Traditional marriage is a covenant where parties pledge to give to the other what is needed. We’ve lost the idea of marriage as two people working for the common purpose of building a family and a home, furthering the life of their people another generation, exhausting themselves, laughing, crying, and enjoying each other in every way, as they do it. Feminism has killed all the magic and romance of marriage with its dour obsessing over consent, labor, remuneration, etc., turning wives into lawyers and men into beggars. Away with all of it.

If you have spent any amount of time at all observing online discussions or popular teaching in the churches about marriage relationships, especially in regard to intimacy, you have likely noticed that the default setting for all discourse is that what women need from men is completely reasonable and can never be denied them, but what men need from women is a gross imposition and Herculean task they should never be obligated to perform. In one such recent online pontification from a woke pastor, the claim was made that “Husbands are never entitled to have sex with their wives. I don’t care if it’s your wedding night, your anniversary, or your birthday. Love is patient.” Rhetoric like this abounds from pastors across the theological spectrum, usually to a chorus of ‘stunnings’ and ‘braves.’ 
Now, I have developed a heuristic to quickly sniff out if a statement about marriage or sex roles is accurate or just another attempt to manipulate Christians into adopting contemporary, unbiblical attitudes. That heuristic is this: “Can I apply this statement, mutatis mutandis, to the other sex with the approval of the party making it?” If not, then it’s probably not a biblically sound idea, and we are being played. 
So upon reading the above claim about sex and entitlement, I immediately applied Mallard’s Razor©. It is generally agreed that husbands are more needy in the realm of conjugal relations and wives are more needy in the realm of emotional support. So I shot back to the author, “Wives are never entitled to have emotional support from their husbands. I don’t care if it’s been a hard day, you are overwhelmed, or you really just need to be heard. Love is patient.” The response from the author, and a great many others, was both predictable and telling. Of course, they would not have it. The idea that a husband could withhold emotional support from his wife provoked an enraged response, with a flurry of accusations about how much of an incel and spousal abuser I must simultaneously be. Mallard’s Razor: Don’t get on Twitter without it.
I could go off from here into various aspects of the digital battle that ensued, as many came to defend my exposure of the original statement, and all manner of silly cavils about men and sex were thrown out against us. But I want to focus on one idea that kept coming up in the arguments. Multiple times in the replies to my post I’ve now been told that emotional intimacy is definitional to marriage, while sex is optional. Thus, it would be faithless, a dereliction of duty, for a husband to not render emotional support to his wife if she needed a sounding board or a shoulder to cry on. At the same time, a man has no claim at all upon his wife sexually, it seems. This idea is, in the words of quite a few angry people, “very rapey.”
And here, any competent Bible student can see that the feministic stance on the sexual and emotional obligations of spouses is exactly the reverse of the case, if anything. The Bible, and the Christian tradition as a consequence, clearly holds that sex (and the fruit that ordinarily comes from it) is the primary, distinctive feature of marriage. Marriage is designed to be the place where sex happens. Marriage and sex are not the same thing, but the latter is a necessary condition and the primary reason for the former. Marriage is meant to channel the incredible power of human sexuality into a constructive force- biologically, psychologically, and socially. When the heat of sexuality is allowed to run outside of marriage, it is inevitably a destructive fire. And of course, having a marriage without sex, is like building a forge to do basket weaving. So it shouldn’t be controversial to say that by design sex should be happening in marriage. Which means spouses owe conjugal relations to each other. They are in fact entitled to sex with their mate.
The Westminster Confession of Faith says “Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife [which could possibly entail sex], for the increase of mankind with legitimate issue, and of the church with an holy seed [which definitely entails sex]; and for preventing of uncleanness [again, definitely entails sex].” (24.2) If all someone is looking for is good advice or help around the house, other arrangements, from friendships to hiring a handyman, will do. But marriage has more in view than that. If you think this is just some extreme Puritan take, the words of the Book of Common Prayer (1662) give us the same three purposes: 
“First, it was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, it was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body. Thirdly, it was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”
For Puritan and Cavalier alike, marriage has the same purposes. And of course, these are all purposes clearly drawn from Scripture, notably 1 Corinthians 7:2-5:
“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”
With the above in view, a marriage where sex is withheld by one party permanently, apart from reasons of physical or other impairment, is tantamount to abandonment and grounds for divorce. In the aftermath of the online spat noted above, a wise person suggested that just as porn use can rise to the level of divorceable adultery, denial of conjugal relations can rise to the level of divorceable abandonment. Again, Mallard’s Razor is useful here. I wonder how many evangelical feminists that chafe at the idea that a wife otherwise capable of rendering due benevolence who persistently refuses to do so is in violation of the marriage covenant and liable to be divorced would fully support a wife divorcing a husband with a porn addiction. So then, without ongoing conjugal generosity, a marriage is effectively killed. It is a form of desertion.
Let me briefly note that unwed people who cannot or will not have sex with their espoused when married should not be permitted to wed at all. Without any consummation, there is no marriage. This was uncontroversial in past ages, when the idea of a merely companionate, non-sexual marriage was unthinkable (I hope those who hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary can at least agree that hers would have been an utterly unique situation). Let me also add that nothing I have said thus far should be taken as applicable to those, who for reasons of infirmity, after marriage, have lost the ability to safely engage in sexual intercourse.
Read More
Related Posts:

The most important thing to do is focus our attention on the perfect sacrifice and righteousness of Christ and grasp the certainty of salvation that we have in Him. This can be done through prayerfully using the ordinary means of grace that the Lord has given His people to help them live and therefore to help them die as well

A few years ago, I received this unexpected request from one of my church members with multiple sclerosis: “When you have time, could you please do a Bible study on how to prepare for death?” This person knew that her condition was incurable and, although death still seemed a fairly long way off, she was anxious to receive advice on how to face it. I was taken aback by that request, but I should not have been. This was a very sensible idea. Why wouldn’t every church member be interested in such a Bible study? Yet, I could not remember the last time I preached or heard a sermon on that topic. The Bible is very upfront about the reality of death but also very clear that it is possible to die well. It is perhaps significant that one of the best-known Hebrew words in the Old Testament, the word shalom, which we associate with peace and well-being, first appears in the context of death (Gen. 15:15). Knowing how we may die “in peace” should be an important concern for us all.
As I reflected on this, I was struck again about how common that theme was in Christian sermons and devotional literature until about two hundred years ago. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, decisive breakthroughs in medical research, such as the discovery of germs and anesthetics, made death and pain feel more distant. For the first time in history, being healthy became the norm and being ill the exception. For most people in history, death was an ever-present companion. John Calvin, for example, gives a vivid description of how precarious life felt in his time:
Innumerable are the ills which beset human life, and present death in as many different forms. Not to go beyond ourselves, since the body is a receptacle, even the nurse, of a thousand diseases, a man cannot move without carrying along with him many forms of destruction…Then, in what direction soever you turn, all surrounding objects not only may do harm, but almost openly threaten and seem to present immediate death. Go on board a ship, you are but a plank’s breadth from death. Mount a horse, the stumbling of a foot endangers your life. Walk along the streets, every tile upon the roofs is a source of danger…I say nothing of poison, treachery, robbery, some of which beset us at home, others follow us abroad.1
It is therefore not surprising that Christians felt the need to be trained in the ars moriendi (art of dying). In fact, the idea that the whole of life is a preparation to die was commonplace. As events in the world sometimes bring death considerably closer to us, I believe it is urgent for the church to recover the Christian ars moriendi. What we need in particular is not so much rehearsing general theological truths about death but precisely what that church member asked me: some practical advice on how to prepare ourselves for it. The Protestant Reformers and seventeenth-century Puritans can help us with this because they knew how to face death and how to think about it in concrete terms. They wrote a great deal on the topic but, for the sake of brevity, I will focus on Martin Luther, whose teaching on the matter sums up the Protestant ars moriendi.2
Luther’s view of the Christian life is attractive because of its concrete character. Luther was not simply a theologian of more abstract concepts such as justification but a pastor who preached and wrote to human beings of flesh and blood facing much hardship and who were never far away from death. Luther himself, like his contemporaries, did not expect to live for very long, and he thought he would soon die from illness or martyrdom. It is therefore not surprising that he preached and wrote about death throughout his life. As early as 1519, when he was only thirty-six, he wrote a series of exhortations for his sovereign, Elector Frederick the Wise, who was seriously ill.3 In that same year, he preached a famous sermon on preparing to die, and he no doubt preached many times on the subject. Practical considerations about dying are spread through his writings. We also have fairly precise information about Luther’s last days and his own death that allows us to know that he put into practice what he preached.
Luther can help us because he teaches us how to think properly about death both throughout our lives and when it is near. His insights can be summed up under four headings.
Be Confident but Realistic
First, Luther recognizes that death is frightening even for Christians. He is not so foolish as to believe that the fear of death can be neutralized by stoic fortitude, as certain atheists try to convince themselves. This is a conviction that is often found in his writings. For example, in a sermon on 1 Corinthians 15 preached on October 6, 1532, he says: “The heathens have wisely said ‘he is a fool who is afraid of death, for through such fear he loses his own life.’ This would be true if only a man could act on the advice…They advise that nothing is better than simply cast all such fear aside, to rid the mind of it and to think: why worry about it? When we are dead, we are dead. That is certainly disposing of the matter in short order and completely extinguishing God’s wrath, hell and damnation!”4
Or again, in one of his table talks: “I do not like to see people glad to die…Great saints do not like to die. The fear of death is natural, for death is a penalty; therefore, it is something sad. According to the spirit one gladly dies; but according to the flesh, it is said ‘another shall carry you where you would not.’”5
Yet, because Christ defeated death, Luther also knows that the death of a Christian is fundamentally different. As he says to Frederick the Wise in one of his fourteen consolations: “The death of a Christian is to be looked upon as the brazen serpent of Moses. It does have the appearance of a serpent; but it is entirely without life, without motion, without poison, without sting…We do resemble those who die, and the outward appearance of our death is not different from that of others. But the thing itself is different nevertheless because for us death is dead.”6
This is why the Christian is able to prepare for death in a meaningful way. However, this preparation should take place throughout the whole of life, and this leads to Luther’s next insight.
Think of Death at the Right Time
This is perhaps the most insightful piece of advice and the most challenging for us today. The issue is not simply how to think about death but when. Luther’s oft-repeated advice is that we should familiarize ourselves with death while we are still healthy, while death itself still seems far away. Conversely, we should not stare at death when it is near us but rather focus on Christ. Now it is clear that most people today—sadly, including many Christians—do precisely the opposite. They studiously ignore death while healthy and are caught unprepared when it comes.
Read More

Truthful thoughts are greater than positive thoughts because truth sets us free (John 8:32). Positive thinking is great when immersed in truth. But positive thoughts often get unhinged from reality, causing us to get stuck in cycles of frustration and deception.

Christianity claims that truth exists. Not my truth or your truth, but real, objective truth—a reality that is present whether we believe it or not and functions whether we exist or not.
Because truth exists, our thoughts matter. We must take every thought captive, making it obedient to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5). We must concern ourselves with things that matter to God, not merely things we believe will make our lives better, easier, or more enjoyable.
I regularly meet people who promote a worldview of positive thinking. In fact, there are religions and schools of thought that major in it. Such belief systems claim, to a greater or lesser degree, that positive thinking saves people from sin, grief, pain, brokenness, and even eternal damnation in hell. They’re attractive because they give us a sense of control. And in an age of chaos, a little control feels comforting.
In troubling times, advocates of positive thinking say things like, “Just think positive thoughts, and things will improve.” The assumption is that our thought patterns determine ultimate reality, not a being who exists and runs the universe regardless of our thoughts.
But can positive thinking actually save us? Can it rescue us from the brokenness of our lives? Can it heal us in a wholistic, soul-level kind of way?
There are at least two reasons why it cannot.
First, to live without truth is to live without healing. Said another way, a life without truth is a life of masking over problems. For example, when I’m anxious and think to myself, “I just need to conjure up a happy thought, and my anxiety will leave,” I’ll miss opportunities to address the source of my anxiety and find a lasting solution.
If I think about rowing a boat on a peaceful stream while my children are distraught and throwing toys at each other, I’ll miss the opportunity to parent wisely and be a person of reconciliation.
Read More
Related Posts: