The Apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians 5:22-23: “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.” That passage is hated by many who claim to be Bible-believers! However, in many parts of the world, there is little discussion: the man is the leader, governor, boss, chief, etc. However you look at it, the husband is the leader in a biblical home.

A wise husband will always discuss with his wife when major decisions must be made. After all, she is part of the family. Just as important, the man needs a woman’s perspective since he obviously cannot produce that viewpoint no matter how bright, wise, and committed he may be. In our home, my wife is far superior to me in many areas. She is an incredible analyst and can make correct decisions far better and quicker than I. She is also the one who keeps me out of trouble with my columns and books with her knowledge of grammar and composition. I hate to think where I would be without her. All our friends know that she has an engineer’s mind and can solve problems that I don’t even comprehend. So, evidently I am not the head of the home because I am brighter, more talented, better educated or because I am heavier, hairier, or more handsome. It is simply God’s appointment.

Each day before I get out of bed, I ask myself, “What can I do today to make my wife even happier than she is?” We have never had even a “hot” discussion about money or children, the two main points of dissention in most homes. She talks to me before spending money even though it is not necessary since I have complete confidence in her decision and we decide together about investments. If there came a time when we could not agree and a decision had to be made, I would make it and accept the responsibility.

In any family there will be differences and each person should try to satisfy the other’s wants and needs and try to acquiesce to the mate. There may be times when that is impossible and the man must make the decision. When a husband feels the need to command, that usually means a deterioration of the relationship. When command begins, contentment often ends with tragic results. But if each person seeks to satisfy the other, there should be no reason to command. The husband has to fulfill his place as leader and decision-maker and the wife must respond and if she is wise and Christ-directed she will submit to his leadership even if she is convinced his decision is wrong. The man will have to live with his decision. That’s the price of leadership.

That is one reason the man should always get his wife’s thoughts before a decision is made since the responsibility is great. Two minds are better than one and should be twice as safe.

It takes an informed, dedicated, and sincere Christian woman to surrender willingly to God’s plan for her life in this matter. After all, the whole culture is against a wife’s obedience and she will often be ridiculed by foes, friends, and family. It must be understood that times have changed but God’s plan for the home has not. Cowardly, sniveling husbands and overbearing, commanding wives are a modern abomination and the broken homes resulting in unmotivated, uncivilized, uneducated, and undisciplined children are the consequences.

Francis Quarles, in his homely rhymes, alluding to the superstition that the crowing of a hen bodes bad luck to the family, has said:

“Ill thrives the hapless family that shows
A cock that’s silent, and a hen that crows:
I know not which live most unnatural lives,
Obeying husbands or commanding wives.”

Deep in every heart he or she knows what is right; however, it is one thing to know the right and another thing to do it.

Meanwhile, behind every successful man is a woman rolling her eyes. Sometimes it is his wife, sometimes, it’s his mother-in-law!

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

The non-thinking do-gooders are clamoring for a ban on negative ads but to suggest a ban is incredible. What about the Bill of Rights? Television shows and commercial ads feature vulgarities and nudity yet the viewers are too wimpy to hear vivid, vigorous, even vicious (but true) political ads!

However, the general opinion (so I will almost automatically believe to the contrary) is that negative ads are so distasteful, disgraceful, and deleterious that they should be illegal. I don’t defend untruthful, uncouth, or even unkind ads, but I do want to know the truth about the candidates without any spin. Just the facts, please.

If a candidate is a bum, I want to know; however, if he is a bastard, I don’t care. After all, he can hardly be blamed. Every family has one or two in the shadows. If a candidate is distasteful, I don’t care; however, if he or she is a drunk, I want to know since that will affect performance. If a man is fastidious, I don’t care; however, if he is a fornicator, I want to know because if he will break his marriage vows, he will break his promises to the voters. If a man is poor, I don’t care; however, if he is a pervert, I want to know because if he is so dumb as to misuse his personal organs, then he will misuse his office. If a man is unimpressive, I don’t care; however, if he is undisciplined he will be a poor leader. If a man is handicapped, I don’t care; but if he is a hack, I will vote against him. If a man is crude, I don’t care; but if he has character, I will vote for him. I don’t care if a man is listless; however, I do care if he is lazy.

Negative, truthful, hard-hitting ads are a great service to everyone. It is easier to make intelligent decisions about politicians if we know a great amount of information, even negative information, about them. If the voters want officials who are drunks, deadbeats, druggies, and deviates, then they have a right to elect them. (And have done so, in spades.) Likewise, if I want decent, honest, family loving, patriotic, hardworking officials, then I have a right to choose them. I also have a right to convince my sphere of influence to vote for those I think are preferable.

It is dishonest, disreputable, and divisive for a politician to lie or even distort his record or his opponent’s record, and voters should be intelligent enough to know those politicians who are aggressively honest and those who are aggressively dishonest. That is easy to know about Democrat, Republican, or Independent Liberals; if their lips move, they are lying.

This government is the most incompetent, inefficient, irresponsible, immoral, and inept in American History. No exaggeration. So bring us more truthful, negative ads. I don’t want any more Hope and Change. Most Americans have lost all hope and are left with only a little change.

Some have declared that this is the worst election in history; but they overreach and overstate the issue. Other political elections have been worse!

The editor of the Aurora called George Washington a hypocrite, a fool, a liar, and a coward, a tyrant and a murderer, and Alexander Hamilton was “the Judas Iscariot of our country.” Hamilton’s affair with Maria Reynolds was used against him. Tom Paine hoped George Washington would die telling him “the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an imposter, whether you have abandoned good principles or whether you ever had any.” Paine had been a valuable patriot during the war but ended up being simply a pathetic pain in the posterior.

Does it really matter if a candidate is bright, bold, and brave or careless, crass, and craven? Yes, it matters to me. History provides many examples of character making a difference. Aaron Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel (Burr lost his chance at the Presidency because of Hamilton), is the most controversial of our Founding Fathers who served as Vice-President; U.S. Senator; and valiant officer during the War. His problem was not a lack of courage but lack of character.

Burr despised Washington, characterizing him as a “man of no talents and one who could not spell a sentence of common English.” Men of Burr’s caliber should be careful about making offensive judgments of other men especially men of stature. Cheetham’s American Citizen reported that his (Cheetham’s) staff had a list of “upwards of twenty women of ill fame with whom [Burr] has been connected.” He had another list of married ladies who were divorced due to Burr’s seductions as well as “chaste and respectable ladies whom he has attempted to seduce.” Burr had a character problem that resulted in zipper problems.

George Washington couldn’t spell but he didn’t seduce!