' Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.'” Genesis 2:18-23, NAS95.

“For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.” 1 Corinthians 11:7-12, NAS95.

Don't worry, I know what you are thinking:

"How silly of you to quote Scripture to me. I know what it says. And I know what it really means. The word 'helper' should be translated 'warrior.' The word 'head' should be translated 'source.'"

Yes, yes. We've heard all of that before, and we stand with the testimony of the Church for the past 2000 years on these matters.

I do wonder, however, how you would respond to God's very clear words in 1 Corinthians 11:9, “for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” This is a clear statement of the truth that you just mocked.

As for the worship part, I think you should reread the poem. It appears you entirely missed the point.

Sincerely,

Stephen Baker

Dear Maggie,

Despite your kind and reasonable and calm presentation, you are a rebel against the order of nature I myself have decreed that God has ordained. And speaking personally, I wonder at your audacity using my dear daughter-in-law's testimony as a means to seduce others for your rebellion against me.

Above, you mentioned three options you had to resolve the dilemma of being in love with a man who honored my commands. There was a fourth.

You could have repented of your rebellion against me and lived with that man in love (at least my version of love)--as I think a woman should.

Yes, yes; I know you can write endlessly of how unreasonable I am, and how enlightened you are, and how your choice was for the best for everyone, and that the whole world would be a better place if women were free to be men. And of course, how sorry you are that I take offense at your trampling my daughter-in-law's meekness, and how that wasn't your intent at all, and how you respect her for her choices--oh yes, always those precious little choices--and that it's the sign of weakness to shut down dialog. Especially since the comments on this blog are only enabled to feed my giant ego.

Well, my dear woman, despite all this would you please be quiet, here under this post? I would be grateful--I can't bear your charming, enlightened, and ever-so-reasonable armed revolt against me any longer and I certainly can't possibly come up with a rational argument against anything you say. As one who knows what God clearly means, I need my ego fed constantly and am not interested in hearing what anyone else might have to say if it is not in agreement with what I have decreed.

Thank you,

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. (Proverbs 14:12)

>But I don't think that love speaks the language of hierarchy and authority either.

God's existence and actions demonstrate otherwise.

You are CORRECT, David Gray. God's existence and actions and existence DO demonstrate OTHERWISE.

Cute, "Revised Tim." If you spend any time reading the board, you'll see the arguments addressed time and again. The Scripture really isn't all that hard to understand on the matter, which is why there's always been historic unanimity on it.

Of course, if "rational argument," as you call it, precludes the authority of Scripture... Well then, I guess we can all happily spout our autonomous opinions.

Maggie,

There are many Christ-followers, myself included, who feel that the Bayly's and their followers are grossly misprepresenting the Scriptures. God is no misogynist. For that, I am truly thankful. I recently wrote about the Biblical basis for Christian egalitarianism here:

[NOTE FROM TIM: link to false doctrine removed]

Bayly Brothers,

I lived in the type of marriage that this poem describes, lived it as the faithful wife who did not want a "wife" but sought to be as the poem describes a wife should be.

I came out of that place broken and bleeding, and strongly believe that the souls of both my husband and myself were deeply and terribly wounded by what amounted to idolatry. We are stumbling into a new way of relating, by the sheer and utter grace of a God who binds the wounds of the brokenhearted and the broken in spirit.

I put my husband in the place of Christ (well-intentioned, thinking that in so doing I was following Christ). My husband put himself in Christ's place. Both of us suffered terribly as a result, because of the deep gravity of our error.

This poem describes the way that a man and a woman should relate to *Jesus Christ.* No human should relate to another human in the way that this poem describes. It departs, severely, from what Scripture says but depends, rather, on what some interpret (and that rather loosely) Scripture to mean.

In His Grip,

Molly Aley

Molly,

If David and Tim are "grossly misrepresenting" Holy Scripture, then they are in the company of a whole host of God's servants and the teaching of the Christ's Church, universal and historical.

You are wrong, utterly and completely wrong, that there can be any supposed biblical basis for "Christian" egalitarianism. It's gnostic heresy to its core - and only by reading Scripture through the lens of gnosticism's twin errors (denigrating the physical body and claiming new or secret "knowledge") can you even begin to wrench any sort of sexual egalitarianism out of Holy Scripture.

If you and your husband have been wounded by idolatry, it is because of the idolatry - your placing your husband in the place of Christ and he assenting to that place, my dear. It is not because you followed the sort of marriage taught here. You have compouonded your sin, not by taking your husband out of Christ's place but by stepping up there beside your husband.

I don't know who's grip you are in, Molly - but if you think it is leading you to embrace Christian egalitarianism you are in the wrong grip and headed for the wrong destination.

SDG,

Kamilla

Oh dear, oh my!

the poem directs this to the wife:

"Lay you in the casket"

Are you aware that Ephesians 5 has differing instructions for the male and female of the marriage? The author of this poem has erred and "put the pants on" the wife by suggesting that it is she whom God has called to "Lay you in the casket" within the marriage. Hiowever Eph 5 is quite clear that the husband is called to lay down his life for his wife. Eph 5: 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it

(Please don't misunderstand me as saying women and wives do not have a more general "christian" call to die to self and lay down life, but I think it is more natural for women to do so especially once she is married and bearing children. It comes with pregnancy and mothering and the built in feminine "maternal instinct". Laying down life "happens" with pregnancy, labor, and 2am feedings. Thus the instruction -within marriage- is directed uniquely to husbands)

"but if you think it is leading you to embrace Christian egalitarianism you are in the wrong grip and headed for the wrong destination"

Kamilla, do you honestly believe that because Molly does not follow the marriage order you all hold to, she is not a Christian, and she is going to hell?

WHAT?

"For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life" John 3:16

Molly believes in Jesus. Molly is following Jesus. Molly will be going to heaven, and you are very arrogant and extremely rude to suggest otherwise.

Perhaps, according to your beliefs, John 3:16 should say this: "For God so loved men that he sent his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in the way of complimentarian marriage will not perish, but have everlasting life."

~Oto

Maggie

Thank you for sharing your story and those statistics. They are encouraging to me as a single, confident professional woman who also employs a wide array of domestic skills in daily life.

I'm afraid I don't know many Christian men who are attracted to confident women. If marriage is what this poet describes, I will stay single. If it can be friendship and partnership with a brother in Christ who both loves and respects me, I'd be interested. If I marry, I want to share life with an equal in the kind of relationship where we walk side by side in peace and back to back when we must fight for what's right. I don't want to walk 10 steps behind because I'm subservient or 10 steps ahead so he can protect me or be stowed away while he fights for what's right.

I would want a one flesh relationship -- where both of us become more than we were and neither becomes less.

I'm glad your husband wanted that kind of relationship and, if God intends marriage for me, hope for nothing less for myself.

Soli Deo Gloria.

To question someone's salvation because they don't agree with you is disgraceful.

And I dare you to have the courage to not delete this post.

I just want to go on record as saying I like the "Revised Tim." This blog can too often be too much like my experiences on Sunday mornings. Scripture can be so discomforting at times. Far better to quiet the clarity of scripture and the ministry of the Holy Spirit so that I can have things the way I want them to be.

Now we just need a "Revised David," and a ditching of those bow ties.

Those bow ties aren't typical. We wore them at Christ the Word's particularization service six years ago as a brotherly thing.

The problem is inertia: we've not had a suitable replacement picture taken in the years since and we really don't want to show how much older we look.

David Bayly

Kamilla, thank you for so aptly demonstrating the legalism that permeates hyper-patriarchy. I will forever refer to your disgraceful, ungodly comment to Molly when discussing this issue on my own blog and in any possible conversation I have with people about this issue. You have made the kind of judgment that is forbidden in Scripture. I pray you repent of your sin and apologize to Molly. You have solidified my belief about the inability of most hyper-patriarchalists (including the two pastors who maintain this blog) to dialogue respectfully about differences which are allowed within the pale of orthodoxy. Check out the Westminster Standards if you disagree with me. Thank you for showing the true colors of this movement.

Sincerely,

Your average, everyday kitchen wife

Those poems are unscriptural and the person who wrote them desperately needs to meditate on Proverbs 31. And most likely needs some godly counseling... And any man who would desire a wife do do what is contained in the latter poem is a sorry man who needs to humble himself before his God and learn what God requires of a godly husband.

Thank God I have a godly husband who I delight to serve who fulfils his obligation to love me as Christ loves the church.

>To question someone's salvation because they don't agree with you is disgraceful.

Opposing God's order of creation is opposing God, not man. Proclaiming God's order of creation is to agree with God, not man.

>And I dare you to have the courage to not delete this post.

Why would we delete it?

* * *

Turning to another comment: David, many readers of this blog, and I have said again and again that feminism is not heterodoxy, but heresy. It's not a slight matter over which people of good conscience disagree but an extremely weighty matter through which the destiny of immortal souls is determined.

Someone who opposes the order of creation established by our Heavenly Father places his own immortal soul in jeopardy. And someone who seeks to lead others into rebellion against that Divine order does something much worse.

Feminism is a highway to Hell--one of the broadest in our day.

This is not to say everyone traveling that highway is damned. Many of us spent years on that highway. But from His great mercy and love, our Heavenly Father drew us to Himself and we repented.

That is what we call each of you to who walk as we once walked, in the ungodliness of rebellion and pride that is the way of this world and its Master. Please, for the sake of your soul and God's glory, turn and flee the wrath to come. Those who turn to Christ Jesus He will never cast out. But they must come in humility and repentance; not pride and willful rebellion against His creation and Word.

"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ"

(1 Corinthians 11:3).

Seeing the treatment of my dear daughter-in-law here, I've found myself wondering if I was right in posting her poem in public where the despisers of God would gnash their teeth at her witness and attack her. (What's been said here is nothing compared to the venom spewed against her on other blogs.)

What to do?

Well, while leaving up the most vitriolic and godless comments, I'm not allowing others to add to the evil. But also, I have this poem for Heidi, from another woman who was also a fool for Christ.

Think It Not Strange

Think it not strange, if he who stedfast leaveth

All that he loveth for the love of Me,

Be as the prey of him who rendeth, rieveth,

Breaketh and bruiseth, woundeth sore and grieveth,

And carefully a spray of sharp thorn weaveth

To crown the man who chooseth Calvary.

Count it all joy, the blaming and the scorning,

Ye who confess love's pure transcendent power;

Stay not for speech, heed not the wise world's warning,

Thine is an incommunicable dower.

What will it be when sudden, in the morning,

From brown thorn buddeth purple Passion flower?

-Amy Carmichael in "Toward Jerusalem"