Castration is such a descriptive word, but because it brings to mind sharp objects and blood, perhaps that isn’t the best word to use. Perhaps emasculation is a better word. That brings to mind a tool called an “elastrator” that uses a very small rubber band to accomplish the purpose of “bloodless castration.” What it does is it cuts off the blood supply and the testicles shrivel up and fall off. It’s a nasty thing to do, but it’s bloodless, the chance of infection is low and the speed at which it can be done is high.
The modern church uses a doctrinal elastrator these days that causes the destruction of manhood in churchian males and creates enormous problems in many marriages. It’s actually a double-whammy designed to emasculate men and boys and thereby root out and destroy any male dominance they might exercise in order to make the way clear for women to take charge and further destroy men.
These two perverse doctrinal teachings are called “Mutual Submission” and “Servant Leadership.”
As to which of them is more perverse, I will leave to the reader to decide, but they are both taken from Scripture and applied completely out of context in order to support and advance the cause of feminism. Any man heard uttering such words in church with anything other than a tone of contempt has rightly identified himself as a cuck and not worthy of being considered anything other than male- certainly not a man.
Mutual Submission: Challenging God’s Authority
The strange marital doctrine of Mutual submission is taken from Ephesians 5:21 because fembots and their white knight allies claim this verse is the “context” with which to take Ephesians 5:22-24. There are three problems with this, all serious.
First, Ephesians 5:21 is the closing of Paul’s remarks to the church in general before he began his specific remarks to the family. The members of the church, in general, have a relationship to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ in which they are equal in Christ and thus the instruction to submit to one another in fear of Christ is quite appropriate. The problem is, that injunction does not and cannot apply when it comes to the family. The reason is the real context of Ephesians 5:22-24 is Genesis 3:16.
“your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”
If the fembots were correct in their claims, it would negate what God said in Genesis 3:16 where the women got cursed. Since women can’t handle being held accountable on anything, it comes as no surprise that they really hate the curse and look for ways to make it go away. Wives are to submit to their husband. Why? Paul and Peter didn’t just pull this stuff out of the air, wives are to submit to their husband because God said “he shall rule over you.”
The same fembots who came up with the insane idea of the “born again virgin” are also trying to peddle the idea that Christ lifted the curse and Genesis 3:16 no longer applies to women. This, however, is demonstrably false inasmuch as snakes still crawl on their bellies, women still bring forth their children in pain and the earth still has thistles and thorns. Obviously Christ hasn’t lifted the curse.
Second, the problem with the idea Ephesians 5:21 is the “context” for the following verses is it not only creates an internal conflict within the immediate text (technically an antinomy), but God has already answered the question of how it should be interpreted. You see, the claim of “Ephesians 5:21 is the context” is a direct challenge to God’s ordained structure of authority that He gave in Genesis 3:16 when He said “and he shall rule over you.”
Essentially it’s the wife saying “We’re equal in Christ, so who are you to lord it over me?”
This happened a long time ago and the challenge is found at Numbers 16:3, which tells the story of when Korah and his buddies challenged the leadership of Moses, whom God had appointed as the leader and judge of Israel. They bided their time and when Moses had the man who was caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath stoned to death, they decided the time was right to make their move. This is how it went:
“They assembled together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”
Notice the similarities? “We’re equal, who are You to be over ME?” In challenging God’s ordained authority structure, they weren’t just challenging Moses and Aaron, they were challenging God, who put them in authority. What do you suppose God thought of that challenge to His authority? Well, as it happens God decisively answered those who made the challenge in verses 32-35:
“and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who belonged to Korah with their possessions. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive to Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly. All Israel who were around them fled at their outcry, for they said, “The earth may swallow us up!” Fire also came forth from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense.”
Guess that didn’t work out too well for Korah and his buds, did it?
Third, the problem with this crazy idea that “Ephesians 5:21 is the context” is that it’s been converted into a general doctrine and applied to marital relations, completely nullifying the command to the wives to be in submission to their husband. It’s not enough that a passage that applies generally to the members of the church is taken out of context and used to challenge God’s authority, it’s being used to usurp the authority of husbands and damage families in the church.
It’s one thing to pick a verse out of context and get a bad interpretation because of that. This, however, is a deliberate attack on husbands and thus on families using a verse taken out of context in a way that is clearly contradicted by the rest of Scripture and used as a general doctrine by people (leaders) who know better but don’t want to offend their women.
This may not seem to be that much of a problem but this point is probably the worst of the three because it is an indictment of the leaders of the modern church and evidence of their cowardice. We know from the parable of the virgins and from the parable of the talents that Christ is nothing if not just. I suspect that many of these leaders will be bound and cast into the outer darkness and left to wail and gnash their teeth, allowed to do nothing more than look in on a celebration they thought they would be participating in.
Servant Leadership: An Invitation To Abdication Of Responsibility
The other half of this perverse pair of feminist churchian twaddle-points is the idea of “Servant Leadership” that’s based on Matthew 20:25-28
But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. “It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Once again, we see a verse pulled out of context to become a feminist pretext. Jesus was speaking to his disciples because James and John’s mother had asked if Christ would award her sons the seats of honor on His left and right side. Christ plainly told her she didn’t know what she was talking about and it wasn’t even up to Him to decide, but His Father.
But this passage is the Lord Jesus, a man in His earthly ministry speaking to men, His disciples, about how to act towards each other, not how to deal with their wives. We see that in no way did Christ negate the curse or change the fact that wives are to be ruled by their husbands. To claim this passage does so is to say that Christ, the Word made Flesh, was contradicting himself.
The call to humility is a good one, but with authority comes responsibility. The idea that being humble is justification for avoiding responsibility is dereliction of duty. The husband was placed in authority over his wife by God, who said “he shall rule over you.” None of the disciples was placed over any of the others and God did not command that any of them would be rulers over the others.
In other words, amongst equals, serving others is highly regarded. But when someone is placed in a position of authority, to abdicate their responsibilities in the name of “servant leadership” is, at best, dereliction of duty and at worst, treason.
Mutual Submission: Teach men to abandon God’s structure of authority for marriage in order that wives may not be held accountable.
Servant Leadership: Teach men to abdicate their responsibilities under God’s structure of authority for marriage in order that wives may not be held accountable.
I see a pattern here.