How much should Christians be willing to suffer for Christ?

Do you smell something burning or is it just me

Joan of Arc, Born: January 6, 1412, Died: May 30, 1431, Age 19 

I would rather die than do something which I know to be a sin, or to be against God’s will. ~ Joan of Arc

In response to:
The following story of three Christian women was compiled from ‘Foxe’s Book of Martyrs’ & ‘Christian Martyrology’:

As this godly martyr [Robert Samuel] was going to the fire, there came a certain maid to him, which took him about the neck, and kissed him, who, being marked by them that were present, was sought for the next day after, to be had to prison and burned, as the very party herself informed me: howbeit, as God of His goodness would have it, she escaped their fiery hands, keeping herself secret in the town a good while after. 

But as this maid, called Rose Nottingham, was marvelously preserved by the providence of God, so there were other two honest women who did fall into the rage and fury of that time. The one was a brewer’s wife, the other was a shoemaker’s wife, but both together now espoused to a new husband, Christ. 

With these two was this maid aforesaid very familiar and well acquainted, who, on a time giving counsel to the one of them, that she should convey herself away while she had time and space, had this answer at her hand again: “I know well,” saith she, “that it is lawful enough to fly away; which remedy you may use, if you list. But my case standeth otherwise. I am tied to a husband, and have besides young children at home; and then I know not how my husband, being a carnal man, will take my departure from him; therefore I am minded, for the love of Christ and His truth, to stand to the extremity of the matter.” 

And so the next day after Samuel suffered, these two godly wives, the one called Anne Potten, the other called Joan Trunchfield, the wife of Michael Trunchfield, shoemaker, of Ipswich, were apprehended, and had both into one prison together. As they were both by sex and nature somewhat tender, so were they at first less able to endure the straitness of the prison; and especially the brewer’s wife was cast into marvelous great agonies and troubles of mind thereby. But Christ, beholding the weak infirmity of His servant, did not fail to help her when she was in this necessity; so at the length they both suffered after Samuel, in 1556, February 19.

When Agnes Bongeor saw herself separated from her prison-fellows, what piteous moan that good woman made, how bitterly she wept, what strange thoughts came into her mind, how naked and desolate she esteemed herself, and into what plunge of despair and care her poor soul was brought, it was piteous and wonderful to see; which all came because she went not with them to give her life in the defense of her Christ; for of all things in the world, life was least looked for at her hands. 

For that morning in which she was kept back from burning, had she put on a smock, that she had prepared only for that purpose. And also having a child, a little young infant sucking on her, whom she kept with her tenderly all the time that she was in prison, against that day likewise did she send away to another nurse, and prepared herself presently to give herself for the testimony of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ. So little did she look for life, and so greatly did God’s gifts work in her above nature, that death seemed a great deal better welcome than life. After which, she began a little to stay herself, and gave her whole exercise to reading and prayer, wherein she found no little comfort. 

In a short time came a writ from London for the burning, which according to the effect thereof, was executed. 

37 thoughts on “How much should Christians be willing to suffer for Christ?

  1. I was commenting at a Christian woman’s website yesterday on a post about Christians being “Called to suffer”. And apparently they believe Christian ladies are called to suffer, but not too much. Most of my comments were not posted, because my view that Christian ladies should endure some abuse for the sake of their Christian testimonies, was apparently anathema.
    The story above about the lady who chose to risk, and was in fact, burned at the stake, for staying with her unsaved husband rather than leave him to escape to safety, should shame todays “Christian” women who feel like they can rightly ditch their husbands and cause the word of God to be blasphemed for any little thing they feel is “abusive”. However, I doubt they will be ashamed of their faithlessness either. And the sad part is that I believe that these are about the best Christian ladies currently out there.


  2. Define abuse. When you’ve done that, go and watch the movie “Once Were Warriors”. Sure, it’s a movie. But for many women, especially here in New Zealand, even some women who are married to “Christian” men, it’s reality. When you’ve watched that movie, you tell women that this is what Christ calls them to endure.
    It’s really, really easy to tell a woman to endure abuse, when you’re not the one who’s life is in danger.
    Sure, *some* abuse is to be endured. My Nan, the most faithful Christian woman I ever knew, endured abuse at the hands of her husband, and even one of her sons. But it wasn’t life-threatening violence which some women endure. It was the odd backhander, and she chose to tolerate it.

    Yes, minor physical abuse may be able to be endured. Verbal abuse can be endured. Emotional abuse can be endured. Financial abuse can be endured. Even some sexual abuse may be able to be endured, depending on what it is. All abuse is extremely damaging, but it’s possible to be endured. For a time, anyway. But anything beyond very minor physical abuse is potentially life-threatening for women.

    As Lori Alexander tried to explain to you, some men are just angry men. Some men are addicted to drugs, alcohol, porn. Sometimes, it actually ISN’T the woman’s fault that the man is violent. I saw the one comment of yours that got past moderation, and I’m actually really surprised Lori posted it. She seems to be trying really hard lately to make sure that women feel safe on her blog, and one really important thing to do to make women feel safe is to make sure they know that Jesus does not condone abuse in marriages, and He does not expect women to stay in a marriage where their lives are in danger. Part of the husband’s role is to love and protect his wife. The second he starts to beat the living crap out of her, he’s not exactly living up to the commands given to him in the Bible, is he?

    Your lack of understanding of domestic violence still continues to astound me. Just because you haven’t seen it, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Here in New Zealand, more than half of all women who are killed, are killed by their partner or ex-partner, most often when they try to leave an abusive relationship.
    I understand domestic violence. Aside from studying it while completing social work papers for my psychology degree, I’ve lived it.

    You’re also forgetting one very important thing: physical abuse is illegal. God does not tell women to submit to sin – and breaking the law is sin, as we’re told to obey the laws of the land. God is our ultimate authority, He is above our husbands.

    The story you shared above does not mention a woman staying with a husband who beats the snot out of her on a regular basis. I absolutely agree that a woman should be right by her husband’s side when he loses his job. Goes bankrupt. Gets ill. Is crippled and requires care. Is mentally unwell. Has a car accident where he was at fault and is charged. Even if he goes to jail. But when he is endangering her life, and breaking the law by exposing the children to domestic violence (a crime) she needs to get to a place of safety and take her children with her. She should always be open to, and actively working towards, reconciliation, but her safety and the safety of her children absolutely should come first.

    There were some excellent comments from godly men on Lori’s site which included some great scripture to back up their beliefs that women should not be enduring physical abuse. I was greatly encouraged by her post, and most of the comments.


  3. I thought I might just post a few comments here from a chain of comments over at “The Transformed wife” including a couple of my comments that did not get approved:

    KAR says:
    I agree with this 100%, however I have a question. You say that in the case of physical abuse it is ok for woman to seek “a safe place.” While I agree, I have Christian friends (women) who believe that suffering means all suffering — we are not to pick and choose what we are to accept– and that the Bible does not address physical abuse as an exception or a reason to separate (not divorce, but separate) from a husband. For this reason they have silently accepted abuse as their lot in life (a suffering to be borne) just as with any other suffering (illnesses, financial issues, etc). Is there scripture to support this? I’m often given the argument that Christ suffered even to death and that we are to bear our faith even with threat of death or persecution. Could this be what we are called to as well as harsh as it is? I know if this were the case, I would find a safe place and not stay. (not saying get divorced, but just separating)

    Lori Alexander says:
    I can’t imagine anyone telling a woman who is being physically abused by her husband to go home and endure it. “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” (1 Cor. 7:10, 11) I believe a woman who is being physically abused may depart from her husband.

    Elias(AKA Sharkly) says:
    I can’t imagine anyone telling a woman who is being physically abused by her husband to go home and endure it. “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

    Well if you want to imagine me, I’m 6′ 1″ in great shape for my age, with a shaved head and a mustache. I would tell the wife to not depart, because God commanded exactly that. I’d also immediately go talk to her husband and make myself clear to him.

    I haven’t had to do that yet, because so far, I’ve never known a woman who was actually being physically abused in any serious way. I’ve met plenty of complainers however.
    But I do have experience ending plenty of violence. I’ve stopped fights between men on many occasions, and I’ve pulled an assault rifle on a drunken mob and kept them subdued for quite a while until the police arrived.

    The reason the church doesn’t correctly intervene in these situations is because they’re cowards who would rather tell a woman to defy God and her husband, than to confront and correct the violent man in a potentially dangerous situation. I’m saved, I’m not afraid to die. I’ve argued down a man bigger than myself who was angrily swinging a baseball bat about a foot in front of me, and we’re good friends now.

    Usually if a formerly peaceful man has become violent, or is threatening to, he is actually the victim, and the one who needs to be heard, understood, and helped. But half the time the church doesn’t want to help, because they are complicit in first stealing his headship, emasculating him, telling his wife and kids to leave him, and then blaming him for everybody else’s godless choices to abuse him first.

    I know some of you women don’t care to hear the other side of things. But I’m the kind of man that would tell the woman to stay, treat her husband correctly, and see to it that I had an “understanding” with the man before I left. It is pretty rare that a man is that angry over nothing, but that is exactly what the cowards in the church would like to imagine. And if they can’t deny he was abused first, then they reflexively blame him for somehow causing it. Men are mostly logical. The problem is real. The anger is usually justified. If you can get the woman to quit and repent of whatever wickedness is causing the man to get angry, he’ll calm down, and go back to loving his wife like he naturally wants to. But the fools in the church just double down on blaming the man and only make him madder, even if he seems to calm down temporarily, they’ve only made him worse by making him believe there is no hope of ever being believed and understood. And he then knows for certain they will be turning his own wife away from him, while deceitfully claiming to be of God. One real man of God can quite often fix what thousands of Feminist churchians have allowed to fester. Most all marriage issues can be solved by the wife submitting in whatever is the root issue, and showing her husband his due respect. Running off will not resolve the sin that caused his anger.

    Before anybody says, “but my situation is different!” Don’t try to make a liar out of God. Be longsuffering, Submit in everything reverentially as unto the Lord, give your husband as much great sex as he can handle, praise him, be kind, keep at home, and pray with him that you could become an even better wife to him.

    Lori Alexander says:
    Unfortunately, I don’t believe that there are many men or even men in the churches who would be willing to confront a physically abusive husband and hold him accountable. And there are some men who are angry and it’s not their wife who is causing their anger, but they will take their anger out on their wives. Some men are alcoholics and/or addicted to drugs, addicted to porn, raised in violent homes, etc. I do believe there are times when wives need to separate for physical safety.

    Elias(AKA Sharkly) says:(this comment is not shown)
    You are correct, that there are very few men or women today who are willing to risk their safety or reputation to follow God’s ways. And you are correct that some men return evil for good, just as so many wives do.

    But, here is how Christianity is to be lived:

    Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

    You are to keep at home and be obedient to your husband, who is in the image of Christ, while you are the image of the church, otherwise you publicly profane God’s word, by claiming to follow Christ while defiantly fleeing from His delegated spiritual head over you.

    Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

    If you run off to save your own life, you may lose it for eternity! But if for the sake of not blaspheming Christ, you lose your life, you shall find life eternal!

    John 3:16 is the most popular verse in the Bible. First John 3:16 is a whole lot less popular, but the following verses from first John illustrate Christian love:

    1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. (including your husband, women were created for men, it isn’t only men that are called to give up their lives for their wives)

    1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

    1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

    If we love like Christ loved, unto death, we can boldly face judgement knowing we weren’t afraid, but instead we conquered fear by our love.

    1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

    Women, you show that the love of God is truly in you when you keep God’s commandments, by staying with your husband, in subjection to him, reverencing him, and fulfilling your vow before God to be his. If you are intent on saving your life, in spite of God’s clear commands, you shall lose it. Those aren’t my ideas, that is what the Bible teaches.

    Revelation 2:10b be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. 11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

    Those who teach you to flee your husband are teaching that from unbelief. They don’t believe God’s word is truly wise as it eternally stands, without their own additional list of exceptions. They don’t truly have the faith to believe God’s word, that you can assuredly trade your soon ending life in a cursed and evil world, for an imperishable martyr’s crown that will be your greatest honor through all of eternity. I sorrow that some women may have given up their eternal crowns, and the eternal glory to Christ their holy deaths would have paid tribute to. Don’t squander this fading life in vain self preservation, instead show your children, this world, and all the host of God, a firm faith and obedience that stands even through death, to life all-glorious, having walked in the very footsteps of Jesus Christ who first died for you. To Christ be the glory of our surrendered lives!

    Ken (Alexander) says:
    It’s possible that there was a time that most churches, elders, fellow Christians could step in and make it clear to an abusive husband that he was to stop or he would be the one ending up with the beating from his friends. But those days are no longer, especially if one is to be lawful in all we do.

    Hence why Lori is exactly right to call Christian wives who are being physically abused to seek help from the elders, and from the State if necessary, with separation a sensible conclusion if a spouse will not stop the abuse or the abuse is significant and ongoing.

    You are correct that some men have suffered and been the victim in these cases, but most of the abusers I have known are bipolar or addicts. In these cases, they are not in their right mind and as such a wife is not being unsubmissive to disobey a husband under the influence or mentally ill, especially if it means her protection or his protection.

    I have also seen where wives accuse husbands of being abusers because it serves their agenda and they embellish the truth. So each circumstance should be carefully evaluated to try and determine the truth and to help the couple reconcile if at all possible while eliminating the abuse, or the false accusations of abuse. All this points to the facts that when abuse happens, others need to get involved and the spouse should not simply suffer silently but be in close contact with family, friends, elders, and counselors to determine by the Spirit and the Word what is the best course of action to protect and save the marriage.

    Elias (AKA Sharkly) says: (This comment is not shown)
    LOL My comment full of scripture is still unpublished, but yet you clearly respond to it here.

    But those days are no longer, especially if one is to be lawful in all we do. Hence … separation a sensible conclusion …

    Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

    Ken, you’re espousing Feminism and wanting things both ways. When a husband commands his wife contrary to God you say she should not submit, but when other men command a husband contrary to God, you imply he should submit to the laws of men, even when they conflict with God’s laws, especially when those laws underpin women’s rebellion.

    You are complicit in wives and churches stealing men’s headship, and leaving them no other tools to rule their families well in this age of usurping women.

    You play “White Knight” incessantly. Making exceptions for anything a woman would dislike. If she wants to disobey, now all she has to do is accuse her husband of being an addict or bipolar, and you’ve given her permission to disobey God. God didn’t give her those intangible exemptions in the Bible. Then you admit that wives will falsely accuse. You foolishly advise men to allow a cowardly group of Feminist churchian leaders who have already led the woman astray to interject their Feminist heresy further while they play referee, when The Bible already said the wife is to submit to her husband in everything as unto the Lord.

    Malachi 2:16 (AMPC) For the Lord, the God of Israel, says: I hate divorce and marital separation and him who covers his garment [his wife] with violence. Therefore keep a watch upon your spirit [that it may be controlled by My Spirit], that you deal not treacherously and faithlessly [with your marriage mate].

    Do not recommend what God hates. Two wrongs do not make a right.


  4. “Define abuse.”
    I’m not the one claiming “abuse” is a Feminist indulgence excusing you from clear Bible commands to stay, and your own wedding vow, to be his, “to have and to hold”, “till death do us part”. So I’m not the one who needs to define “abuse” for my self-made religion to function.

    The women quoted in the history above, would rather die, being burnt alive, than step outside the will of God. That is what the church has lost, the real works that result from true faith. We need that faith back, not more excuses.

    Women and men need to hear sound doctrine, not be shielded from it, and only hear people who encourage them in their faithless unbelief, that lets “Christian” families separate, thereby causing the word of God to be blasphemed.
    The reason that the churches are no help, is because they are apostate and impotent having denied the faith and gone chasing after the world’s idolatrous Feminist goddess worship.

    Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. The Bible commands women to be keepers at home, raising their children to love God. How are they supposed to do this when they have been murdered by their husband? The husband is going to be in jail, the children will likely be in state care. Here, s huge number of children in state care suffer sexual abuse. Even if children do get to stay with family members, they’re going to be so damaged by what has happened to them that it’s going to be pretty hard to raise them to love the Lord. If a woman stays in a marriage where her life is at stake, there is no possible way she can do what God has commanded her to do.

    I love the comments Brian posted on Lori’s blog about this subject.

    As for “reaching an understanding” with the man, that’s not very realistic. The type of man who will beat the snot out of his wife isn’t going to be interested in reaching an “understanding”. So what if you’re 6 foot 1 and in great shape for your age, have a shaved head and a moustache? So is my husband. Well he’s 6 foot 1, very broad, can Bench Press 220kg. He’s got a beautiful full head of light brown hair and a goatee. He’s massive – built like a bull. Your size wouldn’t intimidate a man like my husband. And here, we don’t pull assault rifles on people, even if they are drunk and unruly. That is what the police are for.

    Nothing in those Bible verses you quoted say that a woman should stay with a man who beats the living crap out of her. And we’re not upholding the gospel by staying with such a man – we’re being stupid. Yes, there are times when Christians may be called to die for their Faith. But we are never called to die for the sake of a violent man. The verse Lori quoted is a very clear “out”. It doesn’t mean divorce and remarriage, but it does mean separation.


  6. Reviewing the story of Onesimus and Philemon shows the model of separation by the slave due to perceived wrongdoing of the master. Paul gives all the guidance that speaks to the model at hand.
    Of note:
    ~ Responsibility for the slave to return to the master (reconciliation)
    ~ Admonishing the master for dealing too harshly with the slave (grace)
    ~ The Christian not turning over fellow Christian to the pagan authorities (God’s Law > man’s law). *

    Marriage is bondage. 1 Co 7:39, Mt 19:6 *
    Husband rules over wife. Ge 3:16, Ge 2:22 *
    A wife is submissive to her master, her lord = her husband. Ep 6:5, 1 Pt 3:6
    She submits to her lord- in everything- as demonstration of submission to her Lord. Ep 5:22

    The question to every wife is: how well are you submitting yourself to be ruled over? *
    The question to every husband is: how diligent- and graceful- are you in ruling? *

    Why is this such a contentious issue?

    Firstly, because in our Western, Feminist society, we are conditioned to review relationships as transactional. They are not. The commandments we have stand alone. How well we execute our commandments determines the ease, or difficulty, others around us may have in executing their commandments, but we are never absolved of our responsibility of our own heart, own actions. (Ask Adam how well this worked: this cowardice, this blame-shifting, is what got us kicked out of Eden. Bummer too, we had a good thing going.)

    Secondly, because in our Western, Feminist society, we are conditioned to view women as needing protection from the bad, ugly men. We completely ignore the good that husbands, fathers, brothers and sons perform in a woman’s life, and men in general towards women in general. Furthermore, we whitewash the bad that women as individuals, and as a group, perform regularly in society. (Overwhelmingly, in every possible metric, men have it worse off in life than women.)

    Thirdly, because in our Western, Feminist society, we are conditioned to embrace physical hurt (pain) as evil, we cannot tell a woman to ‘get back in the fight’ when her ‘boxing opponent’ has already beat her to a pulp and it’s only Round 04. The person making that encouragement must be evil to the core!

    Fourthly, this isn’t about abuse: it’s the fringe scenario used to form an exception to allow for irresponsible behavior. It’s about submission. Acknowledge the true conversation for what it is. **

    Proper interpretation of the Bible suspends all Earthly knowledge and experience. God’s design is perfect, it is sin that has made imperfection manifest. The individuals are fallen, the Plan is not: continue to execute the Plan.
    And where the plan appears to be failing? Lk 22:42, Ro 12:20.

    * Interesting that the first generation Christians understood that man-made laws are irrelevant to the walk in Christ. Claiming ad nauseum the illegality of something is completely moot. Soon (we are in the end times), there will be legislation globally to assume the mark of the beast on one’s forehead in order to continue commerce- and thus- living. Doing so is grounds for a one-way ticket to the carnival held at the Lake “Fire and Brimstone” Resort.
    * Bondage itself is not negative. Our bondage with Christ is what grants us meaning in this life, and the Great Forever here-after. Our bondage within male-female marriage- a reflection of this church marriage in Christ- is designed to offer protection and provision to the wife even when she misbehaves, and emotional and sexual release to the husband even when he misbehaves. (Financial bondage, physical bondage, spiritual bondage are outlined as evil in various ways.)
    * Ge 2:22: God does not name Eve, God brings Eve to Adam to name. Naming is synonymous with establishing dominion, ownership, responsibility. When a woman claims she is choosing to disobey her lord (husband), in order to obey her Lord (God), she is actually obeying Satan. A woman cannot disobey her husband and claim she is acting in God’s Will.
    * When in doubt, wives can always submit even lower. Couple examples to try out when facing ‘abuse’ of various kinds:
    ~ “I do not wish to engage in this threesome, I want to moan only for you, my lord. Let me service you for hours and drain your balls inside me. With your blessing, I wish to start right now.”
    ~ “Sweetheart, I love you with all of me. Please be gentle with your words, help me understand where I may better submit to you. I wish to honor you with both obedience and enthusiasm.”
    ~ “I wish to offer myself a trim figure and porcelain skin for your enjoyment. If you bruise me and I swell, I have less to offer you. I want for you to delight in your bride.”
    ~ “Beloved, I cannot thank you enough for the thankless 9-5 job you perform everyday. When you return in 10 hours, bills will be paid and mailed, the kids will be bathed, the house will be spotless, dinner will be warm and my pussy will be shaved. All decisions are yours in how to enjoy your evening.”
    * The husband is certifiably crazy? Why did she get involved with him in the first place? Short of an arranged marriage (eg. child brides), the woman is complicit in the involvement. Consider our blog’s owner: a husband whose wife is crazy: he’s on the hook for her, and he’s shouldering it through emotional turmoil from his wife, being spiritually outcast from his church, being ostracized from his children. When the shoe is on the other foot, why can women never seem to accept responsibility? Enjoyed the entree but didn’t like the first bite of dessert; you’re still on the hook for the bill.
    * But what if he’s like, really really certifiably crazy? And truly, truly no fault of the woman, and dire immediate concern for life? Separation, for a time, until reconciliation. Wife seeks protection from father, or other kin, and the men talk about both the husband and wife’s behavior, establish protective normalcy within the marriage, and keep an eye on the relationship thereafter. The husband WILL atone for his behavior.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. It’s also helpful to establish the benefit of Lori’s blog. She does well in coaching younger women to submit to their husbands generally.

    She’s no theological titan, and her husband neither. Lori and Ken both fall into the fallacy of ‘porn is bad for men, mkay?’ while ignoring the danger of Hallmark movies in the psychology of women. Ken allows it, and Lori claims ‘it doesn’t affect me, so it cannot be bad’. Shame, her potential in Ti 2 is so much greater. The ‘do as I say, not as a do’ attitude is the mark of shaky teaching. We are to be above reproach, if we are to preach.

    She heavily moderates her blog, I believe to good effect, by not letting too much ‘harsh truth’ be posted. Women have fragile egos, and it is true many are overwhelmed by a simple ‘bad word’ or two. Sad that women cannot grow thicker skin, but I can see how the moderation has its usage.

    Let’s acknowledge the benefits of her blog for what it is, and not pretend that she goes far enough in both preaching, and exemplifying, the Truth in Christ. They are a well-intentioned couple, but she’s fairly lukewarm and he’s a white knight. Her blog is Step 01 in getting women back on track in God’s Order and Design.

    There are many steps to follow; let’s encourage women to take them, not to stop climbing.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Okay, let me just make sure I’ve got this straight. A woman marries a man who is crazy, and that’s her fault because she shouldn’t have got with him in the first place. But the owner of this blog married a woman who is apparently certifiably crazy, and it’s still womans fault?

    As Mother Dearest (on Lori’s blog) pointed out, the only one who can change hearts is God. Yes, a woman should absolutely be living in submission to her husband and doing everything she can to serve him and make him happy. Just as men should absolutely be doing their part, even if they’re married to a difficult woman. But sometimes, no matter what we do, it isn’t enough. God does not promise that it will be enough. Sometimes, our spouse is just angry, and there is nothing we can do. Of course we should still do our part anyway, until it means our life is at risk.

    Sharkly seems to believe that women should stay with violent men even if it kills them. But it is also clear that he would not bash his wife unconscious, and then put the boot in when she’s lying half dead on the floor. If I’m reading between the lines correctly, he would do everything in his power to stop a man doing that to his wife. Why, then, is it wrong for a woman to flee to a place of safety, with the goal of reconciliation? Is it only wrong because the woman is making a choice for herself instead of waiting for a man to make it for her?

    I’m not sure that the majority of women reading Lori’s blog have fragile egos. I regularly email several women who made contact with me through there, and they are broken women. They’re living with very angry men and they can’t change that. They’re suffering hugely. Personally, I am glad Lori moderates her blog as heavily as she does, because for a woman at breaking point, reading that she has to stay with her abusive husband even if he kills her, is going to tip them over the edge. Bitter men can very rarely encourage a broken woman by spreading their bitterness and pointing blame.


  9. Bipolar or addictions are not a reason to leave a husband. A very good friend is married to a man with bipolar. He finds it difficult to manage sometimes and can be challenging to live with but she has told me more than once that she has never even considered leaving him.

    Porn isn’t as damaging as what some people believe, I don’t think. I’d be surprised if most single men (even women, maybe) haven’t used it. I’m not denying that it’s a sin, but it’s not a reason to destroy a marriage. It may even be helpful in some marriages.

    Even addictions don’t normally warrant separation. Some drugs change personalities and increase violence and aggression, so if this is the case, separation for safety may be necessary, until the addiction is under control. But many people can function perfectly well on drugs. Same as gambling – not a reason to leave. Unless the stress from the gambling is causing violence. Somebody, I think it was Michael Pearl, wrote a really good article about it and what to do. I don’t follow Michael Pearl as a rule, but Lori linked to that specific article once on her blog and it was really good.
    Mostly, addictions are a type of mental illness (DSM IV) and our marriage vows include “in sickness and health”. Most addictions are treatable.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. ” A woman marries a man who is crazy, and that’s her fault because she shouldn’t have got with him in the first place. ”

    Correct. She has agency, does she not? Absolving her for getting involved with the bad boy, when he continues to be ‘bad’ after the ‘fuck’ phase and into the ‘provide’ phase, does a disservice to all women. The fallout of this is the situation in which we find ourselves today: the herd of women never learn not to involve themselves with such men, and many good men are left without the possibility of progeny.
    She is to deal with her decision: ‘until death do we part’ is not romance, it’s a vow before the King.

    ” But the owner of this blog married a woman who is apparently certifiably crazy, and it’s still womans fault? ”

    Incorrect. He has agency, and owns his responsibility. He enjoyed her ‘crazy’ in the ‘fuck’ phase and now gets to deal with her in the ‘submit’ phase, much to his chagrin.

    ” Of course we should still do our part anyway, until it means our life is at risk. ”

    Can YOU provide chapter and verse for the last 8 words? Can YOU provide sound theological interpretation for the last 8 words? Or was this concept borne out of your feminist worldview? Why lie to ourselves- we know the source of it.
    This is the problem with the feminist interpretations for the Bible: reading into the Scripture using social norms as their lens. It’s the path to ruin, dear. 2 Ti 4:3.

    ” wrong for a woman to flee to a place of safety, with the goal of reconciliation? Is it only wrong because the woman is making a choice for herself instead of waiting for a man to make it for her? ”

    Here’s what our Book tells us:
    Woman submits, in everything. Discussion closed. The Will of God. Ample citations- already provided- in Scripture.
    Now, fleeing persecution? There is precedent (Mt 2:13, Jn 10:39, Re 12:6). We are not talking bruised ego, a harsh word everynight, a sore backside from a spanking. Beatings until unconscious, bleeding while peeing, etc? Ok, in my book- personal interpretation- that’s abuse, sure.
    How do you reconcile the two concepts?
    1. Don’t go into a relationship without a complete vetting (this, for a woman, includes her father evaluating the suitor). Avoid the pitfall from the onset.
    2. Don’t go into a relationship with ‘abuse’ on the mind: everyone with a hammer seeks the nail.
    3. Submit, submit, submit. Practice: Mt 5:44. And submit some more. Submission (Greek “hupotasso”) is a state of being, perpetual, not a series of actions. She is to be in submission- always- to her husband.
    4. She has imminent fear for the life of herself or her family: flee to her father and immediately set to work to be reconciled back to her husband.

    ” Bitter men can very rarely encourage a broken woman by spreading their bitterness and pointing blame. ”
    * To women accustomed to lies, truth sounds like bitterness.
    * To women accustomed to self esteem, a deflated ego feels like brokenness.
    To anyone of stable mind passing through this quiet corner of the internet, your prose is written from the mind of a liberal, feminist, self-abasing female.

    As a woman, the best thing you can do is recognize you are not rational: you are emotional. This is by design for childbearing (woman’s role), but misapplied in dominion within Creation (man’s role). You are the deceived (1 Ti 2:14), and when you assume a position of headship in any manner, you bring about the Deceiver’s will (1 Ti 2:12). This is why we are commanded for women to seek theological understanding not from their pastor, not from their women’s group, online blogs or a preacher’s wife’s book but from.. their husbands (1 Co 14:35)!

    How many women in ‘abusive’ (highly suspect language) are seeking to solve their position of ‘abused’ by submitting- in everything- to their husbands? This is the commandment, no Christian will deny it. I dare guess, without knowing, the number is 0.0001% of cases. Perhaps the first place women should look is not man’s laws of Duluth or Violence Against Women, but to the King and the path He calls His daughters to walk.
    Her path chosen will expose her heart.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. ikr – We actually have very similar beliefs in this regard.

    Can I provide chapter and verses for “until our life is at risk”? Yes. And because I am a mere woman and therefore incapable of reading, I will also check with my husband (as the one I should be learning from) before I continue typing.

    The verses you already mentioned about persecution are the same ones I was thinking of, but there are also a couple more that come to mind: Moses fleeing in Exodus 2:15, David fled in 1 Samuel 19:12, Jeremiah fled in Jer 37:11-12, and Paul fled in 2 Corin 11:33 and Matthew 10:23 = “when you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.”

    Serious violence, ongoing abuse, is absolutely persecution.


    1 Corinthians 7:15 is permission for an abused woman to separate. An abusive husband (not minor abuse – we already both agree minor abuse is to be endured, but physical abuse to the point of serious injury and potential threat to life if it continues) is certainly not a believer. An abusive husband has already broken the marriage covenant. According to our bible dictionary, concordance, and chain-reference KJV Bible, the Greek word for depart in this scripture is chorizo which means “to place space between; to separate”.
    Abusers aren’t going to depart, ordinarily, because they like the power they have (in an actual abusive relationship, not just one-off anger etc.) but this verse gives the woman freedom to place space between herself and her violent husband. Just like when David fled from Saul, because of Saul’s abuse. David wasn’t sinful for leaving; Saul was sinful for abusing David and threatening his life.

    In Jeremiah 3:8 God divorces his covenant people when they abuse the vulnerable. If God hates the abuse of the vulnerable so much that He would divorce His covenant people, it doesn’t make any sense that He would expect women to stay and endure abuse.

    Romans 13:1-2 speaks of obeying the laws – and EVERY SOUL is to obey the laws (NIV). Not just some people, but everyone. Man and woman, both. God has appointed the government. God has put laws and Police to uphold those laws, in place for the protection of the innocent. Domestic violence is illegal. Allowing children to witness domestic violence is illegal. If a woman chooses to stay in a marriage where she is regularly beaten up in front of the children, she is (technically) breaking the law, although I am unaware of any case in NZ where a woman has actually been charged for staying in an abusive marriage, and allowing children to witness this crime.

    It is possible that my view is slanted slightly from studying domestic violence and training to work in the social work field (I very recently started a volunteer position with women’s refuge, just 2 hours a week) and probably, if my superiors knew that I believed most abuse should be endured, they would terminate my job, as the women’s refuge position is that all abuse, control, and attempts at control are bad. But when I’m studying scripture I try to ensure that I’m not letting my worldview interfere with the words. One of our elderly preachers who has since passed away used to always say ‘read what’s on the page’. That’s why I use both the KJV and NIV Bibles, a bible dictionary, a concordance, and double-check everything with my husband, who has very conservative beliefs (as does our church).


  12. “That’s illegal!” Your actions are always first a rush to defend man’s laws. You never speak to God’s Law.
    Who is king of your heart? A tree is know by its fruit.

    “Serious violence” “abuse”. You keep using words without defining them. Ironically, you call your reader to define terms, while failing to do so yourself. Without a measurable definition, opens them to becoming ‘loaded terms’ and ends with them meaning whatever the Deceiver wants them to mean. One of his most common tactics.

    You completely missed the parts of the Bible that speak specifically to how believers are to act among themselves. The story of Onesimus was missed entirely, it was even spelled out.
    Mt 5:25, Mt 18:15-17, Ga 6:1
    You will note from these 3 verses the direct commandments, that are played out as a model in Onesimus’ tale. The take-away:
    Paul never gives him over to the authorities, despite the responsibility of a witness to report.

    You ignore the story of Daniel refusing to honor a king, so as to honor his King. I’ve spoken to the beast’s mark. Then there’s the commandment direct from a king that Rahab ignored- furthermore, was blessed for doing so. The call by Abraham to Sarah to lie about her relationship to him: she sought to honor him, not the social practices of the land.
    You mentioned Ro 12:1-2, but do not mention Ac 5:29. As the world continues her descent into consummate evil, the laws everywhere will increasingly be at odds with God’s Law. The time is fast arriving that living in any way within society’s rules will be incompatible for the true believer.

    ” If a woman chooses to stay in a marriage where she is regularly beaten up in front of the children, she is (technically) breaking the law ”
    Perfect example of man’s law being at odds with God’s Law. A woman remaining faithful, not nuking a marriage, is a woman honoring Mk 10:9, which is illegal apparently in NZ. This isn’t even the grey areas of unfaithfulness or desertion; this is clear-cut behavior for the Christian.
    The best thing you could do is get out of your line of work. Your mind is poisoned with seeing all the angles and technicalities of man’s law. Let’s spend our free time studying God’s Word, and our energy in living it out to the best of our abilities. Because that’s what it is going to take: all our free time and all our energy.

    As a woman, when you see or hear of another woman who is being ‘abused’ by her husband, your best courses of action are:
    1. First and foremost, submit even further to the husband you do have. Be evermore obedient to him. Demonstrate an even more quiet and gentle spirit. Tend evermore to the ways of your household. Be the ‘light on a hill’ with exemplary behavior in your behavior for all fellow ladies. Your responsibility is to your marriage- there’s plenty of work at any time to be done there. Your focus in life is your husband’s needs: you are his helpmeet, not the world’s helpmeet.
    The lie all women fall into is the heart’s desire to ignore her personal commandments, and tend to the wellbeing of her sister. Anything but dealing with one’s responsibility, but look how virtuous I am- I helped a sister in need! I’m justified in my disobedience!
    2. If you really cannot shake the idea of what’s going on in someone else’s relationship, go to your husband with your burdened heart. His is the place in Creation to take action. The story of Esther is your model here. It is not your place to reach over and tell another woman to flee her relationship. However justified you may feel in doing so, in performing such action you undermine the authority of the husband in that relationship. You have done injustice to that marriage by trying to do justice to that marriage. You do right by man, and sin before God.
    Discernment extra credit: women who are instructed to reach over to fellow women with regards to relationship are elders (in Jewish tradition, >60 and grandmother-status), and they are to encourage the younger in being better wives, not how to drive separation in their marriages.


  13. Define abuse.

    You first.

    It is women who have been throwing this term around with such recklessness that it no longer has any meaning.


  14. I read The Transformed Wife on a pretty regular basis, and yet your comment on the “Called to Suffer” article disturbed me more than most of what I see on that website. Your commitment to violence in the name of your Christian faith is profoundly shocking in a day and age where acts of violence seem to be happening more and more regularly. The fact that you commented how you used an assault rifle as crowd control is even more disturbing. I legitimately fear that you are a violent and abusive person. I hope that you aren’t, but if you are then I pray that any woman in your life be allowed to leave. Because no amount of abuse is acceptable. It is not an act of faith to endure abuse from a spouse. It doesn’t matter what kind. If a man is abusing his wife in any way she should seek help away from him. You are wrong in your belief, and the garbage that you espouse on this website is basically just Christian Sharia law.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. You want me to define abuse? I thought I made it pretty clear in a comment above, actually.
    The only abuse which justifies a woman leaving her husband, in my opinion, is serious violence that leaves her with injuries severe enough to make her afraid for her life. Actually, truly afraid. All other abuse can be endured.

    I won’t be leaving my line of work anytime soon – my husband has requested that I go back to work, as the cost of living is getting higher and higher here, and as our children grow they are getting more and more expensive. In 3 more weeks, once the next funding cycle starts, I will be paid extremely well to work with the damaged children of domestic violence. Violence that would horrify the most hardened of people. Think “Once Were Warriors” violence. That is reality here. Working 2 days a week in this job will be enough for our family to live frugally on, so my husband can put all the business money back into his business and build it up.

    The Bible specifically calls us to follow the laws of the land. Unless it goes against God’s law; but leaving a violent marriage doesn’t.


  16. I find it really amusing that Joan of Arc is used on this site as a paragon of virtue. It’s actually really funny, when you think about it. I mean, the name of this blog is “, Laughing at feminism” but what was Joan of Arc if not a feminist?
    I don’t know that she considered herself to be one, as the concept wasn’t really around then,but there is a post on this blog centred around the belief that feminism started with Eve.
    In any case, the suffragettes used Joan of Arc as their poster girl.
    And let’s face it: she disobeyed her father and ran away, fighting in court to avoid the marriage that had been arranged for her. She cut her hair short (the ‘bob’ haircut is inspired by her) and dressed as a boy. She led an army of 4000 in battle. She was known for her short fuse and hot temper.
    The Bible commands women to obey their male authority (fathers, husbands). It commands women to have a meek and quiet spirit. It commands us not to be in authority over men (leading an army of men, anyone??) It commands us to have long hair and dress modestly and in a feminine manner, not in men’s clothing.

    Personally, I think Joan of Arc is awesome and her courage is inspiring. But she is literally breaking all the commandments in the Bible specifically to women and an anti-feminist blog is hailing her as a hero. Yet women today who don’t live up to the commandments well enough, are terrible people.
    Am I the only one who sees the irony in this? Or is it hypocrisy?


  17. Seth Horn,
    Sorry you were disturbed. But I think the fear is mostly in your mind. I am not committed to violence, and in fact, I’m often a peacemaker. Violence is happening more these days because people are not taught to fear God, and are not disciplined when they are young, and so they don’t develop the self-discipline to restrain themselves when an urge to be violent comes upon them. You also seem like a gun-control advocate, in assuming the worst about the incident I mentioned. I wasn’t doing “crowd control”, I singlehandedly stopped a drunken mob from committing even more violence and criminal activity, until the police could arrive. When the police arrived some of the perpetrators complained to the police, and after the police heard their complaints the police came back over to me and sincerely thanked me for all I had done in pacifying the situation. The complainers had every opportunity to file charges against me, but nobody ever did, as I could have easily pressed numerous felony charges against them all. The police even made the ringleader come back and make a formal apology to me a few days after the incident.
    The assault rifle was fully legal including the 75 round drum magazine I had on it, and I was well aware of the laws since I was a federally licensed firearms dealer at that time, and I had met with the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms a number of times as routine business. Sorry, I’ll try not to mention scary stuff like guns on Lori’s blog, and unsettle y’all. I wish I could do more to comfort you.


  18. Ace,
    Joan of Arc, finally somebody wants to discuss the original post! I happen to see things a bit differently, and I don’t doubt Joan would be amazed by how faithless the church is if she were alive today. I figured somebody would be stirred to conversation by my featuring Joan of Arc, who is still at the center of many controversies. However the main point I wanted to feature was her faithful willingness to die for her Christian beliefs instead of recant. Whereas most women today give up on the Bible’s beliefs before they’ve even tried them, how much less would they be willing to die for refusing to publicly recant them. You are making up excuses to get around what the Bible commands women based entirely upon hypotheticals and your own claims of being an “abuse” victim. While Joan was burned to death, without giving in to the politically expedient and legally required views of her day. I think It is hypocritical to claim a martyr who was burned at the stake by her own faithful choice not to recant, is now spokeswoman for Feminists who will recant their “till death do us part” marriage vows over the “abuse” of a few words of correction.

    However, I gave far more of the post to three unsung women, who were likely not as controversial as Joan, to also cause folks of today to see how far women have fallen from the strength of character they once had in following Christ, because of the corrosive and spoiling influence of unbelief and belief in Feminism. I assume you think them fools for giving their lives by sticking at their posts and seeking to honor Christ. But they gave what they could not keep(their lives) to gain what they could not lose.(the crown of life) If you have the faith to believe God rewards those who suffer to obey Him, you will wisely see that they were holy and righteous in what they did. Those who refuse to suffer anything for Christ in this short life, will have to suffer for that throughout eternity.


  19. Sharkly seems to believe that women should stay with violent men even if it kills them.
    Yes, They vowed to be his “to have and to hold” and not to part until death. And as ikr has pointed out, it is pretty simple for a woman to pacify a man, by genuinely serving him in all the ways she was intended to. Although we differ in that I prefer my woman keeps her bush.


  20. The Bible commands women to be keepers at home, to have meek and quiet spirits, to not be in positions of authority over men, to be obedient to their husbands (and fathers before marriage), to dress femininely and modestly and to have long hair. You keep reminding women that it is their role to submit more. Joan of Arc did none of these things, yet you’re holding her up as an example for women to follow. If women today wanted to fight in court against the marriage their fathers had arranged for them, you would tell them to go back home and obey their fathers and marry the man he had chosen for her. If she objected, saying the voices in her head (known as schizophrenia these days) were telling her to take control of an army and lead men into battle, you would mock her and tell her to go back home where she belonged and worry about washing the dishes, not army tactics. I’m sure I’ve read comments from you regarding women in the army. You disapprove. Yet here we have Joan of Arc doing all these things you disapprove of, and you think she is fabulous. If a woman today was to do that, you would not think she was fabulous.
    I get that you think women should stay with their husbands no matter what, even if it means their death, but that is totally not the point Joan of Arc was making. And to attempt to use her to make that point just doesn’t work. Joan of Arc fought back when people got in her face and gave her orders; that is well documented. I really can’t imagine her telling a woman to just stand there and take it, and submit more, and keep doing it even if it kills you. She fought against oppression.


  21. I’m not sure about you, but my marriage vows were: “to have and to hold, love and cherish, for better or worse, sickness and health, richer and poorer, til death do us part.”
    There’s nothing about throttling in there, or beating unconscious. “To have and hold, love and cherish” denote tenderness and care. There is no room for abuse in there. Once a man ignores his vow to cherish his woman and decides to beat the crap out of her instead, he’s broken his marriage vows – the vows he made before the Lord.


  22. This is a statement made in an above comment: “Overwhelmingly, in every possible metric, men have it worse off in life than women.”

    Not diminishing the struggles men face, but you can all walk down the street at night and feel safe. Women can’t. Here in NZ, we’re not allowed to carry weapons in public, so no guns in handbags or anything like that, as some women do in some parts of America. We have to walk holding our car keys, with a single key pointing outwards, as a make-shift weapon. We walk quickly, in the streetlights as much as we can. We look over our shoulder. When we’re mapping a route, we don’t necessarily just look for the most direct route, but the safest. When we go out with friends, we have to be aware of drink-spiking. We know to never leave our drinks unattended (obviously not an issue for Christian women, but it’s something that women in general have to deal with).

    Men can take personal safety for granted. Women can’t. Women are only safe when men choose for them to be.
    Which takes us back to men thinking women should stay with their violent husbands: most men don’t know what it’s like to be in a position of such vulnerability. If a man gets into a fight with a man, it’s a fairly even fight, pretty much. But it’s not for women. If a man pushes a woman, if he slides her up the wall, if he punches her in the face, if he throws her to the ground…. whatever… she’s terrified, and she gets hurt. I don’t think men understand this. I don’t think men (in general) understand what it’s like to live in fear.

    And on a totally different note, I saw this on a rodeo page I follow on Facebook today. Proof that society is changing for the better: “Our generation is so busy trying to prove that women can do everything men can do, women are losing the unique qualities that set us apart. The God-given femininity & unique way our Creator designed us. Women weren’t created to do everything a man can do…. Women were created to do everything a man can’t do. The lioness does not try to be the lion. She embraces her role as the lioness. She is powerful, strong, and nurturing. She does not mistake her meekness for weakness. The world needs more kind, compassionate, humble, faithful, persevering, confident, fierce, bold, pure, and tender-hearted women.”


  23. Sometimes I wonder why so few people can see the enormity of the hypocrisy on this issue. Every churchian just knows that a man is supposed to die for his wife, like Jesus. But they all seem to be completely aghast that I would suggest that a woman should also be willing to lay down her life for her Lord. Today’s women want all the rights of a man, yet with only the responsibility of children.


  24. … you can all walk down the street at night and feel safe. Women can’t. … Men can take personal safety for granted. Women can’t.

    I can’t believe I’m responding to this stereotypical nonsense with a serious reply, but…
    Some men are just as scared as some women.
    What made the women mentioned in the post above brave enough to face the flames of the Great Whore’s(apostate church) murderous minions, for the cause of Jesus Christ, was a combination of faith and reason. They had the faith to believe God rewards those faithful to His word and punishes those who are unfaithful servants for all eternity, and they had the reasoning to figure out that it was far better to face the flames of death for a short while, than to face them eternally in the second death. In short, due to their faith and reason being built on the foundation of Jesus Christ the word of God, they feared neither death nor the destruction of their bodies, which they could have escaped just by recanting for a short while. Neither should you fear violence or death from your husband, even with his suspiciously high bench press.
    Luke 12:4 “I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!
    1 Peter 3:6(AMPC) It was thus that Sarah obeyed Abraham [following his guidance and acknowledging his headship over her by] calling him lord (master, leader, authority). And you are now her true daughters if you do right and let nothing terrify you [not giving way to hysterical fears or letting anxieties unnerve you]. (other versions speak of not being frightened or intimidated)
    You must realize that we are all called to suffer and perhaps even die because of our love for Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:12-3:6) Only your own faithlessness cowardice and unreasoning fear of the temporal keeps you from enduring abuse and death for Christ. Nothing including your husband can ever forcibly separate you from the love of Christ.
    Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    The woman martyred above did not fear to stay with her unsaved husband even at the cost of being burned at the stake. All the churchians offer today is fearmongering and lame faithless excuses! God says, “be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” Choose you this day whom ye will serve; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
    Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it.

    The Bible is absolutely full of verses where God is asking for our lives. That is what God wants, our total devotion to Him and His ways and commands, even unto death. Just as Christ died for the church, the church is to be willing to die for Christ. And just as the husband and “Lord” needs to be told and shown the example of Christ to give his life for his wife, it should almost go without being said that the woman, who was created for the man, should give her life for her “Lord”, if it comes to it. I stand on the holy Word of God, while all the Feminist naysayers just excuse women putting themselves above suffering and death for the cause of Christ, causing His word to be blasphemed,(Titus 2:4-5) and “Christian” families to be fragile, and full of Feminist disobedience.

    You’ve got nothing but faithless excuses. I don’t accept them, and our dreadful God is infinitely less inclined to be hoodwinked by all your Feminism than even I am.


  25. I notice how you said:” Every churchian just knows that a man is supposed to die for his wife, like Jesus.” But you didn’t say that a man is supposed to die at the hands of his wife.
    Dying FOR someone is very different to dying AT THE HANDS OF someone. Yes, I would give up my life for my husband, just as he would for me, and just as we would both do for our children. But just like he would not let me kill him, I am not going to let him kill me, and neither of us are going to kill our children.

    Yes, there probably are some men out there who aren’t the bravest of chaps. But there is no denying the fact that women are more at risk than men when walking down the street alone, late at night. And they are at risk solely because of men.

    And yes, I did make a mistake with that bench press figure. It’s 120kg. Not 220kg. Fat fingers, small phone keys, no proof reading. Oops. In his prime, he could do a lot more, but he’s getting old now (mid 40s). I went to school (and still keep in touch with) a guy who’s on the NZ Olympic weight lifting team and even he can’t bench press 220kg, and he’s only in his mid-30s.

    To be perfectly honest, it doesn’t actually matter whether you accept my apparently “faithless excuses” or not, because you are not God. It matters not what you think. The Bible makes it clear that both men and women are equal in the sight of God.
    Deutoronomy 10:17 – God shows no partiality
    Ephesians 2:14 – He made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier
    Romans 2:11 – God does not show favouritism
    Galatians 3:28 – Neither is there male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus
    How can God be so against feminism, as you claim, if He himself views everybody equally (no division between gender, class or race)? Feminism, in it’s purest form, is about equality.Galatians 3:26-29 is also about equality. God created equality.


  26. ” The Bible makes it clear that both men and women are equal in the sight of God.
    Deutoronomy 10:17 – God shows no partiality
    Ephesians 2:14 – He made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier
    Romans 2:11 – God does not show favouritism
    Galatians 3:28 – Neither is there male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus
    How can God be so against feminism, as you claim, if He himself views everybody equally (no division between gender, class or race)? Feminism, in it’s purest form, is about equality.Galatians 3:26-29 is also about equality. God created equality. ”

    De 10:17 speaks to equality IN JUDGEMENT to all of God’s creation.
    Ep 2:14 speaks to the separation between Israel the people and Israel the church, not to genders.
    Ro 2:11 again speaking to Israel the people and Israel the church, not to equality of genders.
    Ga 3:28 speaks to the identity in Christ, and the INHERITANCE in Christ. There is no barrier between when it comes to access to the After, through Christ.

    What all these verses have in common is the justice of God. Our lives will be judged with common weights (Pr 20:23) based on our tasks- or charges- within Creation: not that the tasks- or charges- we have been given are the same. We are not.
    It is affirmed we have DIFFERENT charges (Mt 25:15), and thus some will be judged more harshly for having squandered (Lk 12:48).

    Jesus affirms hierarchy of authority in God’s Creation:
    ~ Within the Triune itself there is hierarchy. Jo 14:28
    ~ Hierarchy is not only planned in Creation, it is celebrated when properly understood. NOTE: proper understanding is a very rare occurrence. Lk 7:8-9

    The rundown, 1 OT and 1 NT reference for thoroughness:
    ~ Man and woman were created apart, distinct. Ge 5:2, Mk 10:6
    ~ Man and woman were created for different purposes:
    * Man is to dominate (work + responsible for) Creation: Ge 2:15, 1 Ti 5:8
    * Woman is exclusive in her ability to procreate: Ge 2:20, 1 Ti 2:15
    ~ Man and woman are not to be confused. De 22:5, 1 Co 11:14-15
    ~ Man is above woman. Ge 2:22-23, 1 Ti 2:13
    ~ Woman is below man. Ge 3:16, 1 Ti 2:12

    Here is the Order: Elohim > Yeshua > Man > Woman > Child
    Feminism is Satanism. You are performing the work of the Deceiver.

    This quest of yours to affirm ‘equality’ between the sexes is apostasy. To man’s ears, you are insufferable. To God’s ears, you are insubordinate. Humble yourself, woman.


  27. Sharkly, did you account for Seth Horn’s outburst in the ‘Reader’s Triggered’ scorecard? I am not sure you have.

    You gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers in this racket.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Ace — “How can God be so against feminism, as you claim, if He himself views everybody equally (no division between gender, class or race)? Feminism, in it’s purest form, is about equality.Galatians 3:26-29 is also about equality. God created equality.”

    Lucifer created equality, long ago in Babylon. But it took privileged, arrogant, rebellious women to turn Holy Equality into a worldwide religion. With a lot of help from the satanic brotherhoods that planned and executed that aspect of the Enlightenment.

    God did not ‘create’ equality, and it is not in evidence anywhere on Earth or in heaven, except as sown by Lucifer into the minds and methods of human beings.

    I dunno if you are a liar, or merely ignorant. Or some of both. It’ll all be sorted out, anyway. But it is for certain that you are a rebel against heaven and its order, while pretending to serve my King. You’ll be comforted to know that you have a lot of company walking with you on that broad way. But you will not like where it leads.


  29. “You gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers in this racket.”

    He will be very famous before all this is done. No pumping required.


  30. But just like he would not let me kill him, I am not going to let him kill me, and neither of us are going to kill our children.

    Okay, I think that it’s past time that this be said, unnecessary as it ought to be for an audience of (supposed) adults with above-70 IQs:

    Anyone who is abnormally and chronically obsessed with the idea of being maimed and/or killed by their own spouse, but who has not yet suffered said tragic fate is almost certainly somebody who has 1) KNOWINGLY put themselves in a position, and 2) behaves in such a manner as to all but assure that it’s eventually going to happen. I’m not about to waste time and energy researching the issue, but (what used to be known as) “common” sense heavily suggests that this is a symptom of a rather serious form of mental illness and/or a behaviorial disorder. It is most assuredly NOT a sign of someone living a mentally or spiritually healthy and stable life as a rational actor.


  31. Feeriker – the ENTIRE POINT of this blog post is that women should stay with their husbands, even if they’re violent, even if he kills them. How can you talk about IQ levels if you missed that?
    I am absolutely certain that my husband is not going to kill me. But I live in a country where a woman is killed by her partner or ex-partner almost every week. Some of those statistics include “Christians” (in quotes because a man who kills his wife is no Christian).
    Why do all you men seem to think that is acceptable?
    I’m not quite sure who you think you are Ray (aside from perhaps insane) but it’s obvious you’re nothing good, because the Bible tells us we will know people by the fruit they bear and your fruit are truly awful.

    I originally came to this blog to try to understand why Sharkly is so bitter and hateful towards women. Now, not only do I understand, but I also understand why his wife has issues, and why she will never reconcile.

    I’m not sure what religion you’re preaching on here but it isn’t Christianity, because God is a God of love. You have a “trigger counter” to keep track of how many people you’ve offended. That is not something Jesus would do, and we’re commanded to follow in His footsteps.
    Seth Horn is right, he’s not “triggered”.
    Disgusting attitudes are never going to lead people to Jesus. We heard about this in our gospel meeting last night.


  32. I wanted to start a blog, but what should I do if I attract commenters who comment all the time and with the stated purpose of being a scold?
    Richard P is like that at Dalrock’s and so is “You need to be more positive, my wife is awesome ” Joe.
    Just ride it out? Seems better than heavy moderation, but it’s annoying. At least in Seventies Jason case, he is honest about his wants for help and is a sacrificial evangelist.
    OT – did 70’sJason ever respond to your provocative recommendation to reach out to the nun?


  33. ikr,
    Thanks for the reminder. I have updated the triggered scorecard. I’m reminded that Jesus’ message was not received by far more people than received it, and that, as Ray mentioned, there is far more company on the broad way. Right now I’ve got more people “following” this blog than triggered, so perhaps I’ve been focused too much on pleasing people, since my numbers are inverted from what they should be, at this moment.


  34. Swanny River,
    I would encourage you to blog your experiences and insights. I’ll be honored to add a link to your site.
    I think that a blog’s commenting policy, while each blog can be quite different in policy, should be like an unwritten contract of sorts. Because people are more likely to spend the time and energy to make well thought out substantive comments, if they feel somewhat aware of the rules and are OK with them. At least for myself I like to be part of the discussion at the moment when I comment on somebody’s blog, but I also like to think that I also leave behind something for others who may seek out the topic later. If my comments disappeared in a few days time, it would often be harder to justify spending the time to write them. I would think people would put less time into participation if they felt like their host would just censor their content capriciously, at some later date if they got to disagreeing with the host. While I also think that it may be best to leave the policy unwritten, because then it can more easily evolve and be exercised a bit more selectively so that the host can keep the blog tended how they prefer it. Right now, I have been trying to be pretty hands off as far as the moderation, but if people abuse that, then I’ll have to intervene.
    Often people feel the need to respond when people are talking about them, so I’d want to try to not talk much about anybody who causes problems elsewhere, lest they feel the need to come here and defend themselves, and then we would suddenly be dealing with their same issues here. I do feel like I’d put up with some “misfit toys” to have a wider audience, but I don’t want to send out a dog whistle for misfits and not also get the positive contributors who add so much value to the discussion by their more reasonable comments.

    I’d like a place where ideas can be hashed out pretty freely, but yet where the discussion remains reasonably respectful of those who comment here. I’d like their to be a Bible centered core of commenters, but be able to discuss application and topics that go well outside of purely Biblical discussion. I feel like it is best if we can learn how to confidently espouse our ideas and defend our ideas against some legitimate opposition.
    While an echo chamber of like minded people may be an easy place to state your viewpoint, we need to mature into people who can espouse and defend our viewpoints against opposition, so it can be helpful to have some, provided it isn’t too overwhelming. I also think it is important that we not have a cloistered male space, but that we learn to boldly treat public spaces as places where we can stand firm in our God fearing, man honoring, woman leading, ways. Just because any specific woman doesn’t take to being led, doesn’t mean that wiser ones can’t see the leadership being given and benefit from it.

    Thanks, ray, for your vote of confidence.

    Any update for us on your blog, feeriker?


  35. Swanny, I have found over there heavy moderation and an army of pious blue-pills-thinking-they-are-red-pills commenters, very light on discernment. Pity, there is value in the research element to his blog, but I just don’t have enough hours in the day to sort through all that noise.

    Sharkly, in case the reference was missed:

    Feeriker, I’m staying up until midnight with great anticipation at your big reveal. Can’t wait to see what you’ve been preparing for us this whole time. As giddy as a middle school cheerleader over here.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. 38 minutes to go in the feeriker count down. Nice to see folks holding his toes to the fire.

    All heaven waits expectantly and the Lord leans forward on His Seat. The angels hold their breath and the stars’ hearts skip a beat.

    Fanfare aaand. . . over to you, feeriker! :O)

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Thank you for sharing your thinking about blogging, it helps me. I won’t start one until I get a computer, typing on this phone takes too long.
    However, it’s more important that I think it through first. I can already see that part of my motivation is centered on my own enjoyment, so I still have to address that. The scold here really ruins the enjoyment part of it, but that is why I need to answer the question, “so what?”
    I would miss “the original Laura” and other good female commenters if it was male only, but I might choose to do that to get rid of the tares. I think men can successfully come up with edifying and sharpening conversations, even cloistered, they just need a facilitator to stay on topic and to not fight the Reformation every post.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s