How to Start a Cult

L. Ron Hubbard wrote massive volumes of books and courses on Scientology, a religion he made up, and Scientology now has millions of followers who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy his books and take his courses. The vast majority go so far as to devote their entire lives, forsaking spouse and children, to follow these teachings. Some people have found their way out, however, and now help others who have been hurt by Scientology.

Joseph Smith, high on something in the woods, wrote the Book of Mormon and created a cult that has followers to this day, although the polygamy he wrote into it and cherished is now relegated to a few sects mainly dwelling in Colorado and Utah.

John Piper and Wayne Grudem, along with a few other misled, insecure men, wrote a manifesto on what they consider "biblical manhood and womanhood," wherein they twisted the Bible and added a multitude of "inferences" to justify their twisted interpretations about what they think men and women should be doing with their time. This manifesto is so popular and widely accepted that pastors and missionaries refer to it more than the Bible, itself, when it comes to questions of gender roles, of which there should be none.

Cult leaders do not encourage independent, critical thinking. As a matter of fact, they discourage
independent, critical thinking. Every single cult leader demands that their ideas, interpretations and concepts are followed to a T and their followers face dire consequences if they do not adhere to them. John Piper even wrote a set of arguments against those of us who have taken issue with any of his interpretations.

A few weeks ago, I was compared to a cult leader because I strongly encourage independent, critical thinking when it comes to Bible study. I was criticized for using a lexicon for Bible study. I was criticized for following and praising the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11, even though Luke praised them for looking things up for themselves.

I encourage independent, critical thinking.....the person who criticized me encourages extensive use of commentaries for Bible study. You tell me who looks more like a cult leader. Hint: One who encourages the use of man-made material over the Bible is much more like a cult leader than one who encourages independent, critical thinking.

So, one key to starting a cult is to make sure you do not ever encourage independent, critical thinking. Make sure your subjects are following something other than the Word of God, like a commentary or books written by some wealthy faux Christian author, or, better yet, write your own.

Another key to starting a cult is to subdue women. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood does this so well that even otherwise solid evangelical pastors embrace much of this teaching. Part of subduing women includes minimizing how women served throughout the Bible. The teachings of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood actually teach that Deborah, the Old Testament judge, was only used as a judge because she gave priority to men, which they say proved God would never use a woman to lead a man unless she showed priority to that man.

I've had more than one Christian person throw the links to this false teaching into my inbox along with warnings about how God will not bless me if I don't give priority to men in my life. I have news for those people: It's too late for God to not bless me since He already has.

There you have two keys to starting a cult:

1. Write a manifesto that sounds real close to what the Bible teaches.
2. Subdue women.

Every single modern-day cult has done these two things.

~Tricia

Marriage is not An Airplane (Or a Football Game)

Some guy I never heard of wrote a blog post in response to the "Day Without a Woman" which was held across the country this week. Some women opted to miss work in hopes of showing their boss, patients, students, customers, etc., what it would be like if they were not there.

While I personally would not participate in something like that, others who choose to do so are certainly well within their legal rights. There might be other repercussions, however, like if their boss fires them for not showing up, etc. Anyway, this guy I never heard of who wrote the blog post has quite a few things wrong in his blog post.

In the context, he wrote about marriage. He said men should "man up" and "put their foot down," presenting an idea of a dictatorial boss who has the right, even obligation, to tell his wife what to do. He said (I paraphrase) that people rejoice when a woman "puts her foot down" but reject the same phrase/idea for men. He said people who "oppose male leadership in the home don't oppose it on egalitarian grounds despite what they claim." He said, "They don't actually think that husbands and wives should be leaders equally. They believe, rather, that the wife should be the leader." More on this in a minute.

He went on to compare marriage to piloting and airplane....then to a football game.

Trouble is, marriage is not an airplane, nor is it a football game. No wonder he's struggling so much with his perceived "leadership;" he has no understanding of marriage.

First of all, he does not and cannot speak for egalitarians. He tried to here, but he's dead wrong and clearly does not understand egalitarians. I suspect he's never studied the idea since it's an obvious threat to someone like him. Also, his clear misrepresentation of egalitarian relationships shows his ignorance.

I want to address just a few of his points.

The reason people cringe when a man says he's going to put his foot down but don't when a woman says the same is, women are usually "putting their foot down" to protect themselves from some form of abuse, or to protect their children, whereas men are "putting their foot down" to control someone else just so they have control. Women rarely "put their foot down" to control someone else unless that someone is abusing them and, in that, she's really controlling what happens to her. Men "put their foot down" to control the family. A wife is not a subordinate, but to suggest that a man can and should from time to time "put his foot down," assumes the wife is a subordinate as though she needs someone to tell her what to do.

Secondly, marriage can't be adequately compared to an airplane because we can't designate one person as the pilot and the other as the co-pilot in a marriage. Flying an airliner is not like marriage. Yes, the pilot and co-pilot of the plane have to have a mutual understanding of the plane, but a plane flies by extremely stringent rules and regulations. Both the pilot and co-pilot receive specific training, the exact same training, actually. Marriage is not filled with stringent rules and regulations; no one is telling a husband or wife where to sit.

Thirdly, marriage can't be adequately compared to a football game, either. Certainly a QB often does the job of a running back and scores touchdowns. No one stops him and tells him that's not his role. As a matter of fact, anyone at all who gets hold of the ball and makes a touchdown is praised. No one cares if making the touchdown is not in their job description.

Fourth, a man does not have to set the course for his marriage because God has already done so. They, together are to nuture their relationship, equally, with a common goal in mind. What is that common goal? To love the Lord their God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength and to love their neighbor as themselves. That is all.

He said there have to be some set ideas about who does what and why in a marriage. As someone who has been married for 37 years and raised 8 kids with my husband, I find this very confusing. Over the years, we never stuck to designated roles out of the need for inequality in our marriage. I do the cooking, but not because I am a woman and, therefore, belong in the kitchen. I do the cooking for 2 reasons: I like cooking and I'm better at it then he. However, he can get a meal for himself and makes his own lunch to take to work, etc. If I'm not home to cook, he won't starve and I'm not failing in my "role." He's a grown man, he can feed himself. Oh, and it's not my job to tell him what to eat, either. I put out healthy meals; the choice to eat it or not is his. If he wants to eat brownies and ice cream instead, he's free to do so.

He does major home repairs. Not because he's the man and only men should handle hammers; he does major home repairs because he knows how and is better at them than I. However, I do have my own toolbox and all my own tools so I can do things like hang pictures and assemble furniture, etc. Our roles may have been defined over the years, but they are not defined by any Biblical standard, they have been defined by need and ability. We are simply two people getting family life done, either one of us picking up the perceived role of the other at any given time and getting it done.

The points in this guy's blog post are contradictory to what he's suggesting as a practice. On the one hand, he advises husbands to "put their foot down," then tells them they are to die to themselves. Well, which is it? If we die to our own selfish desires, when would we ever put our foot down, and for what? If a man "puts his foot down" and "forbids" his wife from doing something like taking a day off to show solidarity to a cause he may not agree with, he is not dying to himself; he's forcing her to behave as he sees fit. Sharia Law, anyone?

If I really touched all the points I disagree with this man on, this blog post would be too long. It might already be too long. Need marriage advice? Here's the best marriage advice you will ever get:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; 

and love your neighbor as yourself. 

Forget about the "roles" that people like the blogger try to put you in. Successful marriages are made up of people who don't hesitate to pick up and do whatever it takes to keep the family running without keeping track of whose "role" they thought each task fell to.

Seriously, who does that? Who sets "roles" and lives their life to make sure those roles are fulfilled in the way they perceive they ought to be? Who keeps track of that? If a man is truly "manning up," he's realizing he is no more his wife's authority than she is his and they treat each other with mutual love, respect and submission. News flash, guys: Your wife is an adult; you're not her boss.

~Tricia

Why Patriarchy is Bad for Your Marriage, Your Family and Your Church

The Christian culture of the west generally embraces patriarchy as God's best, as true Biblical teaching and as the expected for our families.

I disagree. I feel that patriarchy is bad for you, bad for your family and bad for your church. I'll tell you why.

Patriarchy goes against God's ideal. I've heard the argument that because God said to Eve after she sinned, "Your desire will be toward your husband," (Genesis 3:6) therefore, God wants women to be focused on their husband, indicating that marriage is an ideal for a woman and good women get married.

This is not God's ideal. God's ideal was the garden before sin. 

It's interesting to note that a woman's desire toward her husband is a punishment. Eve's desire was toward God before the fall and the desire toward a husband is a prediction of what will be, (i.e. her desire will be away from God) not God's ideal of what should be. God puts this husband-ward desire in the same category as increased pain in childbirth. As a person who has given birth to eight people, I can tell you first hand, it isn't pleasant.

This is not a command; it's a prediction. It should not be taught as something to strive for because it was a result of sin and part of the curse. Christ undid the curse through His death, burial and resurrection. The price for Eve's sin has been paid, as it has for Adam's and as it has for yours. We women are free to have our desire to be totally toward God, not our husbands. We no longer have sin in the way of our relationship with God, therefore we no longer have any human interference with our relationship with God. We no longer have to war with a desire toward a husband competing with a desire toward God. We can be all about God all the time now because that punishment has been paid.

Do not teach a young wife that having a "desire toward her husband" is what God wants for her. Quite the contrary, God wants her to love the Lord her God with all her heart, soul and mind and to love her neighbor as herself. 

Patriarchy goes against Paul's teachings and practices. Every time a man talks with me about this subject and we turn to Ephesians 5:22 & 23, his voice nearly booms when he says a wife is to submit to her own husband, but his voice quiets when he says the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it.

Husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. Wives are never given this command outside of loving our neighbors as ourselves, a command given to every Christian and every Jew. Yet, the emphasis taught to our young women is sacrifice to their husband. This is not to say that women shouldn't have a sacrificial love for their husbands, it's just that it's not a specific command for women in that way. For the man, this is commanded, specifically.

What I've seen is men being taught this with a condition. The condition is given first in these teachings. "Wives, submit; husbands, love." It's taught as though his responsibility and even his ability to obey the command hinges on his wife's submission. The command for husbands to love is not conditional on the wife's submission or lack thereof. It is a command. It is not optional. No matter what she does, no matter what she says, no matter how she feels, he is only in compliance with the Biblical command if he loves her as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. He does not get to claim that he can't love her as Christ loves the church because she won't submit. If that were true of Christ, we would all be hopeless.

What does that look like in our western culture? How does Christ love the church? The church does nothing for Him. He created her, purified her, died for her, rose from the dead for her and lives so that she can live, grow and thrive. So, that's what husbands are to do. While a man cannot create a wife, he can convince a woman to become his wife.  He can give up his desires for her (die to himself for her), make sure her needs are met and forgive her all her weaknesses. He is commanded to sacrifice his all for her. The remote. The football. The toys. The golf. The night out with the boys. The sports car. Everything. That's how Christ loves the church. He gave up everything because He is all about her all the time. 

Patriarchy does not support this.

Patriarchy created false roles for men and women and teach that those roles are God's plan. This one baffles me every time I hear it. I personally know some men who believe that all women who work outside the home are out of God's will for their lives. I know some women who feel the same way. I know a couple of men, preachers, who claim they only preach to the men in their church. How bizarre is that?  I wonder how Jesus would have told Mary, as she sat at His feet learning from Him, that His Words are only for the men. He, of course, did not and would not do that because Jesus is an equal opportunity Savior. He doesn't care if you're a man or a woman, boy or girl, He will talk with you, teach you, save you.

If I was ever in a church where the pastor said he only preaches to the men, I would leave that church. I was in a church once where the pastor only communicated with women through their husbands. I left that church.

Men and women were not given roles by God. There is no Scriptural support for such an idea. Biology does dictate a few roles. Women's bodies are designed to grow babies and give birth, then feed a baby, so there's a designated role. However, motherhood does not exclude women from other roles. If it did, the Proverbs 31 woman was completely out of God's will, as was Deborah, Hildah, Lydia, Priscilla, Esther, Ruth, Naomi, Sapphira, Junia, Abigail, Anna, Dorcas and a host of other women whose lives were highlighted in the Bible.

I've also heard men teach that the only reason God ever used a woman was because a man was not available. Are you telling me that the God of all creation, the God who made people out of dust, the God who made dust out of nothing, was not able to raise up a male person to do a job so He, even He, the Creator of all things living and non-living, had to resort to using a woman? Anyone who teaches this should not be teaching at all because they do not know a thing about God. That is messed up theology.

Galatians 3:28 clearly teaches that gender has no place in our walk with Christ. "For there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond or free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Those who treat women differently are out of the will of God. Many who do this like to say women are "different, but equal" but that does not work. The "but" in that sentence minimizes women by its very use. Also, that phrase assumes that men are prominent. A much better way to avoid the minimization of women is to say "women and men are equal while different."

Patriarchy creates false pride in men. Many men I've  talked to about this subject get very upset with me, raise their voice, take Scripture out of context and exaggerate my position. Pride. Apparently, my ability to articulate a Biblical position that differs from theirs is great cause for concern on their part. Do I bruise their ego? (If so, I don't care; it's not my job to protect anyone's ego.)

The bottom line on this is patriarchy creates false pride. Pride has no place in marriage, the home or the church. The false pride created by patriarchy is damaging to the home. It leads to abuse every single time. Because it's not God's ideal, men find themselves pushing for patriarchy without God. This push is usually met with push back and disrespect. In turn, the woman pushing back is made to feel guilty as though she's doing something wrong, the man reinforces that idea because his ego is bruised and a cycle of abuse results. Instead of him sacrificing for her as he's commanded, he pushes her to submit to his abuse, claiming it's her "role."

A wife's submission is really none of her husband's business. It is between her and God and no one else. By it's very definition, submission is voluntary, so if it only comes through demand, it's not real submission, it's only compliance. Women will temporarily appear to submit to keep the peace and sometimes this is necessary for safety. But, while a woman might submit for a time just to keep peace, it won't last. She will rebel against this over time, and she should. No woman should submit due to a demand by another person. A woman who is all about God all the time needs no prompting to submit.

Patriarchy limits a woman's relationship and access to God. Some who hold to patriarchal teachings believe and promote that a husband is the "family priest," thus limiting a woman's access to God, Himself. This is prominently taught in many Christian circles, much to my dismay. Even a quick look at Scripture reveals the ignorance of such a notion. I Timothy 2:5 clearly tells us about this, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus."

Women do not need their husbands to be a priest in their lives. Not only do women not need this, to teach that a husband is a priest to her is poor theology and contradicts God, Himself. It's wrong to teach that anyone needs a priest other than Christ. We all, as believers in Christ's death, burial and resurrection, have direct access to Him at all times. We are told to come boldly to the throne of grace. We are not told to go to our husbands so that they can access the gates of Heaven; we are to approach it ourselves. (Hebrews 4:6)

Ladies, the Bible is talking to you. Directly to you. Not through a husband. To YOU.

Real men want a wife who is grounded in her theology.
Real men want a wife who approaches God Almighty with boldness and frequency.
Real men want a wife who loves the Lord her God with all her heart, all her mind and all her soul.
Real men reject patriarchy.

~Tricia