.jpg)
Because I Said So!
Season Two Coming in September!
Because I Said So! is a podcast by John Rosemond. John is the nation’s leading parenting expert and provides common-sense advice for raising your children. John is a nationally syndicated columnist, author and public speaker. His audiences are left feeling empowered, educated and entertained.
A family psychologist by license, John points out to all his audiences that “psychology has caused more problems than it has solved for American parents.” John’s mission is to be a counter-weight to the psychological parenting paradigm that was sold to America in the late 1960s/early 1970s, restore commonsense to the raising of children, and give parents the guidance needed to raise happy, well-mannered children who will, as adults, contribute value to culture and society.
Because I Said So!
Title: Is the Biblical Husband Beyond Saving?
Most men don't understand what the Bible, God, describes as their role. Stop playing "jump ball" and discover the joy and peace of Father knows best.
Thousands of stressed parents are finding their way to better parenting with the help of ParentGuru.
Parenting With Love and Leadership
Weekly Substack newsletter by Parenting Expert John Rosemond.
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Thanks for listening! Subscribe to my newsletter and follow me on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
Well, hello and welcome or welcome back, because the case may be to, because I said so the only podcast on the entire worldwide web where you will hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, about America's mental health industry and oxymoron, if there ever was one mental health professionals and the mental health industry and the mental health field and mental health and so on and so forth. Anyway, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about America's mental health industry and the mental health field and the mental health field and the mental health field. So I'm a psychologist, I'm your host, john Rosemann I'm glad you joined us and for more of this heresy, a mental health heresy, you can go to johnrosemanncom or you can go to parent, gurucom and FYI, I also have a sub stack on parentcom and this week's sub stack is on wait until your father gets home, which is a subject that dovetails, actually, with today's podcast. So I want to talk about the Bible, which is the bestselling and most controversial. That's not arguable. It's the bestselling and most controversial book ever written. The Bible says it's the Word of God Himself and there are numerous text proofs to that effect. Therefore, to believe in the Bible, to believe anything the Bible says about anything one must first believe in God. But that doesn't necessarily work in the other direction, does it? Believing in the Bible requires believing in God, but believing in God does not mean a person also believes in the Bible.
Speaker 1:There's a whole lot of people out there in this world who say they believe in God but don't really believe that God speaks to us through the Bible, through both the Old and New Testaments. I'm talking about people who consider the Bible to be nothing more than a book of suggestions and that, concerning any given suggestion, one is free to either accept it or reject it. Some of the people in question even call themselves Christians. I call them Christians in name only or chinos like the pants. My pastor and I were talking recently about this very topic, the topic of people who identify as Christian but regard the Bible as a book of suggestions. That is, to those folks, the God small g.
Speaker 1:The book of suggestions doesn't say thou shalt not steal. That's to authoritarian. It doesn't allow for the fact that there are, in their view anyway, certain situations in which it is okay to steal. The God small g. The book of suggestions says when you want something that belongs to someone else, consider how that person is going to feel if you steal it from them and ask yourself would I want someone to make me feel like that? And then, if you still want it, badly enough, oh well, overall, in the year 2424, or 2024, we're not quite at 2424 yet. I don't know if we'll ever get there. In fact, in the year 2024, personal property is an artifact of white supremacy. Haven't you heard, like insisting that 2 plus 2 equals 4,? And no, that last thing. I just said that teaching children 2 plus 2 equals 4 is teaching white supremacy. That's for real, ladies and gentlemen. There are actually people out there who are pushing that idea. If you want to see for yourself the latest craziness that progressivism has spawned, google, equitable math, equitable math. But prepare to think you are reading something out of Mad Magazine.
Speaker 1:Anyway, my pastor and I agreed that one of the most difficult, if not THE most difficult, instruction God communicates to us through the Bible is the clear, unequivocal instruction concerning the man's role in the home. Specifically, the Bible says that the man, the husband, the biological male, is the authority in the home, the final authority Not the only authority, mind you, but the final authority, and that's an important distinction, and it's a distinction that I think a lot of people who identify as Christian don't. They don't understand, they don't get it. The Bible doesn't say that the wife has no authority. The Bible says only that the man, the husband, is the head of the home. He is the final authority in the home. In other words, god isn't saying that a wife's opinion doesn't count. Some people I mean I've even met men who believe that that God is saying that a wife's opinions don't count. That's not true.
Speaker 1:What the Bible is saying is that the husband and it's very clear if you read the entire context the husband is to respectfully and lovingly consider his wife's point of view and a decision of one sorter or another must be made. But when it comes time to actually make the decision in question, he must make it and he must take full responsibility for the outcome of the decision, whether desirable or undesirable. For example, if, after discussing the matter, whatever it is, with his wife, he becomes persuaded that her point of view is the best path forward and he decides to go with her point of view, but things don't work out well at all, he must not blame his wife. He must take full responsibility for the decision. That responsibility is not his choice. In other words, it is his assignment, and any man who believes he has some weird entitlement to act the tyrant, to control his unruly wife through intimidation is an oaf. He just doesn't get it. He needs to attend husband boot camp, folks.
Speaker 1:The biblical arrangement makes so much sense. I mean common sense. I mean it's God's word and it ought to be obeyed for that reason alone. But the fact of the matter is that arrangement makes common sense when agreed upon by both parties, as is the case, for example, with my wife and myself. It virtually guarantees peace and happiness in the home. The wife has a voice that is equal to her husband's voice, but her power of choice is less than his, by her informed consent. By the way, these things ought to be discussed before people get married. These are not things that you know should be, should be reconciled, resolved, sprung on the other party after the marriage has taken place. So let me repeat that last sentence. The wife has a voice that is equal to her husband's voice, but her power of choice is less than his by her informed consent. And that arrangement is not agreed upon by both parties. Every decision has the potential of becoming a jump ball up for grabs to the person who jumps the highest, which is usually the person who is more skilled at emotional bullying. With that arrangement the biblical model in other words if that arrangement is not agreed upon by both parties, it is a virtual guarantee that arguments will largely define the emotional climate of the household.
Speaker 1:Once, about a time not so long ago, women sought men who rose to the level of that biblical ideal. Those men accepted full responsibility for the welfare of their families. They were the breadwinners and, as such, they understood up close and personal how the world outside the four walls of the home worked, its operative realities. The women in question depended upon those men for their security and the security of their children. America's families were composed of men who loved taking care of women and children and women who loved being taken care of. A perfectly balanced relationship as it should, be given that it is God's design for us, no design of man's comes close. That design was the ideal in this country until the baby boomer generation my generation decided autonomously that all things tried and true were bad and had to go and be replaced by things new and untested, exciting things, and that we boomers had been appointed by some pagan divinity to bring eternal and perfect peace and loved mankind. Cue the laugh track, please. In the late 1960s, the tsunami of moral relativism which had been building beneath the surface of things since the fall slammed into an wrecked moral havoc upon Western civilization.
Speaker 1:Make no mistake, ladies and jelly beans, I am describing the beginning of warfare, the focal point of which was the family. The serpent's minions set about to deconstruct the traditional family, to burn it to the ground really, and raise up out of its ashes something fundamentally dysfunctional. I'm talking about a family in which no one is clear on their role. The husband, instead of being the head of the family, kowtows to his wife. The wife is a wife in name only and reality she's mom 24-7. Mom and Dad treat the children as if they're equals, even superiors at times, and so the children act like it.
Speaker 1:In many of the families in question, both parents work, which means almost invariably that the family lives well beyond its means. I don't mean to be taking Dave's job away from him, but that's true. Where both parents work, it means almost invariably that the family lives well beyond its means. That also means that from infancy, the children spend most of their time with third-party caregivers in classrooms rather than playing outside with one another or inventing their play and getting dirty in the process? Have you noticed a dirty child lately? Have you noticed that homes no longer have mudrooms? Mudrooms were for children. That's where they stripped after playing outside.
Speaker 1:Child-centeredness is characteristic of the two working parent family. Child-centeredness is yet another example of how, in the postmodern family, roles are discombobulated. Instead of occupying roles that are subordinate, today's children are born into the center of attention. They're born into a state of entitlement. Some folks have accused me of not understanding the new way of child-rearing, this thing called parenting. Au contraire, I understand it better than the young and middle-aged people who are trying to do it.
Speaker 1:Do parenting? In other words, they are the ones who don't understand. They don't understand what they're actually doing because they're infatuated with what they tell themselves they're doing. They tell themselves, for example, that putting their children at the center of attention in the family is an act of love. No, it's not. Putting children at the center of attention leads invariably to various forms of parent-child codependency, also known as enabling, and it is inaccurate to say that enablers love the people they enable. They may say they love them, but they don't know what love is. Their intentions don't matter. What matters is not what they think they're doing, in other words, but what they are actually doing, which is weakening their children unintentionally, rendering them incapable of taking full responsibility for their lives and figuring out how to solve the problems that are inevitable to life.
Speaker 1:Mental health of today's children and teens is not 10 times worse than what it was in the 1950s because children are being loved more or better. It is 10 times worse because enabling has taken over American parenting. Enabling prevents the development of emotional resilience, and a lack of emotional resilience is at the core of every mental health problem on the planet. What do I mean by enabling? I mean that today's parents, unlike my parents and their parents and their parents and so on down the generations, today's parents think their job is to solve all their children's problems. That defines parenting.
Speaker 1:Parenting is very, very, very different from mere child-ruring. I was merely raised. I wasn't parented. Praise the Lord. Children who are raised or reared look forward to leaving home. I did.
Speaker 1:Children who are parented are frightened of leaving home because they are in codependent relationships with their parents, in the pseudo family that remained after the smoke of the 1960s cleared, the new post-modern American family emerged, and that family is a family in which the husband in name only and the wife in name only constantly vive for dominance. And the family in name only exists in a perpetual state of emotional insecurity, the state of weakness which is weakening America. No one in the postmodern family is really taking care of anyone else. No one respects anyone else not really. The primary emotions in the family are anger and anxiety. In this family, the husband capitulates to the emotional hurricanes His wife is capable of producing and the family becomes a matriarchy where the feminine force rules. She complains about the burden that's on her shoulders, but she's unwilling to give it up. The husband retreats into an obsession with sports, pornography, video games and affairs. This family in name only lacks a model of authentic masculinity and, probably worst of all, the children run the show. They rule the home and so craziness prevails. The parents feel themselves to be under siege and problems never get solved. They just stack up one on top of another. This family in name only is in a near constant state of emotional upheaval.
Speaker 1:When God created human beings, he created not just our bodies and our minds. He created a design for how we should live. I really feel sorry for people who don't believe that. I mean, God's design is a perfect design. When you begin to understand it, I don't understand why you wouldn't subscribe to it. I mean, I really enjoy it. I feel sorry for people who don't know of God's design, who don't want to know of God's design, who are purposefully ignorant of God's design, who reject it without knowing what they're rejecting. God created our minds and our bodies and he created a design for how we should live, and that design is set forth in the Bible, his word. When, for whatever reason, we deviate from that design, we bring down problems on our heads. The bad news is that's precisely what we've done. We've deviated from God's design and we're paying a huge price for it.
Speaker 1:The good news we're capable of correcting the problem. It simply requires acknowledging what a child should acknowledge that Father, or Heavenly Father that is knows best. And you've been listening to because I said so the only podcast I'll say it again on the worldwide web where you'll hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about America's mental health industry the most bogus profession going in the world today and you will hear the truth about children, and you will hear the truth about child rearing, and you will hear the truth about parenting, and believe me, they are different. I'm glad you joined us. I hope you do so again. In the meantime, keep on rockin' in the free world, folks, because if we don't keep rockin' it, we're gonna lose it. Thank you.
.png)