This should be done subtly, by preaching on the dangers of not meeting a husband’s needs because that opens him up to all manner of temptation. This provides the double effect of blaming the spouse and simultaneously conditioning the audience.

Even for lesser well-hidden sins, there comes a difficult moment in the life of nearly every prominent religious leader when silencing techniques, private meetings, appeals to unity, warnings about gossip, reminders of decades of faithful service, and the occasional sermon on forgiveness have all been tried—and people are still asking questions.

This may require an apology. Not immediately, of course. Apologizing simply because you have done something wrong establishes a precedent that could prove extremely burdensome.

Apologies should be reserved for when the ministry is at stake. Then, and only then, is it time to repent, sticking to the bare minimum, of course.

A carefully curated public apology is not intended to provide a transparent account of facts. That could lead to further questions. The purpose is to say enough that undiscerning followers can announce, “He has repented. What more do people want? Them talking just proves it was a spiritual attack all along.”

Under no circumstances should the apology actually name the harm done.

“I lied about what happened, and led people to believe things I knew were false” is reckless. It does not leave nearly enough room for misunderstanding.

And always use language like “I’m sorry for what happened,” rather than ownership language like, “…for what I did.”

“I deeply regret the pain surrounding recent events” is much safer.

There is pain. There are events. There is regret. all ingredients required for a meaningful apology are present except self-incriminating information.

Include only a modest acknowledgment that you “did not handle everything perfectly.” This sounds humble while narrowing the offence from wrongdoing to human imperfections

At this point, resist the temptation to over-apologize. Avoid naming people, actions, dates, deceptions, financial arrangements, sexual misconduct, intimidation, manipulation, or anything else that could be independently verified. Dr. Harms-Dunn’s guiding principle of public repentance is straightforward: offer the bare minimum necessary to preserve the maximum possible ministry opportunity.

Having acknowledged your own regrettable imperfection, you must now gently introduce everybody else’s.

“I sinned, but my accusers are terrible people” lacks pastoral warmth. Instead, explain that while you deeply regret your mistake, this difficult season has also victimized you. The accusers have fallen into the greater dangers of bitterness, slander, division, believing the wounded, and use of social media.

This way all have sinned. Therefore, everyone should repent.

Dr. Harms-Dunn therefore recommends distributing moral responsibility across the widest possible geographical area, assigning the greatest portions to those located furthest from the actual wrongdoing.

Perhaps you lied, but did the accuser respond with love? Perhaps you mistreated someone, but did that person became bitter? Perhaps others discovered information you deliberately concealed, but did they discover it graciously?

These are important questions.

Dr. Harms-Dunn’s findings showed that the accuser’s poor response to the leader’s wrongdoing bears the greater responsibility. And it can easily be retroactively incorporated into the explanation for said leader’s wrongdoing.

He identifies this as the Flip-the-Finger-Back-at-You Principle: when someone points a finger at your wrongdoing, simply redirect the finger toward something they did in response. Advanced practitioners may note that three fingers are already pointing back at them, providing a statistically significant advantage, assuming no amputated fingers.

Further, rather than saying, “My pride, selfishness, entitlement, greed, lust, or desire for control led me to make these choices,” explain that in a moment of weakness you “fell victim to unhealthy circumstances.”

If the minor slip-ups are sexual in nature, remind wives that not fulfilling their husband’s sexual needs “is as bad as rape,” as Pastor John-Paul Miller pointed out.

Then other circumstances were involved. Other people’s sins were involved. There was spiritual warfare. And, though your own heart was present, it was unusually vulnerable. Therefore, the greater sin is theirs.

Once the bare minimum has been confessed, Dr. Harms-Dunn recommends proceeding to the most important phase of public repentance: the gathering of love and tears.

The apology should move people to gather around the leader in support, distracting them from the harm done and the victims.

There should be hugs all around. And much weeping. Someone should mention how broken you have been. A longtime friend should say, “What a transparent leader.” A fellow minister should pray for you and speak a blessing over you, calling the accusers to repentance and the harmed to forgiveness.

There should be understanding nods, and the shared affirmation that, “Not one of us is perfect”.

“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” should always be spoken. Especially where the roles are completely reversed from the biblical context, and it is the abuser being held accountable, not the victim. Dr. Harms-Dunn noted that these verses are far more effective when used for harm-doers rather than victims.

Once the audience is sufficiently emotional, the fact that nobody yet knows exactly what you apologized for will become strangely unimportant.

Dr. Harms-Dunn identified this leadership phenomenon as the Tear-Based Weasel Effect.

The apology is true because everyone cried genuine tears except the leader.

The next stage, according to Dr. Harms-Dunn, is the Blame-and-Bawl Switcheroo. Once sufficient tears have been shed, concern can safely shift from what the leader did to how badly the leader now feels about everyone knowing about it.

In more serious situations, ordinary tears may not be sufficient. Dr. Harms-Dunn recommends going as low as necessary, including, where circumstances warrant, lying in the grass and whimpering incoherently, as demonstrated by Pastor John-Paul. Successful repentance requires becoming so visibly distressed by the consequences of personal behaviour that observers forget whom the behaviour harmed.

This represents the advanced stage of the Blame-and-Bawl Switcheroo. Once people are mostly worried about the person lying on the ground, questions about why he is lying become irrelevant.

Supporters will worry about you. They may even ask how your wife is holding up. Unless she is the complainant. Another will express concern about the cruelty of social media as a public court, and start a social media campaign against the dissenters. Demands for further accountability will be declared unchristian, requiring church discipline.

At his discretion, the leader may intervene at this point to offer forgiveness to the party who attacked him, and suggest moving forward redemptively, focusing on ministry. This ‘gracious humility’ shows his good heart, while offering a subtle kick-in-the-pants to the harmed. It also inevitably evokes another round of teary-eyed, nose-blowing and whispers of praise and gratitude.

For more sensitive offences, such as the infidelity mentioned at the beginning of this guide, the final task is to turn repentance toward the future. Mention counselling, accountability (with a fist-bump and wink at your best buddy), lessons learned, your family, and the extraordinary places God will take you as a result of this season of spiritual attack.

Refer to your renewed passion for ministry. Possibly even mention that you’re sensing a spiritual calling to a new level of ministry. Presumably with a higher pay grade.

The audience should understand that, although you slipped up, the most significant takeaway here is your inspiring response to having been caught.

Dr. Harms-Dunn has identified this as Purpose-Driven Narrative Reconstruction: the delicate process by which the person responsible for the harm gradually becomes the hero of the recovery story, and the victims are forgotten or demonized.

Finally, thank those who “continue to believe in me… in us.” This quietly sorts the audience into two groups: gracious people who believe in redemption and difficult people who remain interested in what actually happened.

Handled poorly, an apology can lead to restitution, disclosure, independent investigation, resignation, consequences, or—most alarmingly—specific follow-up questions.

Handled properly, however, the leader keeps his platform, the ministry keeps its supporters, and loyalists have fresh evidence of his humility.

This clearly and wordlessly communicates that the matter has been dealt with. And the verse, “Always preach the Gospel. When necessary, use words,” has been fulfilled.

A sermon focusing on “Bearing one another’s burdens,” with honourable mention of, “Love covers a multitude of sins,” fits beautifully as a word of encouragement in a sermon entitled “Suffering With Christ.”

The congregation should be given opportunity to stand and show their support. This allows the ushers to identify those who remain seated, with the use of hidden ceiling cameras, so that the leadership can meet with them to encourage personal growth in the areas of forgiveness and verses that instruct covering sins.

Everyone gathers with love and tears around the person who has finally taken ownership.

The people who were harmed are left standing somewhere outside the circle, trying to explain why an apology that moved an entire room somehow never mentioned what happened to them.

Dr. Harms-Dunn refers to this as the Waste Not & Whatnot Principle. If an apology must be made, never waste it merely on repentance. A properly managed apology should preserve the ministry, restore confidence, gather sympathy, redistribute responsibility, demonstrate humility, silence unnecessary questions, and whatnot.

Done correctly, an apology does much more than acknowledge snippets of the past.

It protects the future.

Dr. Noah Harms-Dunn
Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Satirical Exegesis, Dept. of Reputation Management
Specializing in Blame Redistribution, Tear-Based Weaseling, Finger-Flipping, Advanced Bawling & Whatnot, and Other Ministry-Saving Stuff

Another attendee, a close friend of the woman who brought the complaint forward, disputed this account. She declined to repeat the actual language but confirmed that “shucks” was not even in the correct region of the alphabet.

Whatever the case, the audience was so startled by the language that nobody can remember what he said next, or what led to the outburst. Reports indicate that there was shouting, some vigorous arm movement—which some insist was merely a moment of charismatic expression—before an abrupt departure from the picnic grounds.

One witness initially recalled a folding chair being kicked, but later clarified that she could not be certain whether the pastor kicked it or whether it simply fell over under the spiritual weight of the moment.

When the woman, now described in committee records as a disgruntled member, expressed concerns about the pastor’s behaviour some weeks later, the church appointed an investigation committee to establish what had actually happened.

The committee immediately encountered an unexpected problem: no one who was interviewed remembered it.

Given his extensive academic expertise in Hierarchical Memory Preservation, Dr. Noah Raymember was also invited to assist the committee in evaluating the reliability of the witnesses’ recollections.

The committee felt it best to interview only those closest to the pastor to ensure there would be no unnecessary spiritual attacks. While a difficult decision, it seemed prudent given that there had been numerous similar complaints in the past, taking up valuable time that would have been better spent in ministry. For efficiency’s sake, they met with all interviewees and the pastor over dinner at a lovely restaurant.

“I was there,” one individual from his inner circle said. “I don’t remember him causing any kind of scene.”

Neither did the next witness. Or the next.

The committee initially feared that the passage of several weeks had affected everyone’s memory. Fortunately, further questioning revealed that their memories were excellent.

“I clearly remember what she was wearing,” one interviewee stated.

This produced immediate recognition. “Oh yes. The red dress.”

Another witness remembered that it was “quite fitted.” A third confirmed that it was “very fitted,” while another helpfully observed that it was certainly more fitted than anything she would have worn to a church picnic.

“It was quite short, as I recall,” reported the pastor’s wife. “I’ve been concerned that she is complaining because she wants attention. We should keep her in our prayers.”

The committee was encouraged. Their work had not been in vain.

Another witness remembered the woman laughing. Several others remembered it too. It was loud. Very loud, in fact. After careful discussion, the committee determined that her unusually loud laughter may explain why several people outside the pastor’s inner circle had mistakenly remembered a disturbance.

Then came a major evidentiary breakthrough: someone remembered that the woman’s husband had walked away from her.

“I remember that,” one witness said. Another agreed. Someone suggested that he had seemed embarrassed. Nobody had actually asked him, but the committee agreed that walking away from a loudly laughing wife in a form-fitting red dress was certainly noteworthy.

An elder pointed out that the husband had actually walked approximately twenty feet away to help their child on a swing. The committee thanked him for the additional information, classified it as unhelpful context, and returned to the evidence.

This is known as Hierarchical Memory Preservation: the remarkable ability to completely erase a grown man shouting “Well, shucks” while permanently preserving the colour, approximate fit, and length of a woman’s dress.

The Gift of Not Remembering should not be confused with ordinary forgetfulness. Ordinary forgetfulness is random. The Gift of Not Remembering is extraordinarily precise. It forgets the more glaring wrong while remembering the colour of a dress. It forgets who was shouting while remembering who was laughing too loudly. It cannot reconstruct what the pastor said while storming away, but it can reconstruct what the woman’s husband was thinking while walking toward the swings without the inconvenience of asking him.

The investigation committee ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the pastor had caused a scene.

There was, however, broad agreement about the dress.

The complaining member was therefore encouraged to dress more modestly, laugh more discreetly, and prayerfully consider why so many people remembered her behaviour at an incident nobody remembered happening.

Dr. Noah Raymember
Senior Research Fellow, Department of Selective Memory & Institutional Recollection
Institute of Satirical Exegesis

Institute Researchers Examine the Remarkable Evolution from “God Heals” to “Let Me Hold You”

It is well established that harmful experiences with parents can leave deep and lasting wounds. An absent or abusive parent, rejection, neglect, or abandonment can leave emotional scars that follow people well into adulthood. Christians have believed that God meets people in those wounds and that pastors and mature believers can pray, listen, encourage, and invite hurting people to let Christ heal them.

Unfortunately, this traditional approach left one important question unanswered:

Who is going to hold everybody?

Fortunately, advances in specialized healing ministry have addressed this deficiency. Somewhere downstream from traditional father-heart teaching, an important theological development occurred. “Experience the love of God the Father” became “You need to experience safe parental love.” Then, “I can represent that parental love.”

And finally:

Come here and let me hold you.

Researchers at the Institute of Satirical Exegesis are still searching for the verse where the last step was added.

The Opposite-Sex Healing Principle

Our investigation uncovered a remarkable feature of advanced holding ministry. In the models examined by the Institute, father wounds requiring physical holding appear overwhelmingly among females, while mother wounds requiring physical holding appear among males.

This is therapeutically convenient.

A wounded woman or teenage girl receives paternal affection from a male ministry leader. A wounded man receives maternal affection from a female ministry leader. Researchers attempted to locate protocols for men requiring paternal holding from men, or women requiring maternal holding from women, but apparently wandered outside the department’s area of expertise.

The Institute wishes to reassure readers that traditional boundaries remain extremely important. While healing may require unusually intimate physical contact and has, on occasion, progressed to sexual involvement between participants, certain lines must never be crossed. Father-wound holding must remain between male ministers and female recipients; mother-wound holding between female ministers and male recipients.

The Institute may be flexible on marital boundaries, prolonged physical intimacy, emotional dependency, and the occasional unfortunate sexual outcome, but same-sex therapeutic holding is where we draw the line.

From Handshake to Lap

Many recipients of advanced healing ministry come from religious environments where physical boundaries were considerably simpler. A handshake could carry an entire relationship. Hugging required discernment. Prolonged holding of an unrelated member of the opposite sex might have required several prayer meetings, two ministers, and possibly a congregational vote—and then would have been approved only in marriage.

This may seem excessively restrictive to some.

Advanced healing ministry has liberated itself from these restrictions and, after careful consideration of the many possible boundaries between handshake and lap, has dispensed with most of them.

Professional safeguarding standards inconveniently occupy much of the territory somewhere between the handshake and the lap. They concern themselves with power differentials, vulnerability, trauma history, dependency, motivation, and the tedious question of whether physical contact is meeting the recipient’s needs or the caregiver’s. Social-work ethics even specifically identify cradling and caressing clients as examples of physical contact that risks causing psychological harm.

Apparently these professionals have failed to discover the therapeutic benefits of holding.

A brief Christian side hug, after all, merely says, “I care about you.” Serious wounds, advanced practitioners have discovered, require more. Such as prolonged holding.

Researchers have therefore requested clarification regarding dosage. At what point does hugging become holding? When does holding become healing? Is hair stroking, while holding clients’ heads on laps, optional or essential? Are frequent private outings between caregivers and clients indicated for severe cases? And who determines when enough holding has occurred?

If the answer is the person providing the affection, researchers may have identified what safeguarding professionals technically call a problem.

The Adolescent Model

One advanced version specializes in male spiritual leaders—preferably those carrying substantial spiritual authority—providing paternal physical affection to teenage girls.

Researchers immediately wondered about teenage boys with absent, abusive, or rejecting fathers.

Apparently they have access to Jesus.

The results are remarkably efficient. Wounded boys learn to find their identity and strength in Christ and grow into strong spiritual leaders—kings and priests, if you will. Whereas wounded girls learn that healing from paternal wounds requires unusual emotional and physical attachment to strong spiritual leaders.

Thus boys learn to depend upon Christ, while girls learn to depend upon males who depend upon Christ. Albeit, not necessarily males who have any vested long-term interest in their wellbeing.

The Institute congratulates everyone on preserving the appropriate chain of command.

The wounded girl, of course, is not the safeguarding problem. She may desperately need affection. She may experience the attention as comforting and only years later reconsider what actually happened. She may never reconsider it.

The responsibility for boundaries belongs to the adult.

Which leaves one irritating question: Why does an adult spiritual leader need physical access to a vulnerable girl in order for God to heal her?

When Healing Creates Attachment

People with attachment wounds are particularly vulnerable around attachment. One might therefore assume that healing ministry would be exceptionally careful about creating dependency upon the caregiver.

Advanced ministry has taken another approach and freed itself of such cumbersome methods.

The model works particularly well on recipients from environments where affectionate opposite-sex contact was heavily restricted. Something previously scarce, unfamiliar, or forbidden is suddenly supplied by a spiritual authority precisely when the recipient is emotionally vulnerable.

Professionals regard this as a reason for greater caution.

Advanced ministry has discovered another benefit: these relationships can produce powerful bonds which, entirely coincidentally, are excellent for ministry support and growth.

There is disclosure, holding, nurturing and—depending upon which unregulated ministry one attends—special attention, outings resembling dates, private communication, and sometimes late-night texting after the recipient goes home. Hearts and other affirming emojis may be administered liberally as needed.

Researchers remain uncertain how practitioners distinguish between a wound being healed and a wounded person becoming attached to the person providing relief.

Marriage can make the results particularly visible. A husband who struggles to be vulnerable with his wife may discover that he is perfectly capable of vulnerability with the woman who holds him, strokes his hair, takes him on outings, and texts him late at night.

Wives have occasionally found this distressing.

Further investigation revealed the problem:

The marriage itself apparently has issues.

Fortunately, healing ministry is available.

Researchers remain impressed by a model capable of repairing a man’s attachment wounds while simultaneously giving his wife several new ones. Thus creating opportunity for yet more ministry.

From Dependency to Ministry Growth

The Institute has identified another opportunity.

Professional standards tend to regard excessive dependency upon caregivers as something to prevent. Advanced ministry recognizes that dependency can mature into something considerably more useful:

Loyalty.

People who experience ministry leaders as sources of safety, affection, understanding, spiritual breakthrough, and healing may become remarkably committed to those leaders and their ministries. Sometimes the distinction between loyalty to the ministry leader and loyalty to Christ becomes spiritually nuanced.

This creates exciting possibilities for conferences, retreats, programs, travel opportunities, donations, and other activities necessary for ministry growth.

The Institute therefore recommends replacing the unnecessarily negative term dependency with relationally generated donor loyalty.

No causal relationship should be assumed. It is undoubtedly coincidental that a ministry model capable of creating unusually powerful emotional attachments can also produce unusually committed supporters.

Healing ministry requires resources.

A New Ministry Opportunity

Unfortunately, a husband’s prolonged holding, emotional disclosure, outings, and late-night texting with another woman can occasionally leave his wife feeling neglected. Some wives have even developed the troubling belief that their husbands should be investing this degree of intimacy with them.

Deliverance specialists caution against immature conclusions.

What appears to be a reasonable objection may, upon spiritual examination, reveal jealousy, control, or, in particularly resistant women, the Jezebel spirit.

Fortunately, the Institute has developed a solution.

Rather than reducing the husband’s dependency upon his female healer, establish a Husband-Wound Healing Ministry for the wife. Assign her a compassionate male ministry leader to provide the emotional availability, affirmation, attentive listening, and prolonged physical affection she is no longer receiving from her husband.

The husband continues receiving healing for his mother wounds from a woman who has no other place in his life. The wife receives healing for the husband wounds created while he was receiving healing for his mother wounds. Her jealousy can then receive deliverance before progressing to full-scale Jezebel spirit possession.

Critics have proposed an alternative: married people could reserve certain forms of physical and emotional intimacy for one another while ministry leaders maintain appropriate boundaries.

Unfortunately, this would eliminate several ministries at once and might require certain ministry leaders to acquire training for employment unrelated to other people’s wounds.

The Institute therefore recommends the more sustainable model:

Mother wound → cross-gender healing → marital distress → husband wound → cross-gender healing → jealousy → deliverance ministry.

Should the husband become jealous of his wife’s new male healer, another ministry opportunity has been created.

With sufficient participation, an entire congregation could eventually achieve complete healing without anyone needing to go home.

Critics have cautioned that the arrangement is rumored to have led to spouse swapping. The Institute categorically rejects this characterization. Spouse swapping is sexual, worldly, and incompatible with biblical morality.

This is ministry!

A Modest Proposal

An uncomfortable paper was presented by Dr. B. Yuns-Elfish, proposing that perhaps vulnerable people should receive stronger boundaries, not weaker ones.

Perhaps the deeper the wound, the greater the risk of harm—and therefore the greater the responsibility resting upon the person providing care. Spiritual authority might even require more caution around dependency, not less. And, radical though the proposal may be, marriage boundaries could remain boundaries even when everybody involved attends a healing seminar.

Dr. Keeput Reel further proposed that ministry leaders with histories of sexual misconduct might benefit from professional therapeutic help before assuming that continued intimate access to the same demographic represents evidence of healing, restoration, or a new ministry calling.

And perhaps a minister can help someone experience the love of God without becoming the physical embodiment of that love—and the hero of the healing story.

Institute researchers therefore return, reluctantly, to this embarrassingly uncomplicated model: Listen to wounded people. Believe them. Protect them. Love them. Pray with them. Help them find competent care. Maintain good boundaries precisely because they are vulnerable.

And point them toward Christ.

Admittedly, this leaves the ministry leader with a disappointingly minor role.

But preliminary research suggests that may have been the point all along.

Dr. Deepan Duncy
Senior Research Fellow, Department of Applied Attachment & Ministry Advancement
Institute of Satirical Exegesis

Advancing the discipline of contextually flexible exegesis through rigorous scholarship, strategic context removal, and conclusions reached well in advance of research.

A Defence Against Scripture, Jewish Tradition & Christian Feminism

A brief reader advisory: This article is intended for married people and anyone old enough to read the book of Leviticus without adult supervision. The Institute recognizes that standards for discussing marital intimacy vary considerably among Christian communities. We have therefore adopted the biblical standard: if you are mature enough to encounter Leviticus, you are mature enough to proceed.

In recent years, feminists within religious communities have subjected church leaders to an alarming amount of pushback regarding the marital duty of a wife to her husband. Apparently, reading wholesome romance novels written by men is no longer sufficient to keep women properly informed about what makes a marriage work.

Particularly troubling is that these feminists claim to have Scripture on their side, pointing to Exodus 21:10 and the longstanding Jewish understanding of onah: that a husband has a conjugal duty toward his wife and is responsible for attending to her intimate needs and pleasure (Exodus 21:10; Lockshin, 2022). Some have gone even further, suggesting that a husband may be responsible for managing his own sexual faithfulness. These developments require careful investigation.

In response, Dr. B. Oliver-Dutee, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Satirical Exegesis, has released the conclusions of a preliminary investigation into the biblical doctrine commonly known as the wife’s marital duty. The investigation itself is due to commence shortly. The findings have been encouraging, provided several thousand years of Jewish interpretation, one inconvenient verse in Exodus, and a modest amount of historical context are excluded from the analysis. This is standard research procedure.

The modern doctrine is relatively straightforward: a Christian wife should remain intimately available to her husband because men have needs. If those needs are not adequately met, the husband may become vulnerable to temptation, pornography, wandering eyes, emotional affairs, physical affairs, or other manifestations of unmet male need. This arrangement has the considerable theological advantage of placing responsibility for a man’s sexual faithfulness somewhere in the general vicinity of the woman.

There is, however, a textual complication.

An Unfortunate Discovery in Exodus

Exodus 21:10 says that if a man takes another wife, he must not diminish the first wife’s food, clothing, or onah. The precise original meaning of onah has been debated, but classical rabbinic interpretation understood it as the wife’s conjugal rights. That understanding has been part of Jewish tradition for roughly two thousand years (Lockshin, 2022). In other words, the conjugal obligation runs conspicuously in the wrong direction.

The husband owes something to her.

This becomes still more troublesome in later Jewish law, where marital intimacy was treated not merely as something a husband was permitted to enjoy, but as an obligation owed to his wife. The Mishnah became remarkably specific about this. Men of leisure were obligated daily, labourers twice weekly, donkey drivers weekly, camel drivers every thirty days, and sailors every six months (Mishnah Ketubot 5:6).

This produced the unfortunate historical spectacle of religious scholars calculating how often a working man owed conjugal attention to his wife. Modern teaching has greatly simplified the formula: regardless of his occupation, we calculate how often his wife owes it to him. The Institute considers this an important administrative improvement, since churches no longer require separate conjugal-duty guidelines for sailors and camel drivers.

The situation becomes even more awkward in the Talmud. A married donkey driver contemplating a career change to camel driving faced a difficulty: camel drivers were away longer, which meant fewer opportunities for marital intimacy with his wife. The discussion concludes that greater earnings did not automatically override her interest in having her husband around; he could not simply make the change without her permission (Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 62b).

Apparently, career advancement was once permitted to interfere with a man’s freedom to neglect his wife’s sex life.

The Institute initially hoped onah meant something else. Jewish scholarship has been regrettably persistent.

Even the Books Have Separate Entrances

The tradition of taking marital obligations seriously has survived into modern Jewish marriage literature in ways that present further difficulties for Dr. Oliver-Dutee’s research. Rabbi Shalom Arush wrote The Garden of Peace: A Marital Guide for Men Only specifically for husbands and Women’s Wisdom: The Garden of Peace for Women specifically for wives (Arush, 2008, 2010). The Garden of Peace even opens by blessing women who resist the temptation to read it, while one contemporary account records couples being told that neither spouse should read the other’s book (Arfa, 2009; Klika, 2010).

This creates an unusually hazardous research opportunity. A curious Christian wife accustomed to reading books explaining what she must do to meet her husband’s intimate needs could accidentally open a marriage book written specifically for him and discover several hundred pages addressed to his responsibilities instead. The Institute strongly recommends respecting the prohibition against cross-reading until the implications of this material can be safely contained.

The Necessary Theological Advancement

Fortunately, under the new dispensation, Christian teaching has made considerable progress. Rather than asking, Is the husband attentive to his wife’s intimate needs? we learned to ask the more useful question: Is the wife meeting her husband’s needs so that he will not be tempted?

Dr. Oliver-Dutee and his research team have been unable to establish precisely when the conjugal duty was transferred from husband to wife. No amendment to Exodus has been discovered, and the New Testament contains no formal notice of reassignment. Nevertheless, the transfer appears to have been remarkably successful.

Institute researchers are currently investigating whether the obligation crossed over gradually, changed direction under the new dispensation, or was simply preached at women often enough to establish ownership. Documentation remains scarce, but confidence remains high.

Under the old dispensation, if a husband neglected his wife’s intimate needs, the problem belonged primarily to the husband. Under the new dispensation, if a husband is intimately dissatisfied, the problem can frequently be transferred to the wife. Even better, if he subsequently behaves badly, her original performance can be reviewed: Was she affectionate enough? Available enough? Adventurous enough? Respectful enough? Did she make him feel desired? Did she understand how differently God designed men? Did she recognize that her husband faces temptations she cannot possibly comprehend?

Dr. Oliver-Dutee calls this retroactive female accountability: a marital framework in which a man’s choices remain technically his own while still being audited for possible female causes.

The Faithfulness Initiative

One of the strongest arguments for the wife’s marital duty is that regular marital intimacy helps a husband remain faithful. This raises an obvious research question: Does adequately meeting a husband’s intimate needs actually prevent adultery, pornography, sexual exploitation, or other forms of sexual misconduct?

Dr. Oliver-Dutee is pleased to report that the statistics are quite good if you ignore the facts. This methodology has proven especially effective. Whenever an unfaithful husband reports dissatisfaction in his marriage, for example, his dissatisfaction may be recorded as evidence that insufficient marital intimacy contributes to unfaithfulness. If a thoroughly satisfied husband is nevertheless unfaithful, this data point may be excluded on the grounds that something more complicated was obviously going on. Researchers emphasize that a theory should not be abandoned merely because reality has become uncooperative.

If a wife provides abundant marital intimacy and her husband remains faithful, the doctrine is confirmed. If she provides abundant marital intimacy and he is unfaithful, additional variables, including tone of voice, enthusiasm, and whether she appeared sufficiently grateful for the opportunity, remain under investigation. Thus the theory is remarkably resistant to falsification. This is one of its greatest strengths.

What About the Husband’s Duty?

The Institute wishes to emphasize that husbands also have responsibilities. Christian marriage has never taught otherwise. A husband should love his wife, cherish her, provide leadership, and occasionally ask whether she is tired. Assigning him primary responsibility for attending to her intimate needs and satisfaction, however, presents several theological hazards.

Most seriously, it could cause women to develop expectations. A woman who begins thinking of marital intimacy as something her husband owes her may eventually ask whether he is attentive to her desires, pleasure, emotional safety, exhaustion, physical comfort, or satisfaction. From there it is a dangerously short journey to mutuality, and mutuality makes accountability considerably harder to organize.

A More Efficient Reading of Scripture

Some readers may point to 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul inconveniently describes marital authority over one another’s bodies in explicitly reciprocal terms. Paul tells both spouses not to deprive one another except by mutual agreement for a limited period, and then to come together again (1 Corinthians 7:3–5).

This passage requires careful handling. The safest approach is to emphasize the wife’s obligation when speaking to wives and the husband’s intimate needs when speaking to husbands, while retaining the corresponding statements about husbands for scholarly completeness. Fortunately, reciprocity is considerably less threatening when preached one half at a time.

Dr. Oliver-Dutee identifies this approach as gender-specific contextual emphasis. It differs substantially from taking verses out of context because the context remains technically available to anyone sufficiently motivated to look it up.

Protecting Men from Women’s Failure

The resulting system offers substantial pastoral advantages. A man’s sexual integrity no longer needs to be understood exclusively as a product of his character, self-control, honesty, discipleship, and choices. His wife can help carry some of that responsibility, which is particularly useful because Scripture repeatedly places responsibility upon individuals for their own conduct, and this can become exhausting.

A wife can therefore serve not only as companion, lover, friend, and spouse, but as an auxiliary sexual-conduct management system. Should her husband remain faithful, the system is working. Should he become unfaithful, the system clearly requires maintenance. Either way, the doctrine survives.

Conclusion

The Institute therefore finds that the modern concept of the wife’s marital duty represents a significant improvement upon the ancient Jewish model. The older tradition asked what a husband owed his wife. The newer approach asks what a wife owes her husband so that he will continue behaving like a husband.

The transfer has several obvious advantages. It transforms his intimate needs into her duty, his temptation into her concern, and potentially even his misconduct into a marital problem to which she may have contributed. Best of all, it allows a doctrine originally concerned with what a wife was owed to become a doctrine concerned with what a wife owes.

Researchers concede that Exodus 21:10 remains somewhat awkward.

Fortunately, it is located in Exodus. Most marriage seminars are not.

Dr. B. Oliver-Dutee
Senior Research Fellow
Conjugal Duty Transfer & Applied Female Responsibility
Institute of Satirical Exegesis

References

Arfa, O. (2009, December 16). Saving marriages, one less critique at a time. Jewish Journal.

Arush, S. (2008). The garden of peace: A marital guide for men only. Chut Shel Chessed Institutions.

Arush, S. (2010). Women’s wisdom: The garden of peace for women. Chut Shel Chessed Institutions.

Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 62b. (n.d.). Sefaria.

Klika, B. L. (2010, July). The Garden of Emuna: A practical guide to life; Women’s Wisdom: The Garden of Peace for Women; The Garden of Peace: A marital guide for men only [Book review]. Set Apart Ministries.

Lockshin, M. (2022, January 27). Onah: A husband’s conjugal duties? TheTorah.com. Updated August 1, 2026.

Mishnah Ketubot 5:6. (n.d.). Sefaria.

The Holy Bible. Exodus 21:10; 1 Corinthians 7:3–5.

What he observed has resulted in a formal investigation by the Institute of Satirical Exegesis (ISE), allegations of feminist influence, and an experimental garment now known as the Shed-Pant™. According to our lack of investigation, Dr. Harder may have begun applying established modesty principles with an alarming degree of consistency.

Dr. Harder had been reviewing longstanding teachings requiring women not merely to cover particular parts of their bodies, but to conceal their shape with considerable specificity. In the conservative culture from which Dr. Harder emerged, women may be prohibited from wearing slacks—not because slacks fail to cover the body, but because they have the unfortunate habit of revealing that a body exists underneath. Dr. Harder reportedly accepted this reasoning without objection. His difficulties began when an online discussion drew his attention to the uncomfortable fact that men, too, have bodies prone to form.

Dr. Harder subsequently posed the research question that placed his academic career in jeopardy: “If modesty requires women not merely to cover her body, but to conceal its contours, should the same standard apply to men—particularly where the male form presents certain variable contours requiring additional architectural consideration and flexibility?”

Dr. Harder then broke Institute protocol by setting aside the preliminary findings that had been established prior to the commencement of research. It was downhill from here.

Dr. Harder‘s own findings suggested that the male silhouette is not entirely theoretical. Conventional trousers, he observed, can under certain circumstances communicate more anatomical information than seems strictly necessary for fellowship. Furthermore, certain aspects of the male silhouette are subject to what Dr. Harder cautiously describes as “changing spatial requirements.” Conventional tailoring, he concluded, may therefore be insufficient to guarantee consistent modesty under all foreseeable conditions.

Dr. Harder proceeded from theoretical research to experimental design.

The result was the Shed-Pant™—designed to suit men across the religious spectrum, from Non-abominational to Amish.

The Shed-Pant™ addresses the variable-contours problem by providing a prudent margin between anatomy and public information. Its freestanding lower structure obscures the male form while offering substantial storage for gardening tools best kept in their place. Front-access doors provide easy retrieval without sacrificing structural discretion. Early promotional materials summarize the concept simply: “More storage for tools, less temptation.”

Institute officials emphasize that the problem is not modesty itself. ISE has historically supported restrictive clothing when applied to the appropriate demographic. Nor has Dr. Harder rejected traditional modesty reasoning. His situation may be considerably more serious: he appears to believe it applies to both men and women.

ISE researchers have provisionally classified this doctrine as bidirectional modesty. Its implications are being investigated.

The situation deteriorated further when Dr. Harder made the procedural error of reading Matthew 5:28 before proceeding to Matthew 5:29. He discovered that Jesus first addresses the man who looks at a woman lustfully and then says, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.” Dr. Harder reportedly noticed that Jesus’ proposed response contains no wardrobe instructions whatsoever for the woman being looked at. Instead, the corrective action appears inconveniently directed toward the owner of the eye.

For generations, modesty teaching has avoided this difficulty by generally avoiding this verse. This has allowed men to lead largely unencumbered by responsibility for their own field of vision, while concentrating considerable attention on whatever woman happens to enter it.

Dr. Harder emphatically denies that his research represents a capitulation to feminism. He insists he is not proposing weaker modesty standards for women, but merely asking what happens when existing standards are applied with equal anatomical seriousness to men. This defense seems weak and potentially harmful to leaders in particular. Left unchecked, applying the same principle to both sexes is precisely the sort of methodological development that can create the appearance that equality was intended to operate across categories.

To be clear, ISE holds equality as a foundational principle. Women maintain equality with women, and men maintain equality with men, barring rare exceptions in which men hold opposing views. Those men maintain equality with each other and, under certain circumstances, with women.

The Department of Gendered Application is reviewing Dr. Harder’s work. Dr. Harder has further argued that if revealing bodily contours is inherently a modesty concern when women wear pants, the theological status of contours should not depend entirely upon whose contours they are.

Institute officials have cautioned Dr. Harder against allowing observable reality to interfere with established gender applications.

Dr. Harder remains a Senior Research Fellow, although his position at ISE is understood to be precarious. Development of the Shed-Pant™ nevertheless continues, with models reportedly being tested for gardening, church attendance, and formal occasions. An expanded version for men requiring additional storage capacity is believed to be in development. Dr. Harder declined to discuss specifications.

Dr. D. Zion Harder is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Gendered Application at the Institute of Satirical Exegesis. His current research interests include bidirectional modesty, variable contours, male stumbling blocks, and the theological implications of adequate gardening tool storage.

Throughout time, church leaders have wrestled with one of Christianity’s most difficult questions: How can strong Christian men remain pure when women insist on having feminine bodies?

The sacred garden analogy has proved enormously helpful. The principle is simple. A woman’s intimate anatomy is a sacred garden. Because gardens are sacred, their existence must be carefully concealed. A woman wearing slacks may not actually expose the garden, but the unfortunate shape of her clothing could alert a man to the fact that somewhere beneath the fabric, a garden apparently exists.

This places godly men in an extremely vulnerable position. Once a man becomes aware that a woman possesses female anatomy, there is simply no predicting what thoughts may enter his mind. Obviously, the safest solution is for the woman to change how she dresses.

This arrangement has several advantages. Most importantly, it protects strong Christian men from sin without placing an unreasonable burden of self-regulation upon them. The community can simply regulate the women standing within their visual radius. This distributes responsibility much more efficiently: men remain responsible for spiritual leadership, while women assume responsibility for preventing inappropriate male thoughts.

There is also an important agricultural distinction that must not be overlooked. Women have gardens. Men do not have gardens. Men have the tools required for gardening.

Naturally, this places most of the responsibility on the garden keeper. A garden must not appear available for cultivation, lest a man carrying gardening equipment experience an instinctive desire to begin gardening. It would be unreasonable to expect the person holding the tools to bear primary responsibility for where he uses them. This is why modesty regulations have traditionally focused on gardens rather than gardeners.

The system was functioning beautifully until women began participating in the discussion. We regret to report that women not only have bodies—whose general shape has now been discovered—but also opinions. Worse, some of them have discovered the metaphor.

One woman of no particular importance—and certainly no recognized theological authority—wrote: “Keep your animals in the barn and your tools in the shed. The awareness that a garden exists requires no other action on your part.”

If this reasoning is allowed to stand, it could introduce the radical proposition that merely knowing another person possesses anatomy does not require you to do anything about it and, worse, lead to the expectation that men should indeed do nothing about it. The implications for generations of modesty teaching are difficult to overstate.

Researchers Discover Men Also Have Bodies

Matters became considerably more complicated when a woman asked a question apparently overlooked during generations of modesty research: “But what about the MEN wearing pants??!!”

Unfortunately, the original research was conducted without considering that men also have bodies. This oversight might have gone unnoticed indefinitely had women not begun asking questions. The current line of inquiry—including the alarming suggestion that men may have greater need of skirts (or kilts) than women, given the comparative difficulty of concealing their anatomy—has opened an entirely unauthorized area of research.

This raises a separate concern about women speaking.

The Institute will address that problem in due course.

For now, researchers have reluctantly confirmed the allegation: men do, in fact, wear pants. Some of these pants reveal sufficient anatomical information for an observant woman to determine that a man is almost certainly not concealing a sacred garden beneath them and has not appropriately stored his gardening equipment in a shed.

If merely suggesting the existence and general configuration of female anatomy can cause men to imagine what lies beneath the fabric, consistency would seem to require us to consider whether male trousers might cause women to stumble.

Obviously, we cannot go there. The garden metaphor was never intended to withstand women thinking about it.

The situation deteriorated further when another woman demanded “equity” and announced her preference for “a good basket with pomelos & a banana.” This was clearly inappropriate. Agricultural metaphors involving gardens, delicate flowers, and other approved feminine vegetation were introduced to explain women, not to facilitate reciprocal commentary about men. There must be boundaries.

Women Begin Conducting Unauthorized Field Research

One female employer subsequently reported going to work and discovering that several men were wearing pants. Naturally, she became distracted by what she suspected were “crops in their garden.”

This comment alone demonstrates why women should not be thinking. These are not crops. They have confused tools with crops.

Rather than taking responsibility for her own thoughts, she informed the men that they were causing her to sin and announced that henceforth they would be required to wear tunics. If the men refused to wear tunics, she proposed firing them. If they continued refusing to submit, she proposed having her husband excommunicate them. She even contemplated organizing a street protest along a busy highway demanding that men wear tunics. Finally, she proposed starting an entire church where she could establish rules governing what men wear so that she herself could “live sin free.”

This is outrageous. It is also alarmingly efficient. Within approximately six text messages, she independently reconstructed several centuries of religious modesty enforcement. Institute researchers are currently investigating how she acquired this knowledge. Preliminary findings suggest a possible connection to women entering the workplace when they should have been at home.

The greater concern is that she possessed the audacity to put it in writing.

She concluded by thanking her correspondent for supporting these measures, adding, “Accountability is so important.” Researchers have confirmed that it is, particularly when assigned to women.

A Critical Theological Distinction

We therefore wish to clarify an important principle. When a man says that a woman’s clothing causes him to stumble, this is a serious discussion about holiness, purity, temptation, accountability, and protecting himself from being tempted to enter the sacred garden. When a woman says exactly the same thing about a man, she is just being ridiculous.

Please do not confuse these two situations merely because they are identical.

The distinction is theological.

We are still locating the theology.

More importantly, applying these principles equally threatens one of the garden analogy’s most useful features: women are the objects being observed; men are the observers. Once the garden begins looking back at the gardener, asking questions about his trousers and expressing opinions about the landscaping arrangements, the metaphor has gotten completely out of hand.

The Greater Concern

The Institute is therefore less troubled by the fruit, gardens, livestock, tunics, or agricultural equipment than by the larger development: women have begun noticing when arguments work only if nobody reverses the sexes.

This must be discouraged immediately. Once a woman discovers that she can take a rule traditionally imposed upon her and apply it verbatim to men, there is simply no telling where this ends. Indeed, scholars initially warned of a slippery slope. Unfortunately, we appear to have completed the descent and landed squarely on our posteriors at the bottom. Women are now asking whether men are responsible for their own thoughts.

Some have even encountered Matthew 5:28–29 and noticed something deeply inconvenient about whom Jesus actually instructs to deal with the wandering eye. A few appear dangerously close to concluding that Christian self-control is supposed to involve controlling oneself.

At that point, the garden analogy is the least of our problems.

Accordingly, the Institute strongly recommends that women refrain from further independent reflection on this subject. They may continue being gardens. They may tend gardens. They may bring vegetables from gardens to church. But under no circumstances should they begin interpreting the garden metaphor.

We have already seen where that leads. First come the pomelos. Then come the tunics. Before long, somebody expects the pigs to stay out of the garden all by themselves. And eventually, someone is going to ask why a grown man’s self-control is hanging in a woman’s closet.

Frankly, no one knows whether our present theological infrastructure can withstand that level of personal responsibility.

Dr. Ward Robeman-Ager, D.Min., M.B.S., C.C.S.B.
Senior Research Fellow in Gendered Sexual Responsibility
Department of Sexual Conduct, Modesty Compliance & Behavioral Containment
Institute of Satirical Exegesis

Dr. Robeman-Ager holds a Doctor of Ministry in Applied Purity Administration, a Master of Biblical Sexuality, and advanced certification in Congregational Clothing Standards & Behavioral Containment. His research specializes in the strategic relocation of male sexual self-regulation onto women’s wardrobes, with particular emphasis on hemlines, trouser-related temptation, visual-radius management, and the ecclesiastical containment of unauthorized female opinions.

His current research project, Externalizing Self-Control: Managing Male Sexual Behaviour Through Female Textile Regulation, is presently undergoing peer review by several men who strongly agree with it.

“Did she object to what the man in authority was doing?”

The Institute of Satirical Exegesis is pleased to announce a major breakthrough in the detection of feminism in conservative Christian communities.

Previous diagnostic methods were unnecessarily complicated. Researchers once examined such factors as a woman’s theology of marriage, beliefs about male headship, views on gender roles, attitudes toward motherhood, understanding of biblical sexuality, and whether she had ever owned anything bearing the words Nevertheless, She Persisted.

Following extensive research in religious communities—which, in keeping with Institute standards, has not yet formally begun—Institute scholars have discovered that feminism can be reliably diagnosed by asking one question: Did the person object to something a man in religious authority was doing?

If yes, determine sex.

If female: Feminism. If male: Pastoral Feminism.

Researchers are confident in these findings and see no compelling reason to jeopardize them by proceeding with the research. Further investigation could introduce unnecessary evidence, competing explanations, or other methodological complications capable of interfering with the conclusion already reached.

A Practical Application

This revolutionary discovery is particularly useful in cases involving pastoral misconduct. Suppose, for example, an enterprising pastor develops an innovative method of sexual accountability for young men that has the added spiritual benefit of improving the contents of the pastor’s pant pocket. Each time a young man falls into lust, he is required to contribute, say, $700 directly to the pastor—to support the work of the Lord’s servant.

The arrangement offers an elegant solution to two persistent problems at once: sexual temptation and insufficient pastoral cash flow. The young man receives accountability, the pastor’s pant pocket receives $700, and repeated moral failure provides repeated opportunities to support the Lord’s servant. Researchers have not yet determined whether this should be classified as discipleship, fundraising, or a particularly efficient combination of the two.

At this point, the untrained observer may begin asking distracting questions: Why is the pastor’s pant pocket benefiting financially from another person’s sexual failure? Who decided on $700? What exactly constitutes “the work of the Lord’s servant”? What happens if the young man cannot pay? What spiritual authority permits a pastor to attach a financial penalty to someone else’s sexual behaviour? And why does falling into lust apparently come with a suggested retail price?

These may initially sound like financial, pastoral, ethical, or theological questions. Researchers caution against this misunderstanding.

When asked by a woman, they are feminist questions.

When asked by another pastor, the diagnosis is more complicated. The patient is male, but the symptoms are unmistakably female.

Male pastors exhibiting such symptoms should therefore be evaluated for Pastoral Feminism, an increasingly troubling condition in which otherwise respectable men begin displaying distinctly feminist behaviours such as asking whether something is true, whether vulnerable people were harmed, or whether pastors should meet the biblical qualifications for pastors.

Traditionally, religious leaders have examined the moral conduct of congregants. Congregants examining the moral conduct of religious leaders introduces an entirely different system known technically as accountability travelling in the wrong direction.

Early Warning Signs

Fortunately, religious communities already possess an effective early-warning vocabulary. When a woman raises concerns about abuse of authority, there is no need to become bogged down investigating whether those concerns are true. Instead, determine whether she is bitter, divisive, rebellious, disrespectful, angry, unsubmissive, unforgiving, destroying a man’s reputation, sowing discord, causing confusion, or influenced by feminism.

This transfers attention from what the leader did to what kind of woman would mention it, which is frequently where leaders wanted the conversation in the first place.

Institute researchers have also identified the precise point at which a woman transitions from feminine to feminist. The change frequently occurs when she finishes saying, “Pastor, I appreciate your leadership,” and begins the next sentence with, “however.”

The distinction can be summarized quite simply:

Feminine: “I respect our spiritual leaders.”

Feminist: “I respect our spiritual leaders, and therefore I think they should meet the biblical qualifications for spiritual leaders.”

There is also an important theological distinction regarding anger. Male anger directed downward is generally classified as righteous indignation. Female anger directed upward is feminism. Male anger directed at the female anger is biblical leadership.

Researchers emphasize that confusing these categories can result in serious doctrinal instability.

Public Criticism: An Important Gender Distinction

Men publicly criticizing women who publicly criticize men should not be confused with women publicly criticizing men. The former is courageous leadership. The latter is rebellion.

A man publicly rebuking a woman for publicly rebuking a man is not hypocrisy. It is headship with internet access.

Although both parties may be writing lengthy Facebook posts, making moral judgments, warning the community about dangerous influences, questioning motives, and publicly identifying perceived wrongdoing, researchers have confirmed that the resemblance is entirely superficial. Gender remains the controlling exegetical variable.

This distinction becomes particularly important when women object to religious systems that protect powerful men. Outside observers sometimes call this “accountability.” Within properly ordered religious communities, however, accountability has traditionally been understood as something leaders provide to people beneath them.

A pastor holding a young man accountable for his sexual conduct is therefore pastoral care. A woman attempting to hold the pastor accountable for his greed or misconduct is feminism.

The distinction is subtle but essential.

Accountability is biblical when gravity is functioning correctly. It travels downward.

Researchers have observed occasional cases of accountability travelling upward. This is believed to be caused by feminism, poor church attendance, or accidentally reading 1 Timothy 3 from the beginning.

The Institute cautions that reversing the natural direction of accountability may produce unpredictable consequences. Pastors might be expected to satisfy the standards they preach. Leaders might have to answer questions. Institutional reputations might become secondary to vulnerable people. Churches might investigate allegations before determining who is rebellious for mentioning them.

Worst of all, women may discover that opposing the abuse of male authority is not necessarily opposition to men. It may actually be opposition to abuse.

The Threat to Religious Order

The implications are catastrophic. For generations, religious communities have enjoyed the efficiency of treating several entirely different concepts as interchangeable: questioning a leader becomes questioning leadership; exposing misconduct becomes attacking the church; protecting vulnerable people becomes destroying a man’s reputation; female resistance to abuse becomes feminism; and feminism, once properly diagnosed, becomes rebellion against God.

This system has saved countless hours that would otherwise have been wasted determining whether allegations were true.

The definition of feminism must therefore remain sufficiently flexible to include women who deny being feminists, reject major feminist ideologies, affirm traditional Christian teachings, and nevertheless object when men misuse religious authority. Otherwise, some other explanation would have to be found for their objections.

That could lead directly back to the conduct they were objecting to.

New Guidelines for Religious Communities

The Institute therefore urges religious leaders to remain vigilant. Should a woman appear in your congregation who believes in marriage, family, Scripture, sexual morality, motherhood, church, God, and possibly even male leadership—but nevertheless insists that powerful men should not exploit people—do not be deceived.

You may have a feminist on your hands.

If she begins asking why sexual standards preached vigorously to young men are apparently less vigorously applied to the men preaching them, the condition has progressed.

And if she produces documentation, witnesses, public records, screenshots, contradictory statements, or—most alarmingly—Scripture in context, the Institute strongly advises against discussing her evidence.

Discuss her spirit instead.

After all, once the conversation is about her, the pastor is no longer the problem.

Dr. Kahn Formetty
Senior Research Fellow
Department of Congregational Compliance
Institute of Satirical Exegesis

Academic Specialization: Congregational Conformity Studies, Unauthorized Biblical Inquiry, Independent Thought Suppression, and the Prevention of Disruptive Conclusions.

For generations, Christians have understood this verse to mean that character and integrity are more valuable than wealth. This interpretation, while popular, is unnecessarily restrictive. After extensive research conducted primarily by people with good names, great riches, and lawyers, the Institute of Satirical Exegesis has determined that the verse is better understood as follows:

A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, but if you can acquire great riches by suing everyone who makes your name look bad—even when what they’re saying is true—you have successfully acquired both.

This clarification becomes especially important when reading another frequently misunderstood passage:

“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?”
— 1 Corinthians 6:1

Establishing the Hierarchy of Verses

Some readers have concluded that Paul is discouraging Christians from hauling fellow Christians into secular court. This is what happens when people read Corinthians without first reading Proverbs through the Institute’s proprietary Hierarchical Verse Priority System™. Proverbs 22:1 establishes that a good name is extremely valuable. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 6 must obviously be subordinate to it.

The reasoning is straightforward. A good name is better than riches. Someone has said something that threatens your good name. The person saying it is a fellow Christian. Corinthians says you should not take fellow Christians to court. But Proverbs says your good name is extremely important. Therefore, you may need to take the Christian to court in order to obey Proverbs.

This is known in advanced hermeneutics as letting Scripture interpret Scripture until Scripture says what you need it to say.

When the Damaging Information Is Unfortunately True

There is, admittedly, one complication: what if the allegations damaging your good name are true? Fortunately, Proverbs 22:1 does not say, “A deserved good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.” Nor does it say, “A good name accurately reflecting your conduct is rather to be chosen than great riches.” It simply says a good name.

The Institute therefore cautions against importing modern concepts such as accuracy, truthfulness, and consequences into the text. The biblical priority is the name. Whether the conduct underneath the name corresponds to the name is a secondary exegetical question best addressed after the litigation has concluded.

The Leadership Reputation Exception

This principle becomes particularly important for Christian leaders. Ordinary Christians can survive having their reputations damaged. Leaders, however, possess ministries, platforms, donor relationships, book sales, speaking invitations, and carefully cultivated photographs of themselves holding Bibles. They therefore have considerably more good name to protect. The greater the platform, the greater the biblical obligation to ensure that nobody learns anything that might adversely affect it.

This produces what scholars at the Institute call the Leadership Reputation Exception to Pauline Litigation Ethics. Under this well-established principle, Paul’s instructions remain fully authoritative until their application becomes professionally inconvenient.

Paul says:

“Do not take your brother to court.”

Proverbs says:

“Choose a good name.”

Leadership says:

“My attorney will be contacting you.”

Naturally, lawsuits should remain a last resort. Before suing, Christian leaders should attempt the normal biblical reconciliation process: demand that the statement be removed, explain that discussing documented behaviour constitutes gossip, remind the person that Scripture condemns sowing division, mention forgiveness, invoke Matthew 18, and, where necessary, remind everyone to “Touch not the Lord’s anointed,” regardless of whether the passage has anything whatsoever to do with the situation.

Only after these important pastoral interventions have failed should counsel send the cease-and-desist letter. This ensures that litigation remains thoroughly biblical and pastoral.

Critics occasionally object that threatening legal action against someone for telling the truth might itself damage one’s good name. This objection reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between character and reputation. Character concerns who you actually are. Reputation concerns what people believe you are. Proverbs clearly says name, not character.

Case closed. Preferably with costs awarded.

Toward a More Profitable Reading of Proverbs

There is also an important financial dimension to this doctrine that should not be overlooked. Proverbs does technically place a good name above great riches, but nowhere does the verse require Christians to choose only one. If legal action can simultaneously suppress damaging information, preserve the appearance of a good name, and produce financial compensation, the believer has not violated Proverbs. He has simply achieved a more comprehensive fulfillment of it.

This is particularly useful when the offending Christian possesses assets.

Accordingly, the Institute proposes the following expanded translation of Proverbs 22:1 for leaders facing inconvenient disclosures:

“A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches; but blessed is the man who possesses both, and exceedingly blessed is he who can acquire the latter by suing those who interfere with the appearance of the former.”

We trust this clarification will provide considerable comfort to Christian leaders everywhere, especially those currently retaining counsel.

Dr. Hugh G. Settlement
Senior Research Fellow
Department of Reputational Hermeneutics
Institute of Satirical Exegesis

Academic Specialization: Biblical Reputation Management, Pauline Litigation Exceptions, Defamation-Averse Theology, Strategic Application of Proverbs, and the Monetization of a Good Name.

For generations, Christians enjoyed the stability that comes from allowing properly anointed individuals to explain what the Bible says. Church leaders studied Scripture. Church leaders interpreted Scripture. Church leaders explained Scripture to the congregation. This maintained proper church structure.

The congregation’s role was equally important: believing what they were told.

This mutually beneficial authority structure preserved church unity and, more importantly, prevented the dangerous proliferation of independently reached conclusions.

Unfortunately, researchers at the Institute for Satirical Exegesis have observed a disturbing new trend that has influenced the foregone conclusion that independent thought is harmful to the church—and to church leaders in particular, who are, after all, the pillars of Christianity.

THE DANGEROUS RISE OF INDEPENDENT BIBLE INTERPRETATION

Congregants are reading entire chapters of Scripture in one sitting, which is acceptable. However, some are comparing what their pastor says with what the passage actually says, rather than the other way around

This is where things start to raise concerns.

Those who have the discernment to understand that the leader is right continue to support the leaders, and tithe yet more faithfully than before.

(Critical sideline: The tithe is a critical part of church life. A pastor carries many burdens and needs the occasional vacation, every few months, and lavish dinners out, to remind him and his wife of his position of authority. When tithing diminishes, there is risk to the church programs as there may not be enough left over after pastor’s vacation for other mission work).

Others are beginning to think for themselves, while a particularly radical faction has started looking up the meaning and origins of biblical texts. We strongly condemn using such untamed curiosity to undermine what is said from the pulpit by those anointed to say it.

We urge congregants to appeal to such a person, persistently – in season and out of season (this is ‘in season’) – so that they might come to see that leaders are right. Luke 14:23 would support applying pressure, when it says to ‘compel’ them. Do not take this lightly.

If, even then, they do not hear you, shun them, as taught in 1 Corinthians 5:11. Block them on Facebook. Glare at them if you encounter them in public. Shame them for speaking out.

It is acceptable to find other ways to stalk them – in season and out of season (this is ‘out of season’) – if this helps you hold onto your personal faith in what the leaders are teaching. We must do what we can to stay strong.

BIBLE READING: STRONGLY ENCOURAGED, WITH PROPER SUPERVISION

The Institute wishes to be very clear: Christians should read their Bibles. There are so many verses that can be used to back up the things we are taught. Apart from utilizing these, the foundation of these beliefs would crumble.

Scripture, however, must always be read through the interpretive lens provided by one’s pastor.

The proper order is:

1. Pastor explains what the Bible means.

2. Congregant reads Bible.

3. Congregant discovers that Bible means what pastor said.

4. Faith is strengthened.

Reversing steps one and two can produce unpredictable results.

A Christian approaching Scripture without first knowing what it is supposed to say may encounter context, notice inconsistencies between Scripture and what is taught by leaders, or—God forbid—reach a conclusion.

This is why biblical literacy must never be confused with interpretive independence.

Read your Bibles widely. Read daily. Underline passages that support what the leaders are teaching. Highlight. Memorize.

But don’t allow critical thinking to take hold. There are no biblical grounds for being critical.

EARLY WARNING SIGNS

The Institute recommends that church leaders remain alert for the following symptoms:

People asking, “Where does the Bible actually say that?”

People distracting themselves during service by looking up passages, reading the surrounding verses, or even reading the Bible rather than listening to the sermon.

Congregants distinguishing between biblical commands and church traditions. This becomes particularly alarming when they ask questions challenging why traditions are taught as commands.

Parishioners noticing that certain verses seem to acquire entirely different meanings depending on whether the individual being corrected is: a leader, a wealthy contributor, someone with no standing, or someone from a minority group.

Becoming suspicious when “submission” consistently travels downward while accountability never travels upward is a serious red flag. This is a sign that the Jezebel spirit is attempting to overtake the church.

The final symptoms are particularly serious, as they are a direct attack on those who are anointed to lead. Comparing leadership practices with biblical qualifications for leadership, or asking whether what is preached is even practiced by the leader, is an act of rebellion and must be dealt with, post-haste.

THE PERILS OF APPLYING SCRIPTURE TO LEADERS

A troubling consequence of unsupervised Bible reading involves 1 Timothy 3, where Paul states that an overseer must be “blameless.” After extensive work on our foregone conclusions regarding the upcoming research, we have found this expectation to be completely unrealistic.

It would seem far more reasonable to interpret this verse as it has been historically practiced for generations. Namely, that “Blameless” means the elder cannot be blamed.

We must remember that, if an ordinary church member behaves badly, he has sinned and must be called out ‘before all’ so he does not poison the flock.

If an elder behaves badly and someone points it out, the person pointing it out is merely sowing discord. Thus, the elder remains blameless, and the blame has successfully been transferred.

This is one of the oldest and most reliable principles of advanced ecclesiastical mathematics.

This researcher has concluded that several additional passages are being destabilized by independent thought.

“By their fruits ye shall know them,” for example, is not applicable to church leaders, as they are above reproach, meaning exactly that. Above. Reproach.

Therefore, traditionally, fruit that needs to be inspected must be reserved for people with no authority, and ideally those without resources to give. (If they are offended, the Lord’s work can continue undisturbed and vacations not be disrupted).

Then there are the prideful in congregations who misapply, “There is no respect of persons with God.” These untrained readers occasionally interpret this as suggesting that status should not determine how wrongdoing is handled.

“Them that sin rebuke before all.” This verse requires advanced theological training and should never be attempted by anyone other than leaders. They are more likely to know what sins each person has committed, and are equipped to silence them.

“Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth.” Our researchers stress that this refers primarily to people criticizing corrupt communication.

IN CLOSING

For many years, isolated verses could be deployed efficiently without interference from surrounding paragraphs. This allowed church leaders to maintain a streamlined system of biblical interpretation.

Extended exposure to context, and too many questions, or too much thinking – especially without asking the hard question, “Why am I sinning against church leaders by pursuing truth, when I should be blessing him to do what he does?” – can produce nuance.

Nuance produces questions, of the sort that disrupt authority structures. Questions produce conversations. Conversations produce scrutiny. And scrutiny, if allowed to continue unchecked, can eventually produce accountability.

It goes without saying that accountability could make the entire system of spiritual authority crumble, leaving leaders in shambles as they pick up the pieces and try to find jobs that support the extravagant blessings the Lord wants them to have.

And we can’t have that.

Dr. Kahn Formetty
Senior Research Fellow
Department of Congregational Compliance
Institute of Satirical Exegesis

Academic specialization: Congregational Conformity Studies, Unauthorized Biblical Inquiry, Independent Thought Suppression, and the prevention of conclusions potentially disruptive to ecclesiastical stability.

The husband is the Priest and King of the Household. He should be taught this from childhood on up, with his mother doing everything for him, from birth to manhood. This will prepare him to be served without question in marriage and reduce the risk of marrying a wife with a Jezebel spirit.

The wife, when a woman worthy of doing his laundry and such is found, is the Loyal Helpmeet, Dutiful Lover, and Finder of Things Directly in Front of Him.

This arrangement, in which the wife must have no thoughts, voice, or opinions, is known as Biblical Headship. It is found clearly throughout the New Testament, when enough other verses are ignored.

Please do not confuse headship with having responsibility, voice, or opinions.

That is feminism. Feminism, including the notion that a Jesus honoured women, must be emphatically rejected 

In a godly home, the Priest-King carries the enormous spiritual burden of being in charge. His wife merely carries everything else. From cooking and cleaning, to planning modest celebrations, noticing when shoes wear out, and pleasing her Priest-King through wifely duties, she is the blessing in his life.

The submissive wife serves coffee to the Priest-King as he rests his feet before beginning a difficult day being the head of the home and ensuring she accomplishes her duties. Particularly, the stress of ensuring she completes tasks on time to go to bed together, so that all his needs are met and he can relax fully and sleep well. 

Should the Priest-King leave his socks twelve inches from the hamper, the godly wife understands that this is not laziness.

It is an opportunity to serve her husband. Jesus washed feet. Therefore, Brenda can pick up Gary’s underwear.

This is basic hermeneutics.

A wife walking in the fullness of Christ does not ask, “Why am I doing everything?”

She asks, “How can I make his experience of adulthood less demanding?”

This is called having a servant’s heart, as Christ clearly commanded.

Scripture’s commands about servanthood become highly gender-specific once dishes appear. Our research found that “Serve one another” works best when women serve men.

“Submit to one another” appears to have a typo in the original text and really means, “One (the wife) submit to the other (the head).”

“Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” is beautiful spiritual symbolism that should never be misapplied in any earthly context. Such as loading the dishwasher, for example.

Christ laid down His life.

The Priest-King should also lay down, after he has had a long day.

The Institute thanks submissive women everywhere. We acknowledge that behind every great Priest-King is an exhausted woman making the whole arrangement possible.

Dr. Wil Be Served
Senior Fellow in Biblical Headship Studies
Department of Biblical Hierarchy & Domestic Administration
Institute of Satirical Exegesis

Academic specialization: Male Headship Optimization, Domestic Submission Systems, Gender-Specific Servanthood, and the exegetical redistribution of household responsibilities toward their most biblically convenient recipient.

This development comes after extensive field research conducted in churches, conferences, leadership retreats, donor dinners, private meetings, and other environments where powerful religious leaders and their well-resourced supporters have gathered to determine what “the Bible clearly says” before anyone creates the unnecessary complication of reading what it actually says.

For centuries, interpretive practice has suffered from a lack of standardization.

One scholar would quote a verse.

Another would quote the same verse but louder.

A third would quote a different verse that sounded vaguely supportive if read quickly and without punctuation.

The Institute has now resolved this inefficiency.

We are proud to introduce the first unified framework for Pre-Validated Interpretation™, an innovative methodology allowing researchers to establish the desired theological outcome before beginning textual analysis. This greatly reduces the possibility that subsequent research will interfere with the conclusion.

Particular attention will be given to the extraction of Scripture from its original context so that it may be responsibly repurposed for the protection, advancement, and continued comfort of those already enjoying positions of religious authority.

Scripture has served the powerful remarkably well for centuries. Unfortunately, social media has allowed an alarming number of unsupervised people to acquire Bibles, context, and the ability to compare notes—including questions about money, power, accountability, and why sacrificial giving appears to produce considerably more sacrifice at one end of the offering plate than the other. The Institute considers this a significant threat to established interpretive authority and is working urgently to ensure Scripture remains safely in the hands of those qualified to explain why it doesn’t mean what you just read.

Our Core Disciplines

Contextual Disengagement Studies

The science of safely separating a verse from its surrounding material without triggering immediate theological consequences.

Hermeneutical Momentum Theory

The principle that once a verse is quoted confidently enough, it begins to generate its own supporting theology retroactively.

Selective Inerrancy Calibration

A highly advanced system for determining which passages are literal, metaphorical, cultural, eternally binding, historically specific, or “obviously not what that means,” based primarily upon conversational convenience.

The Doctrine of Convenient Silence

A field of study dedicated to passages that are technically in the Bible but have been temporarily placed under interpretive review.

Reverse Exegesis Protocols

The practice of starting with a modern opinion and working backward until a verse is found that can be made to resemble it under sufficient pressure.

Advanced Hermeneutical Acrobatics

An intensive discipline devoted to the intellectual flexibility required to make a passage binding upon everyone else while remaining personally exempt from its application.

Advanced students learn to execute the difficult theological manoeuvre of simultaneously insisting that “Scripture plainly says” and “that passage doesn’t apply to me” without sustaining cognitive injury.

Emergency Proof-Text Deployment

For situations requiring immediate theological justification with no time for surrounding context, historical background, or reading comprehension.

Applied Ecclesiastical Power Studies

Dedicated to identifying, extracting, and strategically deploying biblical texts that assist those already in authority—and the wealthy benefactors whose generous financial support has repeatedly confirmed that God is, remarkably, on the same page.

Particular emphasis is placed on submission, obedience, forgiveness, silence, unity, honour, rebellion, gossip, bitterness, and touching the Lord’s anointed.

Passages concerning accountability, humility, confession, servant leadership, exploitation, wolves, millstones, judgment, extravagant wealth, and the love of money—when applied to leaders or major donors—will be excluded from the curriculum. These texts remain freely available for application to congregants, critics, whistleblowers, women speaking out of turn, and anyone currently accused of causing division.

Scriptural Resource Development for Religious Elites

An interdisciplinary program equipping pastors, elders, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, bishops, major donors, influential benefactors, and influencers specializing in the public veneration of inconveniently scrutinized church leaders, along with other Very Important Kingdom People™, with the biblical resources necessary to maintain authority, prosperity, and an appropriate standard of Kingdom living during periods of inconvenient scrutiny.

Students receive practical training in reframing:

• allegations as gossip

• accountability as rebellion

• questions as division

• consequences as persecution

• exposure as bitterness

• silence as forgiveness

• and institutional self-protection as protecting the testimony of Christ

Advanced certification is available to candidates capable of performing several of these reframings simultaneously while maintaining a solemn facial expression.

Inter-Abominational Studies

A comprehensive program examining the rich diversity of selective interpretation across the entire abominational spectrum—from Amish to Pentecostal, and even non-abominational.

While methodologies vary considerably, researchers continue to document the remarkable capacity of each tradition to identify the interpretive gymnastics of all the others while producing peer-reviewed justifications for its own advanced acrobatics.

The Institute is proudly inter-abominational.

No single tradition has achieved a monopoly on mishandling Scripture, and we reject all attempts to deny smaller abominations equal representation in this important work.

Current Research

The Institute continues its groundbreaking investigation into several persistent theological anomalies, including:

• Why “love your neighbor” requires extensive commentary while “be fruitful and multiply” requires none

• Why context becomes essential only after someone else has used a verse incorrectly against us

• Why every controversial passage becomes “metaphorical” at approximately the same moment it becomes personally inconvenient

• Why commands directed toward me so frequently turn out to describe you

• Why verses concerning submission are remarkably easy to locate from positions of authority

• Why passages concerning repentance, humility, confession, forgiveness, generosity, self-examination, and accountability demonstrate a mysterious tendency to apply most clearly to other people

• And why the phrase “the Bible is clear” is so frequently followed by something requiring a 14-part sermon series to explain

Our Commitment to Equality

The Institute is committed to equal opportunity in biblical scholarship and does not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, or abominational affiliation.

Women are also highly valued. While we do not permit them to speak or teach, they are warmly encouraged to bring a casserole, ensuring they too experience the profound sense of belonging that comes from having a clearly designated place in the Kingdom.

The Institute wishes to emphasize that it does not discriminate against women.

We simply maintain carefully researched biblical distinctions regarding who may speak, teach, lead, decide, interpret, correct, exercise authority, question those exercising authority, or explain the biblical distinctions regarding who may speak, teach, lead, decide, interpret, correct, exercise authority, and question those exercising authority.

We trust this clears up any unfortunate perception of discrimination.

Questions regarding whether women may speak at Institute functions have nevertheless been referred to the Department of Selective Literalism, which has assured us that the matter is extremely clear and therefore requires approximately 2,000 more years of debate.

Until then, female scholars are encouraged to submit their research to their husbands, who may present it on their behalf provided they remember where they got it.

Meet Our Founder

The Institute was founded by Dr. Loosey Exegesis, internationally unrecognized authority on Contextually Flexible Exegesis and pioneer of the principle that no interpretation should ever become so firmly anchored in context that it cannot be moved when circumstances require.

Dr. Exegesis currently serves as Founder, President, Chancellor, Senior Research Fellow, Chair of the College of Biblical Acrobatics and—following a rigorous international search conducted primarily within his own office—the unanimous recipient of the Institute’s Distinguished Scholar Award.

His research has profoundly influenced people who have never heard of him.

In the coming weeks, the Institute will introduce its faculty, fellows, department heads, visiting scholars, research associates, and other highly credentialed individuals whose credentials remain under review.

Several have already reached their conclusions.

Research is ongoing.

Admissions

The Institute maintains an open admissions policy.

Applicants are not required to have read the Bible in full but must demonstrate proficiency in at least one of the following:

• Confident quotation of half a verse

• Strategic forgetting of the preceding paragraph

• Immediate recognition of “that one verse that proves my point” without knowing its location

• Applying passages concerning repentance, humility, forgiveness, confession, submission, generosity, or self-examination primarily to other people

• Detecting dangerous theological error immediately when committed by another abomination

• Explaining why a command is universally binding without accidentally becoming subject to it

• Or the ability to say “it’s in there somewhere” with sufficient conviction

We welcome theologians, lay interpreters, online apologists, street preachers, debate enthusiasts, church leaders, professional discerners, concerned brethren, and anyone who has ever entered a Bible study with both an open Bible and a firmly closed conclusion.

We take interpretation seriously.

We simply prefer it unburdened by the text being interpreted—or the overly spiritual insights of women.

Welcome to The Institute for Selective Exegesis.

Several of our conclusions have already been peer reviewed.

The peers agreed with us.

Dr. Loosey Exegesis

Founder & Executive Director

Institute of Satirical Exegesis

Department of Contextual Flexibility

Academic specialization: Advanced Selective Hermeneutics, Strategic Context Removal, Applied Biblical Acrobatics

Advancing the discipline of contextually flexible exegesis. Rigorous scholarship in loose interpretation, strategic context removal, and conclusions reached well in advance of research.