The Modern Abandonment of Biblical Domestic Order

The Christian Abandonment of Biblical Domestic Order

Every age has more than sufficient ground to be embarrassed by its’ more glaring evils that vex its memory and which afflicted its contemporaries. Most of such evils have easy solutions, but the barrier of human prejudice renders their correction problematic.  One prejudice very common to modern times is the presumption of taking one’s own age as the standard by which all others are to be infallibly judged. One of many problems this creates is an incapacity for evaluating one’s own age, and this becomes the blind spot that can almost never be overcome. Such persons assumes that all ages were as his own, or if not, that they should have been, and hence can never believe they could have lost their way. Oh yes, the world has lost it’s way; but the church is yet the pristine shining light according to the pattern shown us in the scriptures. Perhaps it’s the disease of social evolution, imagining that there is something in man that must unavoidably advance and improve, that at least partially creates such a public spirit within the church, and then lives on as one of the greatest assurances that we cannot actually do so. No one fights that hard for the inevitable.

However, the ability to candidly examine one’s beliefs, and the social assumptions of his times, should that ever be attained, creates an open door to a whole new world of reality just waiting for some modern to discover it here and there. Surmounting one’s prejudices, then, may potentially open the jailhouse of erroneous social assumptions which have chained a generation from its own social continuity. The spiritual context of one’s own age will empower a generation to fruitfulness, else all the wrong nostrums applied to all the wrong issues, will be as a warfare fought with the guns pointed at the wrong enemy, if not at friends. Moderns must find this transparency should they wish to bless their generation, and one would think the entire pending dissolution of his own culture might afford some clue that perhaps he doesn’t understand things as he ought, and to compel him to consider that something is even radically amiss, and indeed, perhaps everything he believes about many subjects is completely wrong.

Thus what are entirely radical ideas of family and economy are just swallowed whole without chewing as some sort of vast improvement over any other age, and by which we will judge them as deficient to the degree that they were not equally brainwashed in their times, as we fill the world with history books about the vast evils of former Neanderthal beliefs. Because our television told us they were true. As did our public school. A television and public school that also told us that mothers ripping their children to pieces in their own wombs was a sacred right, and the same school that teaches your children that slicing their genitals off is a great idea. And never stop to think about how idiotic it would be to listen to one word such people say about anything.

Surely parents have always just given up their children to be trained and spiritually formed by those who hate them, their faith, and their genetics, and who fully intend to secure a generation at polar opposites from all they believe and hope for their children. That only makes sense parents would do that. And pay for it. Or get thrown off their “private property”. And aren’t we glad that mothers are not now slaving in their homes in servitude to their evil husbands! No, now they’re slaving at a job for people who don’t care anything for them, and certainly their children are far from glad about it, as they spiritually rot in the hell of a public brainwashing facility because of it.

Now, such presumption just sounds immensely stupid does it not, my reader? The reason it comes off that way, is because it is that way. For most parents their children are raised. But for those budding families, you are a new generation of parent, and the petitions are lifted that your heart might be willing to weigh and hear the critique of that which your deepest enemies have trained you to hold as beyond review.

It is matter for inquiry to what degree the modern family lays hold of the fact that they are entirely different from the structure of the family as commanded in the bible, or as seen in Christians throughout history. That we are different is no cause for wonder, but that no one seems to realize we are, is truly a curious matter. Of course there have always been working women, but the present domestic standard that everyone expects is so radically “other” that it looks like another world.

Lets start with a few biblical truths; biblical truths that are typically hated, no, not by the world of unregenerates, but by those who imagine themselves “bible believers”. The modern “bible” believer has thrown off all the former “unwarranted” social standards of our socially backward forefathers. Social standards that once shaped Western civilization, we are now enlightened to see as based upon false pretenses that “hold women back” from their true capacities, and don’t provide adequate educational opportunities for children. But no one even seems to care to ask the question if this “new light” came from the bible, nor will they readily consider the blank idiocy of longing for deliverance from the present social hell of leftism, while praising all the social evils created it.

But the bible speaks to all of this, and the bible commands women to stay home, bear children, and raise them for God, and a man is to be the provider of income, vision, and order for the family. And … the average TV-brainwashee just had a seizure, and said in his heart… “Bro! That’s cultural! You can’t take your cultural ideas and make them some sort of idolatrous altar for all the church to falsely worship at! Sola Scriptura!” But of course, before you can be guided by “Only the Bible”, (Sola Scriptura), you first have to read your bible. No one can have any such attachment to be guided by a book they haven’t read. Until then they cannot have any slightest clue about “Sola Scriptura”. Secondly, the sincerity of such confessions of extreme fidelity to “Only the bible” is not tested in the fever pitch of public proclamations, but when the time comes for you to pay up when you find the bible reproves your actions, because most find it easy to drop their attachment like a hot potato, provided there is a section to cheer for him doing so. But we will waste no more time in determining which my reader is.

Because we’ll now show but a few of the scriptures which emphatically command this very domestic order to the people of God, with frightful consequences in the balance. Because then we’ll see if such persons merely use the terms “sola scriptura” to sound cool, and like they really care, or if they will immediately drop their false idolatrous ideas and embrace the bible as they perennially pretend. Because… here it is reader:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.For some are already turned aside after Satan.”[1] (ITim.5:14-15)

“The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” (Tit. 2:3-5)

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (ITim.5:8)

So… “keepers at home” that the word of God be not blasphemed. “Guide the house” or you’ve “turned aside after Satan. “If any provide not for his house HE hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.”
But does my reader now agree? If not, what happened to all the fidelity to “Sola Scriptura”? Unfortunately, most will, right here, demonstrate the accuracy of what was claimed above, that all the jealousy for “Scripture Alone” is but shallow pretense, and that many such will sooner gnash their teeth at the bible and show who is on the throne, than ever bow and conform themselves to the plainest of dictates from the bible.

Next consider that such truths concerning a woman’s station in life have never been deviated from by the Christian church ever, until the 20th century, and such was the Church’s extreme influence over culture before abandoning the bible pattern of domestic order, that for the most part it kept even the world sufficiently enlightened so as not to wander far from its unified example, despite various attempts by worldlings at various times. It’s not that salt doesn’t preserve. It’s that we’re not salt. We’re not salt, and we are trampled. (Mat.5:13)

It’s a relatively simple matter to review relevant entries upon such passages in evangelical bible commentaries to consider many witnesses to this, among whom would be Matthew Henry on Tit.2 where he affirms the passage’s teaching that aged women should teach the younger ….
“To bear a good personal character: To be sober and discreet, contrary to the vanity and rashness which younger years are subject to: discreet in their judgments and sober in their affections and behaviour. Discreet and chaste stand well together; many expose themselves to fatal temptations by that which at first might be but indiscretion. Prov. 2:11, Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee from the evil way. Chaste, and keepers at home, are well joined too. Dinah, when she went to see the daughters of the land, lost her chastity. Those whose home is their prison, it is to be feared, feel that their chastity is their fetters. Not but there are occasions, and will be, of going abroad; but a gadding temper for merriment and company sake, to the neglect of domestic affairs, or from uneasiness at being in her place, is the opposite evil intended, which is commonly accompanied with, or draws after it, other evils. 1 Tim. 5:13, 14, They learn to be idle, wandering from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. Their business is to guide the house, and they should give no occasion to the enemy to speak reproachfully.”

Or Matthew Poole on ITim.5:14

“I will therefore that the younger women marry: ….  if they cannot restrain themselves from such scandalous courses, let them marry;  bear children, and not only bring forth children, but take care of their education ; guide the house, and take care of the government of families within doors (which is the woman’s proper province) ; give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully ; and give no occasion to Jews or pagans (the adversaries of Christian religion) to speak of the church, or any particular members of it, reproachfully, as living beneath the rules of morality and decency.”

Matthew Poole on Tit.2:5

“To be discreet; the {Greek} word signifies temperate, and imports an ability to govern all our affections and passions. Discretion is but one piece of the fruit. Chaste ; the word signifieth pure as well as chaste, and chastity only as it is a species of purity. Keepers at home ; housewives, not spending their time in gadding abroad, but in looking to the affairs of their own families. Obedient to their own husbands: the same is required of wives, Eph. V. 22, and is due from them to their husbands, as being their head. That the word of God be not blasphemed: as for the discharge of their duty towards God, so for the credit and reputation of the gospel, that for their carriage contrary to the rules of nature and morality, as well as of religion, the gospel may not be evil spoken of, as if from that they had learned their ill and indecent behaviour.”

Or consider the notable 1800’s American Presbyterian Samuel Miller who spoke representatively of both the bible and of his own and previous ages when he sated the following: “Here I shall not stop to inquire, whether the native character of the female mind is, in all respects, precisely the same with that of the other sex. Whatever opinion may be formed on this subject, I take for granted, we shall all agree, that Women ought not to be considered as destined to the same employments with Men; and, of course, that there is a species of education, and a sphere of action, which more particularly belong to them. There was a time, indeed, when a very different doctrine had many advocates, and appeared to be growing popular:—viz. that in conducting education, and in selecting employments, all distinctions of sex ought to be forgotten and confounded; and that females are as well fitted to fill the academic Chair, to shine in the Senate, to adorn the Bench of justice, and even to lead the train of War, as the more hardy sex. This delusion, however, is now generally discarded. It begins to be perceived, that the God of nature has raised everlasting barriers against such wild and mischievous speculations; and that to urge them, is to renounce reason, to contradict experience, to trample on the divine authority, and to degrade the usefulness, the honor, and the real enjoyments of the female sex.”^[2] It’s recognized that such citations hardly go deeply into the claim, but it’s all you’ll find if you search modern times.

So… what brought about the change? As has been hinted above, what has brought about this massive polar shift in human culture has not been the fruit of any biblical reformation by saints coming to a more clear view of scripture, but by them coming to a more antichrist Marxist view by a clearer view of their television, by a clearer view of their artfully abdicating preacher parroting all the infamy he idolatrously guzzled down at his seminary, and by nearly everyone being sold into the hell of a public school by their derelict parents, who will complain about all of it, and then dutifully to hell, put every single piece of this revolution in place in their homes.

Thus over the last century, having no prophets of our own, we’ve casually relinquished the salient biblical pillars of human society, for that of our new prophets, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles. No, we’ve not relinquished a proper adherence to salvation by grace, but we’ve entirely abdicated on what is biblical human order. And that state of affairs within Christendom is by no means more apparent than by the fact that most readers will wonder if there is even any such thing as a biblical human order, much like some in the early church had not so much as heard that there was a Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:1-7) It’s as though the bible had only a blueprint for personal salvation, but none whatever for family, government, justice, or culture, and this, simply because they don’t read their bibles, or, reading it, don’t take it seriously.

It’s with extreme ease that we see why our enemies have taken such pains to convert Christians to their faith. It’s because while we are faithful, we remain a public witness that preserves an order they wish to plow into oblivion, and which also preserves God’s Almighty protection and favor over us, such that wicked hands cannot overthrow us. So the mystery is not why they would wish to, but why they have prospered? Are we so without watchmen that none can raise an alarm at the literal overthrow of the Christian family, not only with nearly no one to warn of the catastrophe, but with hardly anyone remaining faithful for Marx’s Christian converts to persecute, so thorough has been their evangelism?

World Wars have established this immoral transformation. The advent of ubiquitous media has established this immoral transformation. The seizure of control of education has established this immoral transformation. Marxists have called this transformation “The Long March Through the Institutions”. But nothing has established this immoral transformation more than the abdication of the Christian Church, which, had it stood firm against this flood of iniquity according to the plain precepts of it’s charter, the scriptures, it would have overthrown the vile transformation that has presently engulfed the globe, and nothing but its restoration to full repentance will bring this perversion of creation to a just accounting. Because that is its high calling of God, and if it will not be “salt and light” to the world, there is no other, and the world will putrefy and engulf the negligent people of God with the infection it played accomplice to, because it could not rather find its’ sword. 

Getting women out of the home, and their children into government run schools was all part of the Marxist dogma that overtook the church in the twentieth century. The admitted design of this institution was that it could be used to alienate the next generation from the culture of their fathers and convert them to that of antichrist enemies of the faith, until all that had defined us as a people was not just forgotten but vilified as a great evil never to be returned to. You don’t have to remove every part of an engine to leave you stranded. One gear and you’re walking. One divine pillar of human order and felicity, such as motherhood, and the building will not stand, and hasn’t.

 And this is exactly why the satanists who have foisted this demonic system upon the world have been so laser focused on dismantling the biblical domestic order. It hands them everything they want on a platter. The overthrow of the traditional family was always a part of the Marxist scheme of revolution, but it was never made more clear than in Fredriech Engles treatise, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State”. There we find the following candid admission: “The first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex into public industry and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unity of society.”^[3] Later Marxists are even more candid: “The nuclear family must be destroyed and people must find better ways of living together. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.”^[4] A process Christians must see and confess they have been entirely complicit in advancing, thus abdicating their role as the “Light of the World”, and becoming the brain-dead agenda-free vassals of earths most abandoned reprobates.

Engles again: “The overthrow of mother-right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children. This degraded position of the woman, especially conspicuous among the Greeks of the heroic and still more of the classical age, has gradually been palliated and glozed over, and sometimes clothed in a milder form; in no sense has it been abolished.”^[5] 

First, notice the demonization of the bible. Because patriarchy is emphatically enunciated as the natural God-ordained order of humanity, and this most benign felicity is slandered as a great evil. But further, and in a most humorous ignorance of their own blindness and idiocy, Engles, and all Marxists, perennially talk about the evils of the man in bringing the woman into bondage as his slave, as though she was not a party to a free and voluntary contract, where raising children and meeting both her own and her husband’s necessities in marital prerogative, was actually a gloriously inviting aspect of that contract. But no… she’s a “slave of his lust”, as though she had no necessity and was captured on her way to church and held in his basement to serve his sordid pleasures by force and violence. It’s incomprehensibly asinine, and contrary to every known aspect of the reality of marriage. It’s every bit as asinine as the feminist who imagines she’ll “fight the patriarchy” by using my mother’s name!” Oh? You mean your grandfather’s?

If this life of sex and raising kids doesn’t sound absolutely awesome to a woman, a remedy should be sought for her hormonal imbalance and for her disconnection to her God-given feminine nature, but she is certainly under no obligation whatever to contract marriage otherwise, and may follow whatever life lawfully pleases her. But this mutual necessity, and the glorious joys of raising a family together under this benign division of labor the bible extolls as a beneficent God-ordained calling filled with precious rewards. But see how the Satanists slander and vilify all that the bible calls good, and so many Christians are all content just to join them in four-part harmony.  But having children out of wedlock is exactly what the Marxist wants, because it puts his party in the driver’s seat to rear the next generation, and his aspirations have only worked because Christians have complied and allowed themselves to listen to those they know full well are wicked.

And here Marx, no less than Engles, exposes this fatal ignorance in Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto:

“The bourgeois sees his wife as a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.”^[6]

Marx again:

“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

“On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

“The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

“And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.”^[7]

What is so entirely amusing in such admissions, the communist is evidently so blinded to he does not even perceive the embarrassment or necessity to edit, revise, or by some means conceal! You evil bourgeoisie men!!! You take control of women, and use them and their children as slaves! An intolerable outrage that must be rectified by murderous revolutions! Because…. We communists want to take control of them to serve us and our vision, men and women both, as our vassals. And there is the truth of Communist “brotherhood” and “community”. Doubtless they are slaves when they serve their husbands and children by free contract, but truly free and liberated when they serve the mass-murdering antichrists who commandeer whole countries and slaughter any who won’t work in their national prison camp. Those who were taught to hate God and slander God’s good ways, deserved to feel the agony of that antichrist way they chose.

But further, another perhaps even more evident idiocy is the grounds upon which this oppression is claimed. Because the women work at home and raise children. Provided for by their husbands bearing the financial burden, and her the domestic. Both are manifest beneficiaries, and both have manifest burdens. But if these burdens are “evil”, then why aren’t his burdens equally oppressive and slavish? The common knowledge of savvy women sees straight through this dunce’s pontifications. From a common Twitter post of a virtuous and enlightened modern female:

“Feminists always frame the past as “men were allowed to work, while women were forced to stay home”. It’s just as true to say, “women were allowed to stay home, while men were forced to work. The average man had no say in this, and no woman would have married one unwilling to work.”^[8]

Or another:

“My mission in life is to make my husband’s life as easy, happy, fun, and profitable as possible. Every action I take is to be an asset to him, not a liability. Would modern women consider me more noble if I did that for a company instead?”^[9] Or for a Marxist state instead?

What is so utterly hilarious about such raving lunacy is that the Marxist doesn’t see it! You can tell they have no clue how perfectly stupid they look, and what fools they make of themselves. Don’t tell them, and they’ll keep advertising it for us. They write in philosophic pedantry as they proclaim errors so base as could only proceed off the crayon of an uneducated knave. What if we turned the table? “Men’s liberation is the first order of human liberation! They must be liberated from the feminist oppression of forced labor! They are the slaves of women who sit at home and reap the spoils of their labor!!!” Oh what unfathomable idiots! Even more so the dunces to whom it makes sense.

At issue is that you have a small group of Satanists who wish to commandeer humanity, and to remove the head is the necessary item on the agenda to accomplish it. Thus revolutionaries always seek to dethrone the existing structures of authority, and at its most fundamental essential core, that would be fathers and husbands in the home. As has been said, “The Current war on masculinity is meant to cut down the strong who guard what is sacred.” Its  the methodology of how Satan prospered in the garden of Eden, and it’s what his servants have used to this day. Those who don’t hear the voice of the serpent in such ravings need to familiarize themselves with their bibles.

There was a man named Aaron Russo who was a friend of Nicholas Rockefeller. He had a conversation with Nicholas which he relates in the following interview posted on YouTube.^[10] Russo died shortly after this interview. Here are his words:

“Well one of the things he (Nicholas Rockefeller) told me was that um, Aaron what do you think woman’s liberation was about.  …I had pretty conventional thinking about it at that point, and I said that women have the right to work, get equal pay with men, just like they won the right to vote. And he started to laugh and said, you’re an idiot. And I said why am I an idiot? And he said, let me tell you what that was about. We the Rockefellers funded that. We funded women’s lib, you know. And we’re the one’s that got all the women’s papers, and television, the Rockefeller foundation. He says, you want to know why? There were two primary reasons. One reason was, we couldn’t tax half the population before woman’s lib, and the second reason was now we got the kids in school at an early age, we can indoctrinate the kids how to think and it breaks up the family. The kids look at the state as the family. As the school, as the officials, as their family, not as the parents teaching them.”

Another pretense is that feminists simply wish to give women choices they didn’t have before so as to be in charge of their own destiny. And then shame you if you don’t choose the destiny they’ve ordained for you, calling you a “brood mare” et. al. should you love God and joyfully embrace your high calling from God as the child-bearer and cultural mentor of your home and, collectively, of the next generation. Because they envy your position! Because they have no design whatever to leave you or anyone but themselves in complete control and ascendancy over all of humanity. As the virtuous, and perhaps it might even be said, “famous” blogger “The Transformed Wife” has observed:

“If feminism gave women the right to choose what they want to do with their life, why are so many women upset that I teach women to be wives, mothers, and homemakers? It’s because feminism didn’t really give women the right to choose, unless it’s what they want women to choose.”^[11]

Marxists antichrists simply understand Christianity better than modern Christians do…. for they perceived what the bible taught about domestic order, vilified it, and sought its overthrow, but persuaded Christians to do so, somehow convincing them that they were defending scripture!  But here is scripture! Here again is what the bible says, what God says, on this topic:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.For some are already turned aside after Satan.” (ITim.5:14-15)

“The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” (Tit. 2:3-5)

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (ITim.5:8)

That is what the bible says. But just above it is what the children of the devil have said. Which have you believed, reader? If you are a typical modern man, and have indiscriminately swallowed all this Marxist hog swill, and spat out the sacred Truths of the Word of God, and are not perplexed and dismayed at yourself for having done so, just stop reading and go join some pagan church. If you are feeling the weight of these things, read on.

We have dealt mostly with the topic of women abandoning the command of God to raise their children as keepers at home to go to the work place as some sort of higher social fulfillment than the natural affection given of God to bear and raise their own children. That in itself is a most grand lie. Women may be sold this lie, but they will never find the promised fulfillment there. But what follows in the train of this gargantuan malfeasance of sacred duty to God and man is that someone else must raise the children, and this was the whole design. And the Marxist comes in with his next plank of the communist manifesto to supply the relief for you. He’ll most gladly taking up your abandoned children and teach them every wickedness under heaven with your blessing. And you’ve complied.

What these Satanists want isn’t your “social freedom”, they want access to your children to pervert and corrupt them which is exactly what they’ve been given by the complicity of the “Christian” parent. They’re “groomers” for hell. But you’re the pimp. Oh yes…  we may wax eloquent about the evils of the schools…. as we send our children there to be corrupted, oblivious to how idiotic we appear to our enemies, or to those not given over among our own.

As I’ve often said, “Parental fears abound that the deep-state is going to round up Christian youth and put them in reeducation camps! But you’ve got that all wrong. Because… you already did.” Yes, sir, yes ma’am… you already did!!! That’s what you did, it’s exactly what you did, it’s nothing less than what you did, and it’s likely what your still doing, and is certainly what you’ll soon give an accounting for having done! You have abandoned your children to Satan in a most callous, unconscionable, and ongoing act of betrayal!

Before hearing the standard objections to these points of biblical domestic order, let us consider one more. That of the bible mandating the submission of the wife to her husband. Our entire age has rejected and maligned this patently biblical teaching, as much or more than that of mothers keeping at home and raising children. And rather than be provoked to the defense of their faith being thus slandered and attacked by Marxist brainwashees, the modern church jumps in to sing harmony. To state the biblical mandate as preferred seems to provoke the modern brainwashed female greatly, but to aver it to be a command of God will not only find scant agreement among evangelicals, but even less agreement by way of example. The cohesion of the natural family as ordained and ordered of God is largely scandalized and rejected of the modern church in one form or another, while they sit with chin in palm wondering how the family disintegrated.

So let us consider this topic. Besides a vast multitude of biblical examples corroborating the mandates of a wife’s duty to be in subjection to her husband, there are the unmistakable imperatives in scripture commanding it, and let us briefly consider some of these now.

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” (IPet.3:1-5)

The preceding 8 verses (2:18-25) detail the duty of the slave to his master. Then 3:1, “Likewise ye wives be in subjection to your own husbands.” Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a context sure to provoke delusional raving in your average modern wife. And…it’s God’s word. So… this is a command to the wife to be in subjection to her husband, even relating it to the slave relation. And while it’s not a command to the wife to call him “lord”, yet it does give praise to those who do. I once knew a woman who called her husband “lord” when around raving leftists just to give them seizures. These days, that’s pretty much 95% of the professing Church.

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” (Eph.5:22-24) Again… we have here an overt command to wives to be subject to their husbands, in the same manner in which the church is to be subject to Jesus. I’m old enough to remember that the term “submit” or “be in subjection to” used to be in the marriage vows, but it appears to be universally removed, showing the modern church’s hatred for the bible. I would advise no man to marry a woman who is uncomfortable making this promise to him in marriage, as plainly she has no fear of God, or subjection to His divine authority, and so how much less to his human authority.

While few women embrace the biblical mandate of subjection to a husband, yet you will not find a single man who would ever repudiate his duty from this same passage to love his wife, from the very next verse. What if men all revolted as women have at the biblical mandate? What a perfect cad would he rightly be esteemed! Yet we are strangely blinded to the repute belonging to the wife who repudiates her duty to her husband in equal self-will and hatred of the bible, and its author.

“The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” (Tit.2:3-5) Now we have already considered this passage as it relates to God’s command to a wife to stay in the home and raise her children, but here we see also a command to “be obedient to her own husband”, and again, declaring it to be “blasphemy” for her to deviate from this divine order. So… a wife has a duty of obedience to the man she choses to marry. She’s free to marry or not to marry, but marrying is to accept this order and relationship as governing her future life. If she doesn’t like it, she is free not to marry. But don’t take an oath to enter marriage, with an agenda not to.

 Now there are all kinds of scriptures that deal with this point, and as well many that brainwashed feminists in the church find provocative, but above is amply sufficient to establish with great plainness the indisputable biblical duty of a wife to be in subjection to her husband. So… lets make the plain inference. If a wife embracing her biblical social station of helpmeet to her husband in subjection to his headship, and keeping at home to raise their common brood and to teach them in the good ways of God and the skills of life, if these beautiful things strike her as an ugly arrangement, if the sanctity and godliness of the bible sounds like an evil oppression to her demented mind, while being in submission to some other man in the work place, and serving his interests sounds like freedom; if raising her own children and loving them and spending all her days imparting character and wisdom to them sounds backwards and stifling; if servicing your own and your husbands needs for intimacy, and making a joyful home for your children, and etc.… if all of these things sound like oppression and evil, then here is the truth put before your face. You hate God. You hate the bible. You despise His ways, and embrace the ways of Satan, and your profession of faith is a complete fraud, slandering the bible, and vindicating the devil’s whole slander of God’s plan of domestic goodness. You despise and loath the social beauty of a biblical family. You detest the domestic order that brings happiness and transmission of heritage through generations. You slander its goodness, and embrace its enemies and their perverted corruptions of natural social cohesion. You should be disciplined by your church and patiently brought to repentance or banished from among those who name the name of Jesus in sincerity. Just like anyone who overtly rejects any other area of scripture, professing their hatred of it, and purpose to by no persuasion submit to it.

Objections:

“But if you homeschool your children, they won’t fit in!” By God’s grace, yes. Is it not amazing the delusion that those once blinded by their compliance with hell manifest in such an objection? One would think that the nearly universal deflowering of virgins, the profanity, the failure to segregate from the scandalous, as would be done in any family, the drugs, the immoral and vulgar speech, or a dozen other abominations were all shining examples to point to so as to warrant the claim that home-schooled children being spared all of this, were some sort of abuse of their cultural enrichment. Sin blinds the mind.  

“But how will your children be socialized, then?” It’s easy. We plan to just lock them up for eight hours a day, make fun of their clothes if not lewd, asinine, or garish enough, push them around in the hallway, belittle them if they don’t conform, and give them an iPad so they don’t have to talk to anyone or look them in the eye when the lessons are over.” You seem to think this works, yes? Again, the objection assumes that the family as that human institution ordained of God for the cultivation of youth, is the thing that is the danger to be provided against. Such people seem to delight to display their perversity and corruption of thought.

“Well, I just want to send my kids in as missionaries to the other kids.” Radical enemies of the faith are the missionaries, and your children are the converts. Your child will teach no one, but only receive the antichrist imprint, all under the delusional auspices of being a “missionary”! Who has been won over for the last eight generations? Whose missionary are you then, who put your children in such a seminary of hell? They are there to learn, not to teach! They are incompetent to teach, they are incompetent to discern the subtlties of the hell-spun curriculum they’ll be assaulted with, being in a mode of life where they may only learn, and these are the lessons you send them to with swelling words of your virtue! Oh Christian!  Please O please awaken! If not for their sake, then that least for your own!

The unlawfulness of such a profoundly tyrannical and compromised arrangement was perfectly obvious back in the 1800’s where they first began to propose secularized education, removing the scriptures and the gospel from the schools, which Dr. Dabney brilliantly described as “The play of Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet omitted”, describing it also as “the idol of the socialists”.[12]

 How much more now, when you have demonized gender antichrists seeking to prey upon the vulnerabilities of your children by grooming them and attempting to convince them that genital mutilation is the solution to all the problems they promoted by telling them they descended from monkeys, by providing a culture of mass intimidation, and by mass drugging of them for great evils like that of … being boys. And these are the places appealed to be sent as missionaries in childhood, and as some sort of satanic charm school.

Another objection might be, Sola Sciptura! Where does the bible say, thou shalt not put your child in a public school? True to the Phariseeism of the age, it’s as though the words “Public School” must be in print before anyone can hear the scirptures which command fathers to bring up their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord”.  So, until someone is wanting to defend the idea that the bible must name every form and title of sin in history before believers should count themselves obliged to obedience, this objection is moot. And it’s a slander against scripture to imagine that it had nothing to say about such extreme evils, and as if there were one shred of consistency between the modern antichrists in charge of public education and the training up children in the way they should go, or in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The idea that such an argument could ever be made about a practice so overtly perverse and antichristian, only shows how beastly ignorant moderns are as to what the bible teaches about anything, not just about putting your children under antichrist tutelage. Our moderns will all die for this principle of “Sola Scriptura” so long as it’s abstracted from any practical application of the bible’s “faith and practice”, but give them an example of it that doesn’t worship at the altar of modern culture, and they’re more like to be the one doing the killing, than the dying.

But just maybe the modern Christian’s fervent commitment to “Sola Scriptura” might lead him, not to the doctrine of those attempting to overthrow scripture such as Marx and Engles, but to something closer to the faithful company of bible believers over the ages. This might make him look like something more than a surfer upon the waves of popular adulation while waving his Sola Scriptura flag.

Instead, the lazy modern will imagine the Marxist dogma he’s conceded to and embraced as truth was somehow found between the pages of Genesis and Revelation, esteeming it a grotesque oppression of women to “hold her back” from the work place, or chain her “barefoot and pregnant” to her kitchen, etc.. This just manifests that such persons have literally become Marxists, because when you order your life by Marxism, accept and defend their standards and conclusions, and loath the biblical order as a great evil and oppression … guess what you are? One clue: It’s not the second coming of Archibald Alexander or of Thomas Jefferson. But there is a command of God to fathers to “bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Eph.6:4) What sort of wild untethered mind imagines that the disordered hell of a modern American Public School could in any measure be consistent with that command? Who will tell you they believe that with a straight face?

The “wild and untethered mind” that makes this next objection: “Christian parents obey the command to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord when they do so at home. They needn’t teach their children 24/7 to fulfill such a command!”  Firstly, I think I can speak with certainty that no one has ever once advocated such a ludicrous thing as such teaching must take place constantly, but rather what is demanded is the most obvious and unavoidable conclusion from such an imperative: That such a command of God to parents to “bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” demands them to exclude all other upbringing that is not in accord with that standard. This is so perfectly obvious that no Christian ever once so applied any other scripture to any other command of God. But lets contemplate what it would look like, were such an advocate in the least consistent with his pretenses.

Suppose you took such a standard of conduct as is contemplated just above, and applied it to any other command of God. What would that look like? How satisfied would your wife be if you came home and declared your great faithfulness and love for her that you only committed adultery against her at the office, but were faithful in that you minded your duty to her perfectly at home and at church? You’d justly get an incurable wound to your marriage if not divorce papers. But this is exactly what you tell your children to be satisfied with, and never have a second thought about it. And that, reader, is not just tragic, it’s a sick, perverse, godless, hypocrisy. As if you had no idea that allowing a child into such a damnable place for learning could never be lawful.

Stephan Molyneaux has made the following comment to this same effect. “If your wife would be unhappy if you paid some stranger minimum wage to take her out on your anniversary so you could get some work done, how do you think your baby feels about being dumped in daycare? Your baby needs you. Parenting cannot be delegated. Find a way. Don’t do it.”^[13]

Next, what about if a husband abuses his power of headship and commands a wife to do something sinful? An obligation to sin is the penultimate oxymoron. So, no, that can never be. But let’s be clear. This would mean that if a woman’s husband is abdicating his duty to provide and shrugging his burdens off on his wife, and commanding her to go to work and either put the kids in the hell of an antichrist school, or not to bear children at all, then it is not true that she may disobey him. It is true that she must disobey him, as obedience to God is absolute, and if a man cannot pony up to manhood explicitly during the courtship period, then she’d be a fool to have anything but contempt for him, let alone the insane idea of marrying him.

Next, what about the Proverbs 31 woman? Read it through, and you will quickly see that there is but one verse that says a thing about her being outside the home except for the sale of some of her home-made items. To see a parallel between that and leaving the home for a vocation outside the home is but to advertise the enthronement of personal preference, and the imposition of one’s presumption upon the authority of scripture.

What about Acts 16:14- and the example of Lydia being a seller of purple in the public market? Again, read the passage. Much must be assumed that is not revealed to think such a passage affords any warrant for the modern woman in her abandonment of the home. I might as well use this passage to prove that she only took a vocation away from the home when her children were grown and out of the home. Except that we don’t know if her children were out of the home, nor if her time at the market regularly took her out of a primary place in the home, nor if she had children still living there.  Just like the party that make predictable appeals to this passage don’t know that she did have children, and did forsake the home to pursue it, nor if she had no husband, or family to support her, so that she had no choice but to pursue a regular vocation that took her out of the home. The assumptions being no more valid on the one side than the other, the one view might appeal to it as much as the other. Now some may affirm that the Greek word signifies adolescent children. So does our word Children. Yet 90 year olds call their 70 year old children… Children. And the scripture speaks of “children’s children”. The inferences implied here need no further explanation. The simple truth is that a woman is commanded to marry, bear children, guide the house, and raise the next generation, and that goes for Lydia, or anyone else.  And what a work of Satan it is that convinces anyone that such an exalted high calling is low and insignificant.

How Has The Church of History Reckoned with this issue?

So a case has been made that such practices are contrary to God’s will as revealed in the bible. It will be worth here enquiring further, is our age unique in its abandonment of motherhood? Or have believers universally been of this opinion in the past?

 Was it always reckoned as it is now, where demented minds imagine that putting your child in such a perverted antichrist institution could possibly be lawful or agreeable to the Holy Scriptures!!!What blasphemy of scripture to insinuate that it had no condemnation for such an outrage! And yet call such a practice sin, or suggest that offenders be visited with sanctions, and the one thus defending rudimentary godliness will be the one receiving the sanctions! But again, Dr. Dabney:

 “And we should feel that it was an inexcusable injustice to tax us for the purpose of teaching to our beloved children what we could not, at the peril of our souls, permit them to learn.”[14] Or again: “But he is taxed compulsorily to support this school which parental duty forbids him to use; so that the system in this case amounts to an iniquitous penalty upon him for his faithfulness to his conscience. What clearer instance of persecution could arise?”[15] Dr. Dabney taught the following in regard to the prohibition of godless education: “It is the Church’s duty to instruct parents how God would have them rear their children, and enforce the duty by spiritual sanctions.”[16] Could you imagine the violent seizures and foaming at the mouth of modern Christians should any church provide “spiritual sanctions” for those putting their children in a school likely some one hundred times worse than that which compelled such commentary from the good Doctor?

Now, parental dereliction is certainly nothing new. What is new is its advocacy as a liberty, if not a virtue, rather than a moral failure bringing domestic disintegration, broken lives, and grief of mind and heart to believers, and a corrupting social disorder in society at large. Further, while there have always been women in the workplace, yet if that were the pre-commie norm, then why was it a huge part of the Marxist platform to overthrow the general truth that mothers were generally following the biblical mandate and staying home and raising their children? If this were not the case there was nothing for them to overthrow. And it manifests the powerful influence that the church has over culture, did we but fear God and mind the bible and laugh at unregenerate scorn, rather than fearing deluded opinion, until we’re laughing at the bible.

Marxists did not put sin into the hearts of the world or of Christians. The fall did. Accordingly, all manner of parental dereliction of duty has existed since the fall till now, both in the world, and in believers, in many ugly forms. But never has such an abomination gained the universal acceptance of even the world, much less the professing church, who having forsaken the scriptures for the new prophets of the television and the public school, have polluted the world by giving it no witness, no light, and no example that might inhibit their native descent into perversity.
But there are an infinite number of ways men may forsake parental duty and we accordingly find ample witness from former ages against such abuses and these often powerfully apply to those of our own age, and it’s fitting to lay some of them on the scale as the names are commonly idolized as the cream of the Christian jug. Where moderns might not regard their very bibles, it can always be hoped that they may take to heart the witness and reproof of their brethren from a better day. Often men may hear the scriptural reflections of men they regard more than the scriptures themselves, and so this can be of great us. And if not, then they might at least consider that they are not from the spiritual tradition they image themselves to be. Please consider the following reflections upon this extremely pressing subject. First,

Richard Baxter

“If you neglect their souls and breed them in ignorance, worldliness, ungodliness, and sin, you betray them to the devil, the enemy of souls, even as truly as if you sold them to him; you sell them to be slaves of Satan; you betray them to him that will deceive them and abuse them in this life, and torment them in the next. If you saw but a burning furnace, much more the flames of hell, would you not think that man or woman more fit to be called a devil than a parent that could find in their hearts to cast their child into it, or to put him into the hands of one that would do it? What monsters then of inhumanity are you, that read in Scripture which is the way to hell, and who they be that God will deliver up to Satan, to be tormented by him; and yet will bring up your children in that very way, and will not take pains to save them from it! What can you do more to damn them, if you studied to do it as maliciously as the devil himself? You cannot possibly do more, than to bring them up ignorance, carelessness, worldliness, sensuality, and ungodliness. The devil can do nothing else to damn either them or you, but by tempting to sin, and drawing you from godliness. You do like one that should set fire to his house and say, God forbid, I intended not to burn it; or like one that casteth his child into the sea, and saith, he intendeth not to drown him; or traineth him up in robbing and thievery, and saith, he intendeth not to have him hanged.”^[17]

Christians once counted it unlawful to throw your children into hell, to use Baxter’s device. The authority of scripture was more than a hat tip dogma, but a reigning conviction of heart. And Baxter’s reflections were not anomalous, but would be entirely representative of the most of Church history before. But when there first appeared the satanic dogma that the state owned the mind of your child, and Christians first saw with horror the proposal that there would be universal secularized education provided by a secular state, there were grave alarms. Like…

Robert Lewis Dabney
“We have again and again warned the advocates of the Yankee State theory, that the entanglement was insoluble, and that the practical result will surely be, that the attitude of our constitutions will enable the infidel party to triumph everywhere, to expel the Bible and Christianity from all the schools, and to rear us (so far as State schools go) a generation of Atheists. This is to be the practical issue of their misguided zeal.”^[18] Or again: “But nearly all public men and divines declare that the State schools are the glory of America, that they are a finality, and in no event to be surrendered. And we have seen that their complete secularization is inevitable. Christians must prepare themselves then, for the following results: All prayers, catechisms, and Bibles will ultimately be driven out of the schools …… Infidelity and practical ungodliness will become increasingly prevalent among Protestant youth, and our churches will have a more arduous contest for growth if not for existence.”^[19] Dr. Dabney foresaw all this in the late 1800’s. And yet modern Christians having their nation and homes destroyed by it in front of their faces still don’t see it.

And of like warning,

1. A. Hodge

“I am as sure as I am of the fact of Christ’s reign that a comprehensive and centralized system of national education, separated from religion, as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief and of anti-social nihilistic ethics, social and political, which this sin-rent world has ever seen.”^[20]

Or long before any of this, the voice of Martin Luther,

“I am much afraid that the universities will prove to be the great gates of hell, unless they diligently labour in explaining the Holy Scriptures, and engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not unceasingly occupied with the Word of God must become corrupt.”^[21]

The persons commanded of God to prevent all these evils are parents. Into their laps has this ponderous responsibility devolved, by the providence and decree of God. Where is the natural affection that dare not subject the vulnerabilities of childhood to the demonic craft of epicene perverts filling the schools?

Dr. Dabney, “The responsibility of parents is argued, again from the unique and extensive character of their authority over their offspring. For, just so surely as God, who gave this authority is a righteous and equitable ruler, is he certain to apply to parents that just rule of law, that men will be held accountable according to the extent of the powers intrusted to them.  The steward to whom a thousand talents are committed must be held accountable for a thousand talents; he to whom ten, must account for ten. If this equitable principle must rule where the trust is nothing but dead money, how much more where the power over rational, responsible fellow-creatures is intrusted to fellow-creatures! If the steward in this case were not held to account according to the degree of the power he had perverted to the injury of his fellow-creature’s destiny, and of God’s rights in him, this would be a glaring injustice to the victims of his abuse, and to the Divine Master whose power he had wrested. Be assured, then, parent, that you must be held responsible according to the extent of the power committed to your hands.”[22]

George Whitefield

“When our Lord says, ‘unless ye are converted, and become as little children,’ we are not to understand, as though our Lord would insinuate, that little children are perfectly innocent; but in a comparative, and as I shall shew you by and by, in a rational sense. Little children are innocent, compare them with grown people; but take them as they are, and as they come into the world, they have hearts that are sensual, and minds which are carnal. And I mention this with the greatest concern, because I verily believe, unless parents are convinced of this, they will never take proper care of their children’s education. If parents were convinced, that children’s hearts were so bad as they are, you would never be fond of letting them go to balls, assemblies, and plays, the natural tendency of which is to debauch their minds, and make them the children of the devil. …And I believe, if they really were convinced, that their children were conceived in sin, they would always put up that petition, before their children came into the world, which I have heard that a good woman always did put up, ‘Lord Jesus, let me never bear a child for hell or the devil.’ O! is it not to be feared, that thousands of children will appear, at the great day, before God, and in presence of angels and men will say, Father and mother, next to the wickedness of mine own heart, I owe my damnation to your bad education of me?”[23]

Richard Baxter again: “Do you wonder that even in the reformed churches, there can be so many unreformed sinners, of beastly lives, that hate the serious practice of the religion which themselves profess? It is ill education in ungodly families that is the cause of all this. Oh therefore, how great and necessary a work is it, to cast salt into these corrupted fountains! Cleanse and cure these vitiated families, and you may cure almost all the calamities of the earth. To tell what the emperors and princes of the earth might do, if they were wise and good, to the remedy of this common misery, is the idle talk of those negligent persons, who condemn themselves in condemning others. Even those rulers and princes that are the pillars and patrons of heathenism, Mahometanism, popery, and ungodliness in the world, did themselves receive that venom from their parents, in their birth and education, which inclineth them to all this mischief. Family reformation is the easiest and the most likely way to common reformation; at least to send many souls to heaven, and train up multitudes for God, if it reach not to national reformation.”[24]

Mr. Baxter again: “You till your fields; you weed your gardens; what pains take you about your grounds and cattle! and will you not take more for your children’s souls? Alas, what creatures will they be if you leave them to themselves! how ignorant, careless, rude, and beastly! Oh what a lamentable case have ungodly parents brought the world into! Ignorance and selfishness, beastly sensuality, and devilish malignity, have covered the face of the earth as a deluge, and driven away wisdom, and self denial, and piety, and charity, and justice, and temperance almost out of the world, confining them to the breasts of a few obscure , humble souls, that love virtue for virtue’s sake, and look for their reward from God alone, and expect that by abstaining from iniquity they make themselves a prey to wolves, Isa.lix. 15. Wicked education hath unmanned the world, and subdued it to Satan, and make it almost like to hell. O do not join with the sons of Belial in this unnatural, horrid wickedness!“[25]

But, as is obvious at this point, no one listened to the timely warnings of such men. And, for the most part, we’re still not. Yes, we have a growing contingent of Christian people who have had enough and have taken matters into their own hands! They’re going to save their children from all the satanic perversions at the schools! And then give them all the same perversions in their own homes via their televisions, their literature, and even through the degenerate culture such institutions have filled their churches with. Oh what an abysmal prospect such a forsaking of God has made of the modern “Christian” family!

And thus we, in complete betrayal of our children, have forsaken the most in-your-face obvious command of God to bring up one’s child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, (as though that weren’t a command) and have rather done the exact opposite with full knowledge, have even brought them up in the nurture and admonition of antichrists, and so doing have fulfilled the entire objective of Satan with the sanction and blessing of the Christian church, such an abominable education warranted because someone somewhere is said to have spent some few minutes with them at a bible study or Sunday School, as if all education were not thus contemplated in such a command, or as though we ever dealt with any other command in such a manner! “I take care of my duty of fidelity to my wife at home with good quality time. So obviously the time I spend at the office being familiar with my secretary shows no want of obedience.” That won’t fly with your wife. It doesn’t fly with your children. And the idea that it flies with God only serves to show the degree of demonic delusion that has possessed the modern mind.

Dr. Dabney:

“We propose now to substantiate these views of the wise and experienced, by arguing that tuition in Christianity is essential to all education which is worth the name. And we claim more than the admission that each man should at some stage of his training, and by somebody, be taught Christianity; we mean in the fullest sense that Christianity must be a present element of all the training at all times, or else it is not true and valuable education. Someone may say that this broad proposition is refuted at the outset by frequent instances of persons who received, at least during a part of their youth, a training perfectly non-Christian, and who yet are very useful, and even Christian citizens. The answer is easy: It is the prerogative of a merciful Providence, and the duty of His children, to repair the defects and misfortunes of His creatures and to bring good out of evil. But surely this comes far short of a justification for us if we willingly employ faulty methods which have a regular tendency to work evil. Surely it is not our privilege to make mischief for God and good Christians to repair!”[26]

Dr. Dabney again,

“The nature of responsibility is such that there can be no neutrality, or tertium quid^[27], between duty and sin. ‘He that is not with his God, is against Him’. He who does not positively comply with the ever-present obligation does ipso facto violate it, and contract positive sinfulness. Hence as there cannot be in any soul a non-Christian state which is not anti-Christian, it follows that any training which attempts to be non-Christian is therefore anti-Christian.”[28]

Or Richard Baxter,

“Nothing can be rightly known, if God be not known; nor is any study well managed, nor to any great purpose, if God is not studied. We know little of the creature, till we know it as it stands related to the Creator: single letters, and syllables uncomposed, are no better than nonsense. He who overlooketh Him Who is the “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending”, and seeth not him in all who is the All of all, doth see nothing at all. All creatures, as such, are broken syllables; they signify nothing as separated from God. Were they separated actually, they would cease to be, and the separation would be an annihilation; and when we separate them in our fancies, we make nothing of them to ourselves. It is one thing to know the creatures as Aristotle, and another thing to know them as a Christian. None but a Christian can read one line of his Physics so as to understand it rightly. It is a high and excellent study, and of greater use than many apprehend; but it is the smallest part of it that Aristotle can teach us.

“I hope you perceive what I aim at in all this, namely, that your study of physics and other sciences is not worth a rush if it be not God that you seek after in them. To see and admire, to reverence and adore, to love and delight in God, as exhibited in his works – this is the true and only philosophy; the contrary is mere foolery, and is so called again and again by God himself. This is the sanctification of your studies, when they are devoted to God, and when he is the end, the object, and the life of them all.

“And, therefore, I shall presume to tell you, by the way, that it is a grand error, and of dangerous consequence in Christian academies that they study the creature before the Redeemer, and set themselves to physics, and metaphysics, and mathematics, before they set themselves to theology; whereas, no man that hath not the vitals of theology, is capable of going beyond a fool in philosophy. Theology must lay the foundation, and lead the way of all our studies. If God must be searched after, in our search of the creature, (and we must affect no separated knowledge of them) then tutors must read God to their pupils in all; and divinity must be the beginning, the middle, the end, the life, the all, of their studies. Our physics and metaphysics must be reduced to theology; and nature must be read as one of God’s books, which is purposely written for the revelation of himself. If you perceive not, in your study of the creatures that God is all, and in all, and that “of him, and through him, and to him, are all things,”, you may think, perhaps, that you “know something: but you know nothing as you ought to know”[29].

But through Christian laziness and negligence, the education of children has been perverted just as these men warned, and an “education” altogether unworthy the name, being abstracted from the ultimate knowledge, has been perpetrated upon the entire society because Christians have thus abdicated their place as prophet to the world, because they don’t even care to be the prophet to their own children, accented, of course, with all the rhetoric and drivel about how we care so much for the salvation of the world, especially in far off places, that we also like to bomb. Could any imagine the extreme of consternation in any of our fathers in the faith, should they witness modern so called “Christians” compliantly yielding the souls and bodies of their children into schools with activist teachers who are the very dregs and filth of humanity which would attempt to wheedle them into cutting their genitals off, and to win them over to the ultimate perversions of which humanity is capable? But… here we are. 

But… it’s legalism to demand that Christians get their children out of this wicked antichrist system …. Right? That’s what we’re told. Reader…. mute these sick perverted voices and bless your children, your conscience, and your walk with God. And may God raise up shepherds who will again mercifully enforce discipline for those who walk in sin, so that they might be restored, and God’s name no more blasphemed among the gentiles by us.

Richard Baxter

“Women especially must expect so much suffering in a married life, that if God had not put into them a natural inclination to it, and so strong a love to their children, as maketh them patient under the most annoying troubles, the world would ere this have been at an end, through their refusal of so calamitous a life. Their sickness in breeding, their pain in bringing forth, with the danger of their lives, the tedious trouble night and day which they have with their children in their nursing in their childhood; besides their subjection to their husbands, and continual care of the family affairs; being forced to consume their lives in a multitude of low and troublesome businesses: all this, and much more, would have utterly deterred that sex from marriage, if nature itself had not inclined them to it.” 

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Without natural affection,

Truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. From such turn away.” (2Tim.3:1-5) 

________________________________________________

In Conclusion

I have been, and will be faulted in my authorship for exceeding the bounds of moderation in dealing with the erring, and that I should not so judge those I deem to be faulty, lest I be judged for my own many sins and fooleries. And I wish the answer could be, I haven’t any. But of course, such as make these objections will have no problem with the severity of unwarranted slandering of any that advocate for the biblical and historic views of the faith as being heretical, fanatical, heterodox, and etc., by which one hundred years of pastoral prostitution has marginalized anything that may savor of historic Christianity, or otherwise threatened the ruin they have abetted, lest the culpability of their advocacy for the antichrist revolution be exposed for what it is. But further, the command appealed to, not to judge lest we be judged, has to do with those who condemn others while practicing the same thing. It very much looks like that when such men get into a tizzy about the evils of the schools, only to send their children there, and then condemn others for calling it evil, but who also say we shouldn’t practice the evil. And that is more precisely what Mat.7 is condemning, should any wish to go read it carefully.

And this is a most common practice among moderns. They perennially launch vehement protestations against all the evils of the age that they practice, thinking to parry their manifest complicity. But such tactics are laughably transparent, as they only testify to the fact that they know full well their practices are utterly evil, or they would not be so manifestly constrained to put a good face upon their complicity by this empty show of resistance, lest all their compliance appear for what it is. Its like the man who complains of the evils of his television when it has an off switch. It has an off switch, right? The funniest part is, that they don’t see what fools such protests make of themselves. It’s like a guy who complains that his house is too hot, when he has the heater on. It the schools are evil… GET YOUR CHILDREN OUT! If you truly want to, but don’t know how, don’t give up. Keep trying. You’ll get there. Keep thinking. Consult with others. Pray for divine favor and intervention. But never, never concede.

It would appear a reasonable assumption that most who read this will have the same response as those I share it with personally, that of bland dismissal, desperate vilification, or face-saving justifications. But it would seem just as certain that there will be those touched of God with repentance, and of these many will be well able to immediately effect all the good changes and go about to seek reformation among their fellow believers. But there will be those who will sense the great evil that both they and their people have been party to, and who accordingly entirely own their complicity with compunction, but then find extreme perplexity in a seeming impossibility to effect any changes, due to financial burdens of transitioning to a single bread-winner domestic economy, or from the expenses of moving away from antichrist schooling, or perhaps the grief of a single parent, forsaken of a spouse, and left to attempt to do what they can for their children by whatever means at their disposal.

The abdication of Christian example to the world has engendered grievous long term economic and social effects that may not be easily overcome for many. Flooding the market with workers has brought the inevitable and predictable result of supply and demand lowering wages, until both parents working will bring in not much more than only one used to, and hence make it  appear a necessity and not a luxury for both husband and wife to work outside the home. When the market is glutted with workers, labor demand is low relative to supply, and pay will decrease accordingly, and thus both parents feel they must work, or become insolvent. That certainly could not have been intended by the antichrist plutocrats that instigated it. No, not at all. Smh.  But it can make a family feel that it’s nearly impossible for a man to well provide for his family working himself alone. I hardly wish to manifest the same indifference to such social tragedies that the church has so heartlessly manifested, and so below are a list of suggestions for Christians and Christian churches to attempt to remedy such a state of affairs created by our negligence and sin.

On a personal level, there is certainly a necessity for each one that professes subjection to the scriptures to awaken to the peril of all this compromise, and purpose to rectify the evils in any degree within their power. Regardless of any other pressing factor, they are obliged to confess the truth to their generation, and order their lives accordingly as best they can. But it is also necessary that the church awaken to it’s grotesque malfeasance, and to radically alter it’s manner of addressing such issues among their people.

First, is there a minister who has awakened to the error of the times? Let him start teaching the truth of the bible rather than the commie drivel that’s been blamed on the bible, and to repudiate all the heresies of his seminary where he likely first was trained in all this Marxist social betrayal. A thorough Reformation is desperately called for. Pastors must return to the scriptures, and to the sound history of their own people, and to an unfeigned love of the brethren that is not characterized by the empty cant and hypocrisy that presently embarrass the vain pretenses of the modern confessor. Stop pretending, and set reformation on foot.

Secondly, Local churches must combine to ensure the success of each member. Jews and Muslims do it, but Christians are so shameful that it never crosses their mind to even be as godly as these unbelievers. We do not care for our own. It’s all pretense. “Love you brother. Oh… your family is falling apart? So sorry, here’s some bus fare to the welfare office.” Might we not rather forego the palace of a meeting house, with a massive mortgage that barely gets paid each month, with the inevitable pusillanimous pastor who degenerates into one juggling jarring factions with flattery to service the overburdened budget, rather than boldly unifying the people around the banner of the Truth? Why would it be so very hard to combine financial resource to train the fathers in a better vocation, with some program or other, with the expectation that he will also contribute once successful, and then the next, and so on. Or do we just continue with the status quo: “Be warmed and filled, brother”. (Jas.2:16)

The Church itself would also become more prosperous, as more prosperity came to it’s members, and, more importantly, no longer incur the curse of God for our wicked indifference to the suffering of children and families in our midst through our complicity with the machinations of hell.

But if your church doesn’t have the love of the saints so as to motivate them to such relief, you must seek to find it yourself. Look, plan, seek, search… all while in earnest persevering prayer… until you find a place where you can provide better for your family, and bless your wife and children. Despair is wholly understandable, but at the end of the day we are required to seek, ask, and knock. (Mat. 5) And not despair. (Is.41:11-20)

Thirdly, not just finances, but any number of circumstances may arise which leave a family tempted to put their children in a public schooling facility. Our government is so overtly communist that in some states if you can’t prove you have some high degree of regularity of education, they’ll come bless your children by kidnapping them and putting them in the satanic institution for you anyway, after reparenting them to rapists, if not in a pedophile ring, all for their good, no doubt. Cannot the Church of Jesus Christ arise to such a challenge? Have we nothing, but prayer and consolation for such victims of the devil? Under the present blindness, they’ll be fortunate to escape the church’s condemnation!!! How about start a school, run by the church’s retirees, wishing they had some area of doing good? How about other homeschooling families arising to the occasion and helping? How about you do something other than sit there and play helpless in your shameful indifference to the plight of those around you? In as much as ye did it not to the least of them, ye did it not unto the Lord. (Mat.25)

Fourthly, church discipline should be applied to all such as refuse the biblical mandate and order, exceptional cases excepted. That this will appear the epitome of outrage to virtually the entire modern church only shows how extreme has been the brainwashing over the people of God. It’s never extreme to demand that scripture be complied with, and scripture commands four things that may never be reconciled with working mothers or a public school. That mothers “guide the house” as “keepers at home” that they turn not aside after satan, nor blaspheme the word of God, but rather bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, training them up “in the way they should go”. (ITim.5:14, Tit.2:2-5, Eph. 6:4, Pr.22:6) The soul that imagines they’re “guiding the house as keepers at home” from the work place, is flatly unhinged; and the mind that imagines a public school may be reconciled to such a description deserves punishment, and, after long patience and every attempt at remedy, to be put from the confessing church of God. If that sounds outrageous, all that can be said is, you seem not to know what a command is, and manifestly have no care for the honor of God, nor the good of families and children.

Should we not be patient? Yes, and with great longsuffering, giving good space to consider and repent. But if ultimately impenitent, let shame and rejection again attend those who chose Marx over the bible. Otherwise, we are complicit in the take-over, and the accounting for that will be a frightful sight.

Fifthly, it is common for men seeking wives to expressly repudiate their role as provider, and, further, to express his contempt for woman that will not take his burden up for him, calling her a “gold-digger” and a dead-beat should she remain scripturally faithful in her biblical role of domestic womanhood, and uncompromising purposing to stay home and raise a family as commanded of God. This pathetic domestic egalitarianism has tempted women to comply or have no family at all, when they should rather either seek to enlighten the eternal boyhood of this miscreant class or to shun them as deniers of the faith and as blasphemers of the bible, which commands what they vilify. Men must be taught their duty and to embrace it with joy, hope, vigor, manhood, and to repudiate their pusillanimous wimphood with a moral vengeance. Let me start here…. Men, if you can’t take up the biblical burden of your sex, then by all means get castrated, lest you perpetuate your kind, and go move into your mommy’s basement to play video games until an accounting much more severe than this one visits you from on high.

Sixthly, the repudiation of the satanic doctrine of feminism must prevail. We cannot tolerate such abominations as seek to vilify as great evils and oppressions, what the bible lauds as a great virtue and blessing to humanity. That simply cannot stand. It cannot be tolerated. Women in the pulpit, women in the work place, women despising subjection to their husbands, women despising her role of loving and raising the next generation as the domestic queens under their husbands, women seeking to raise their daughters to pursue a career instead of to marry, bear children, and guide the house, so as to rear them in the ways of God in their home, or the reprobate men that encourage them in it, all of this must come under the censure of public review, when the church is finally enlightened with biblical teaching, such that they will finally hold the competing social abominations up to utter contempt with zeal, knowledge, and conviction.

Seventh, it is obligatory that the church find it’s sword, and establish a culture within its members that repudiates Marxism as a whole, such that saints are fully trained on where all this wickedness started, (not in the bible), that they might adequately appreciate it’s evil, and reprobate it with more hatred and conviction than they presently do the truths of the bible. Saints truly don’t even have a clue what happened, and that needs to change.

Speaking of the stage in his sermon, “The Folly & Danger of Not Being Righteous Enough”, George Whitefield noted that those that validated such practices partook in the evils that were accomplished by them. “The supporters and patrons of {the stage} are encouragers and promoters of all the evil that is done by them.” If that is true, as it must be, what might we say of the Christian church that has casually validated multitudes of great evils, and these among them, and not only validated them, but attacked as heterodox and demented, such as attempt to awaken them to their folly?  Christians who have defended the plethora of modern abominations by the recommendation and countenance of their example and by their resisting and opposing all reformation, despite all of the open perversions and wickedness, are surely complicit and guilt of all the evils that they have produced in the world. The countenance of our example makes us party to all the evils that are accomplished in such abominable institutions. All the transgenderism, the faggotry, the pharmaceutical lobotomizing and poisoning of generations, the misery of endless unjust foreign wars, in short, the consummate overthrow of Christian culture… we have added our amen by our presence and practice, and shameful justifications, and all our remonstrance and rebukes fall only upon ourselves for our grotesque hypocrisy and outrageous negligence.

If all you have is mockery, mock on. Your judgment hastens. But by the grace of God, please, my Christian friend…. Please seek the Lord in such matters, and reform yourself, and then your people. Surely there is no accounting that will absolve such complicity. God’s mercies to your failures, and mine … but may we all be saved from “the great transgression” of presuming upon mercy by ongoing disregard for His will.

Please weigh with candor and simple moral transparency the following citations from Dr. Dabney. First, upon the power committed to parents in their grant of authority from God to them over their children:

Then speaking of the greatness of that trust committed to the stewardship of parents, upon which his accounting is to be predicated, Dr. Dabney continues,

“And how potent is this influence! (Of parent over child) Does it not almost commit the spiritual liberty of the young soul to a human hand? How mighty the power of opportunity which the parent is thus authorized to employ to propagate his creed on another soul; while as yet the pupil is ignorant of the process wrought upon him, and incapable of resisting it! There is no power beneath the skies, authorized by God, that is so far-reaching, so near the prerogatives of God himself; and for that reason there is none so solemnly responsible. When God has clothed you, O parent! with such powers, with results so beneficent and glorious, and has thus made you so nearly a God to your own children, do you suppose that you can neglect or pervert them without being held to a dire account? It were better for that man that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea.”[30]

And to the heart of motherhood goes out the final appeal …

“There, in your homes, is your domain. There you rule with the sceptre of affection, and not our conquerors. We beseech you, wield that gentle empire in behalf of the principles, the patriotism, the religion, which we inherited from our mothers. Teach our ruder sex that only by a deathless love to these can woman’s dear love be deserved or won. Him who is true to these, crown with your favour. Let the wretch who betrays them be exiled forever from the paradise of your arms. Then shall we be saved, saved from a degradation fouler than the grave. Be it yours to nurse with more than a vestal’s watchfulness, the sacred flame of our virtue now so smothered. Your task is unobtrusive; it is performed in the privacy of home, and by the gentle touches of daily love. But it is the noblest work which mortal can perform, for it furnishes the polished stones, with which the temple of our liberties must be repaired. We have seen men building a lofty pile of sculptured marble, where columns with polished shafts pointed to the skies, and domes reared their arches on high, like mimic heavens. They swung the massive blocks into their places on the walls with cranes and cables, with shout and outcries, and hugh creaking of the ponderous machinery. But these were not the true artisans: they were but rude laborers. The true artists, whose priceless cunning was to give immortal beauty to the pile, and teach the dead stones to breathe majesty and grace were not there. None saw or heard their labors. In distant and quiet workrooms, where no eye watched them, and no shout gave signal of their motions, they plied their patient chisels slowly with gentle touches, evoking the forms of beauty which lay hid in the blocks before them. Such is your work; the home and fireside are the scenes of your industry. But the materials which you shape are the souls of men, which are to compose the fabric of our church and state. The politician, the professional man, is but the cheap, rude, day labourer, who moves and lifts the finished block to its place. You are the true artists, who endue it with fitness and beauty; and therefore yours is the nobler task.”[31]

---

[1] It might be noted that some will insist that this statement is made with specific reference to widows. The grammatical grounds for this conclusion aside, it is manifest that this changes nothing of the nature of the command, in as much as it simply demonstrates the vocation of a married woman, not that there was anything peculiar to the calling and duties of a married woman, when contrasted with a remarried woman.

[2] The Appropriate Duty & Ornament of the Female Sex, Samuel Miller, D. D.

[3] Friedrich Engles, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State”

[4] Linda Gordon, Jewish Feminist, Functions of the Family, Women: A Journal of Liberation, Fall 1969

[5] “Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State”, Pages 30-31, digital edition, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf

[6] “Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2”, digital edition, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[7] Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[8] Twitter posting of Eccentrik Hat (@eccentrikhat)

[9] Twitter posting of Jennifer M. Moleski (twitter feed @jnfr_moleski)

[10] https://youtu.be/zCpjmvaIgNA

[11] The Transformed Wife, Twitter

[12]. Discussions, Vol. 4, pg. 263.

[13] From his Twitter account.

[14]. Discussions, Vol. 4, pg. 216.

[15]. Discussions, Vol. 4, pg. 210.

[16] Discussions, Vol. 4, pg. 225-226

[17] Richard Baxter, “The Christian Directory”, pages 427-428

[18] Robert Lewis Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 4, Pg. 280

[19] Discussions, Vol. 4, pgs. 237-238 Yes, this would demonstrate that most “divines” saw this as a good thing at the time. But that was when it still had all it’s fine pretenses, before all the inevitable fell upon them, as Dabney foretold.

[20] A. A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology: Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, Monergism soft copy, (no pg. numbers).

[21] Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the 16^th Century, (Monergism soft copy, w/o page numbers)

[22]. Discussions, Vol.I, pg. 682.

[23]. Works of George Whitefield, Vol. 5, pg. 341. Sermon XXIII, “Marks of True Conversion” Matt. 18:3.

[24]. Practical Works, Vol. I, pg.427.

[25]. Practical Works, Vol. I, pg.430-31. Consider also Vol.3, pg.239-242.

[26]. Discussions, Vol. 4, pg. 220.

[27] Third something, i.e. Third option.

[28]. Discussions, Vol. 4, pg. 221.

[29]. Reformed Pastor, selections from pgs.56-61; Banner of Truth paperback edition. See also Mr. Baxter’s writings upon education in vol. 1 of his practical works, in the section on family government.

[30]. Discussions of R. L. Dabney, Vol. 4, pg. 685. “Parental Responsibilities”

[31]. “The Duty of the Hour” R. L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol.4, pgs. 121-122

_______________________________________________________