“You Don’t Know My Wife!”

- she's Frozen -
Post 329

As we search out the actual purpose for this very dangerous sixth-age of complexity, the phrase; “Husband, empower your wife,” evokes two very emotionally charged reactions: Either the elation of the bra burning, child killing, “liberated” self-centered woman with rights… or fear of the same. “You don’t know my wife!” accurately expresses the knowledge of what would very likely transpire with such an empowerment.
I know a large number of Christian husbands who’s wives are so wild of heart that if the fence is not built high or strong enough, the wild pony will either enthusiastically vault the fence, or shoulder through it with determination, and never be seen again. In fact I know more than a few Christian wives who fear this even of themselves, and I know of too many others who are already well into battling serious psychosis as a “personality disorder,” for related reasons that they don’t understand.
This is not a minor or insignificant issue to be passed over in our efforts to liberate oppressed women, but a very real and common debilitating condition in today’s family of Christ. A large percentage of godly husbands have such urgent needs of micro-managing the requirements of their unruly or fragile wives that they can’t afford to be preoccupied with the Lord’s work of spreading the Gospel to the lost. There is simply no hope of their wives having the ability to self-manage without soon finding themselves in one disaster or another, then crying; “Abandonment!” as a defense, and so these godly men are reduced to a fruitless Christian life of full-time servitude to their wives’ personal needs while they are accused of being a “Control freak!”
The wife with a wild heart and that of the fragile heart are two very different manifestations of the same sin and require two very different management techniques. My two-fold purpose here is not to delve into those bottomless realms of fruitless management; my purpose is to clearly identify the condition for what it is and thereby enable young men to earnestly avoid acquiring such needy wives in the first place; as well as help those women, who will be or already are such wives, to find the cure for their sin and end the condition.
Is it too forward to call it sin? Let me be even more clear; There is no excuse for Christian women to be found in either condition. They are found in such a condition by a faulty perspective of Christianity, and therefore of marriage.

Obviously such a statement is going to be highly offensive to one who currently possesses such a perspective-- even validated by their personal life experience-- and I am going to need your leave of extended grace in order to support the truth of such a statement before it can be received as anything other than the personal opinion of a strange man who does not know you/her personally. My request is that you swallow the personal offence with a generous heart and focus on the hope that I can actually offer a functionally useful new perspective that can enable a cure for the condition. I cannot reach those whose condition has become so much a part of their lives that they wouldn’t leave it if they could because it’s “who they are”; I am speaking to those who don’t want to be “that woman.”
You don’t have to be.
But here’s the thing in this dangerous age; this is a woman’s job to do.
If you will notice, I indicated that a man can either avoid marrying a woman with this condition, or he can choose to be chained to her. He cannot change her. It’s hers to do or not do (loosely applying I Corinthians 7:27-29). All he can do beyond fencing her in for her own good, is offer her alternative concepts and encouraging support in hopes that she will hear the unfamiliar voice of a different perspective and choose to change her troubled paradigm where fences are no longer needed because her heart is now pliable and inclined to another way (Ezekiel 36:26+II Corinthians 3:3). This directly applies to the common question that never goes away no matter how many times it is answered:
“If there really is a Loving God, why does he allow all the suffering in the world?”
Have you assimilated (*1) the answer yet, or forgotten it time and again because it never sinks in past a faulty perspective that waits on God and her husband to fix the things that are hers to do, but does the things that then need to be fixed?

Before we continue forward in providing the new perspective discovered in the later ages of the Grand Tapestry, let’s contemplate the wild or fearful heart, that is not just an unfortunate condition of natural causes but one that is now intentionally inflicted on our women like hiding HIV tainted needles in clean hotel bedsheets:

“…the kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way” Matthew 13:24-25.

Let’s explore just such an infliction on the kingdom of heaven, which we men permit by our sleeping (i.e. not instructing in the ways of God).
* * *

Disney’s Frozen:
Of Disney’s foundational three “Princess” fairytales, Cinderella was the most direct and accurate representation of the Gospel message of Christ Jesus as it relates to “the kingdom of heaven.” Having thereby established Disney’s offerings as wholesome and even Christian, good Christian minded families eagerly opened the door of defense to let Disney in as one of the trusted family in a world of normally wicked entertainment in that stream.
I have shown that our trust was beguiled by a soon sly and intentional, gradual perversion through each Princess story that followed, but even though we recognize it now as wicked, it doesn’t sink in as dangerous because it’s already accepted as a part of the family. This concept is not trivial but pivotal; it’s how, without knowing, we acquire new perspectives. I recommend a later refresher of Posts 248-250 regarding the previous Princess stories, because I believe that you will be quite surprised in going back, to find how much your paradigm foundationally changes depending on which version is being accessed at the moment. This is because movies present a compartmentalized world whereby just choosing to watch it, we have accepted the producer’s rules in that universe at the time, and the realism of sight-and-sound allows our heart to buy it as a reality while knowing that it isn’t. This is not a good thing: accepting unbiblical indoctrination as the price for being entertained, weakens our resolve of what matters when confronted with a different worldview, even in true reality. Like Selena Gomez in Post 308e, we continue to take one small step at a time where we already know we shouldn’t be going but the pleasure of the going has already captured us:

“Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof [i.e. the power of actually being godly]…” II Timothy 3:4-5.

As the latest installment in our trending princess-themed demonic indoctrination that moves our daughters to reach the Genesis 6:2 stage of the Days of Noah, Frozen is apparently taking the church by storm. I had until recently enjoyed avoiding exploring another fairytale, intending to wait until I could focus my efforts on the topic as a collection under its own title, but I am told first-hand that not only are Christian ministers using Frozen’s younger princess as a scriptural example of the Church’s gospel message in action, but our already early-inflicted women and daughters are deeply taken by the very appealing and liberating song of the wayward mature older sister.
Upon exploration, I find this recent fairytale fits our present topic elaborately and timely, and so although it is several Princess installments out of order, I include it here, exposing Disney’s manipulation that “hides the magic but leaves the fun.” A very profound and telling declaration by the mystic trolls.

The older sister, (once a princess but now the young queen without a king), is questionably the main star in this unique “princess” story that is yet further absent of the heretofore progressively diminishing “prince” as the ultimate goal of desire in the original storyline theme and representation of the Christ. Similarly, for the first time in a Disney princess story, it is not the magic of an outside evil protagonist, but the princess’s own magical “storm within” internal conflict; Mein Kampf; Jihad; (it all means the same thing), that deeply resonates with today’s women and draws their heart to her in empathy rather than just compassion. The poor girl was born with her particular infliction and while she never had any notion of using it for evil, circumstances all came together one day to cause her younger sister serious mental harm by it’s innocent use actually ignorant of its true adult power. Fortunately her sister recovered-- with special help from Sumerian/Kabbalah style ancient mystics (*2-extracted) -- but the event revealed to the ruling family that this was a dangerous nature that must be controlled and hidden for everyone’s sake. So through the rest of her childhood this poor firstborn princess had a dark secret nature that was so powerful she had to carefully manage hiding it from everyone 24-7. It consumed her life, and transformed her very nature.

We accepted long ago by previous installments, that, in the fairytale world, magic can be either a good thing or an evil thing, so because of this accepted amoral perspective of magic, and because she was innocently born with this infliction, we cannot blame her as being “wicked” just because she has it: “It’s not her fault.”
And to make sure our fairytale paradigm of sympathetic empathy sides in compassion with her life-long struggle, we see a weaseley obnoxious self-serving old man is the only person in the kingdom that boldly declares her exposed infliction as SORCERY to be rejected from the kingdom that clearly has a common aversion to magic in the complete sense. Apparently (if only silently) repulsed at the discovery, this fairytale kingdom is more biblically literate than most Christian viewers, and sees sorcery equally heinous as murder and such examples of a Godless nature to be eternally condemned on the day of Judgment:

“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and SORCERERS, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” Revelation 21:8, all-cap emphasis added.

Surely every Christian child should know such basic things, but being caught up in the allurements of the fairytale-world, our unbelief-suspending fairytale perspective wrongly presupposes there is sometimes both good magic and bad magic, and clearly this girl is not wanting to be bad, so her case is not to be included in such passages intended for “reality only.” (See Genesis 6:5, Deuteronomy 31:21, Proverbs 6:18, II Corinthians 10:5, etc., for correction). Obviously we would not agree with anything that a self-serving weaseley man thinks, therefore our unbilical sympathies for her condition are supported as the right moral view to adopt in this compartmentalized fairytale-world that usually excludes Christian faith, even though no magic is shown as publicly acceptable in this particular kingdom.
So, when at her coronation she is unable to hide the dark nature of her heart any longer and she accidentally lets it slip out so that the whole kingdom learns “what kind of girl she really is,” they recoil in alarm and she runs from the kingdom in shame, to live isolated and alone “for the sake of everyone.” See how self-sacrificing she is? She really does mean to do the right thing, even as a "leper," handicapped with an affliction she never asked for or wanted. “Woe is me!” is her helpless action as she runs to the cold mountains of lonely suffering for the sake of the kingdom that rejected her, rather than fall to her knees and confess her faults:

“Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” James 5:16.

And here in the mountains of loneliness, by her chosen option, is where we see her transform before our eyes from a struggling girl to woman committed. And what a woman!
As she trudges alone up a snow-covered mountain she begins mournfully in what soon turns out to be a very powerful, emotional song and routine, and suddenly she isn’t trudging anymore but walking effortlessly in a world that she realizes belongs to her as she experiments with her sorcery, eventually making a great castle of her infliction. She has become The Ice Queen (not to be lost on the common phrase long applied to a self-focused heart):

[Verse]
“The snow glows white on the mountain tonight,
not a footprint to be seen.
A kingdom of isolation and it looks like I’m the queen.
The wind is howling like this swirling storm inside,
Couldn’t keep it in, heaven knows I tried.

Don’t let them in, don’t let them see,
Be the good girl you always have to be.
Conceal, don’t feel, don’t let them know.
Well, now they know.

[Chorus]
Let it go, let it go,
Can’t hold it back anymore.
Let it go, let it go,
Turn away and slam the door.
I don’t care what they’re going to say,
Let the storm rage on.
The cold never bothered me anyway.

[Verse]
It’s funny how some distance
makes everything seems small,
And the fears that once controlled me,
can’t get to me at all.

[Cut from the film, but kept in the version sung in the movie’s credits:
Up here in the cold thin air I finally can breathe,
I know I’ve left a life behind but I’m too relieved to grieve!]

It’s time to see what I can do,
To test the limits and break through.
No right, no wrong, no rules for me,
I’m free.

[Chorus]
Let it go, let it go,
I am one with the wind and sky.
Let it go, let it go,
You’ll never see me cry.
Here I stand and Here I’ll stay,
Let the storm rage on…

[New tempo Verse]
My power flurries through the air into the ground,
My soul is spiraling in frozen fractals all around.
And one thought crystallizes like an icy blast;
I’m never going back;
The past is in the past.

[Chorus]
Let it go, let it go,
And I’ll rise like the break of dawn.
Let it go, let it go,
That perfect girl is gone.
Here I stand, in the light of day.
Let the storm rage on,
The cold never bothered me anyway!”
- “Let it Go,” Original music and lyrics by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez (http://www.rotoscopers.com/2013/10/27/let-it-go-full-movie-lyrics/).

If you are privileged enough not to have heard this song I strongly recommend that you don’t go looking to hear the music of this lyrics, because the intoxicating power of this song is like heroin to women. Focus instead on the words without the music and animation, and see with a clear mind-- unmanipulated by trolls-- this young woman give up her long struggle to be “a good girl,” who abides by God’s laws of “right and wrong,” and finally give in to “the dark side” that has long craved to overtake her. This concept is even more profound when we contemplate the witchcraft catchphrase used in Star Wars: “There is a force that is neither good nor bad, depending on how you use it.” (The stunning direct but secret connection will be made later in the footnotes [see *2a]). She now abandons the paradigm that declares there even is right and wrong at all, and embraces the boundless wickedness of her heart in the passionate vow of finality as she can no longer be shamed by people’s reaction to her values and conduct.

Now because it’s a fairytale, and her struggle is in attempting to hide her fanciful “magic powers,” we buy the innocence suggested and are blinded to the obvious: Like leprosy of old, her frigid heart contagiously inflicts everything she encounters. But if we would but open our eyes, the words in this song and through the story are very telling indeed and openly reveal that the struggle we actually resonate with is far more real than “unrealistic magic powers,” even without the accompanying music and animation that drives the point home.
The sound and animation of this “woman liberating” song is quite reminiscent of the sensual evening-gown/song competition performed by Miss America winners. The dress, the makeup, the strut, the music and the words, what she learns she can do when she lets it out; all combine to scream the power of confident, shameless, unrestrained, super sexuality: “Let the wild pony finally run!”

Barely beyond her sister’s comment: “Woa! Elsa you look… different,” then quickly adding; “It’s a good different,” the topic of unvoiced argument is unquestionably the long pent-up emotional personification that is unbecoming of a decent woman but strongly appeals to the base nature of us all. Read the lyrics again and tell me I’m wrong: The song preaches for your daughter to shed the shame of powerful dark hidden desires and to proudly and independently let them out into the light of public observance as a glory of her femininity.
In spite of the fairytale’s suggestion that this raging-storm-within phase was short-lived before her sister successfully brought her back into the kingdom, her firm declarations tell another story, and likewise our women have been captured and held firmly by the message of this one song just as surely as Elsa herself. In truth, like the vow of this song; once the darkness becomes adopted as a favorable part of “who I am,” there really is no going back… even when you go back.
(With one distinct qualifying exception made at the end of this Post).
* * *

The Raging Storm:
The real issue never examined is not how long she can hold out hiding “the real me that wants to get out”; but why she is possessed with the affliction at all. Women are told by; movies, friends, emotions, and their therapist, that a woman should never be restrained, by herself or others, but they are anyway. The result is very much the Post 249 Cinderella syndrome of self-focused humanity in excessive emotionalism that wants no solution to diminish the self-imposed tortured feelings that conquer her, but wants everyone to try and fail because it heightens the sensation of the “imprisoned captive” of self-pity.
The foundational sin is centering one’s humanity as the focus of attention. It’s the ballroom dancer at the top of the stair screaming “Am I beautiful or what?!” It’s the deification of the base self by imagining it as worth imprisoning for safe keeping so that it can attempt to escape and be free with implied value attributed by the captivity. The desire is not what to do after, but the act of liberation itself, because the act is what glorifies woman over man or man over God, very much like the phrase Allahu-Akbar meaning “Allah is greater”; It’s not really about Allah being God but about Allah being more God than God. It’s Peter Pan’s “second star” that is now seen in the intro to every Disney presentation as a foundational value. But why second?
Without comparison it’s just a star, and that’s not glorious enough for its vanity, so it’s brighter and higher than the first star. It needs the first star as a value of comparison that gives it value. Its value is not in itself but in a comparison of the one who’s value is in itself. The escaped woman rejoices that she has escaped but suddenly finds her value gone. Her value was in being held against her will. It’s like the concept of the young woman who longs for her wedding day but never contemplates being a wife. It’s the full moon that forgets her glorious light is gifted from the sun, yet can’t leave the sun and retain her glory. It causes schizophrenia, psychosis, a raging storm within.
This is a problem of the heart, and the heart is quite unknowable (Jeremiah 17:9), which is why it is almost impossible to describe her conflict, yet know it intimately by experience. But, as we are familiar now with the value of Typology, a feminist woman’s struggle to be liberated from man is the easy-to-understand Type describing the self-deified human heart’s desire to be liberated from God. This is the raging storm as simply as can be stated, while it manifests in various presentations.

Since we are reducing this affliction to its base nature for identification purposes, we can realize that women are not the only ones afflicted. Many men too have overpowering dark natures that a decent society requires them to hide, but the manifestation of their darkness appears somewhat differently than that of women, though it is very much the same at its foundation.
As long as we allow ourselves to imagine that our affliction is both a rare and incurable burdensome nature of humanity that everyone else doesn’t have to struggle with, we expect that it is our social duty to hide it for as long as possible and suffer the private burden quietly alone as if nobody could understand our struggle or how strong we are for successfully hiding it. “If they only knew…” becomes the secret pride of our troubled lives that tries to make us believe we are stronger than anyone knows.
What a relief then when the society finally admits that everyone has a dark side and declares it’s now ok to let it out; “To do less is hypocrisy! Unfurl the rainbow flag! Liberation is finally yours!”
Such declarations are the foundational interpretation of today’s feminine Liberation and Empowerment. This liberation is what we saw in Miley Cyrus as she came of age on the public stage and horrified all the women who have been successful at hiding the fact that they secretly battle similar dark-moon natures, and it resonated gleefully with those women who have already failed and embraced it. The secret is out at last.
* * *

Troubled Faith:
But while the world’s women (and Sodomites) have been ramping up to shamelessly unleash their darkside like a storm on society; Jude-type wandering star Christians (*3), who have tended to lag two steps behind society, now find themselves convinced of what the world until recently believed: There is nothing to be done but train yourself to hide it by great efforts of diligent self-control. Put on the plastic face; “Don’t let them in, don’t let them see; be the good girl you always have to be. Conceal, Don’t feel; put on a show, make one wrong move and everyone will know.”

The result of such a perspective is one of three distinct manifestations:
1) A rigid, religious prude; the Ice Princess that “shuts everyone out” lest they learn her true nature.
2) A wild pony that needs a very tall, very strong, very confined fence to keep her secretly-regarded wild-side contained (Job 36:21, Psalm 66:18), or
3) A fragile helpless psychosis so fearfully withdrawn in her self-protection that she needs her nose wiped with soothing words as it drools down her chin and into her listless lap, and done just as she requires lest she lash out in a sudden flash of escaping rage that she quickly apologizes for in shame.

So, although she might kick and scream and publicly resent her husband for “imprisoning” her, in her soul she knows that she desperately needs the external governance, and finds unconfessed security in her husband’s tight rule.

“Unto the woman he said…thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” Genesis 2:16.

Said simply, This was the age of the Old Testament Law, and, perhaps like the apparently happy, dignified, silent, mousy mother in Frozen; for a few thousand years this seemed to work reasonably well for God’s people, as women were content to let their husbands lead them, with Sara as their patron example:

“For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement (4423: alarm)” I Peter 3:5-6.

What fear and shocked alarm is Peter speaking of in this conditional “children of Abraham” admonition to New Testament women, who are freed from the law?

“And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah” Genesis 20:2.

Was there cause or room for Sarah to fear and be amazed at the danger Abraham’s failure put her in? ABSOLUTELY!
So what is Peter getting at here? He is getting at the very crux of this ENTIRE PROBLEM in the Christian world today.
Peter’s admonition is regarding the submissive heart that honors God-given authority of protection and guidance, especially in its blunders of weakness. You know; “…honor and obey…in good and in bad, for better or for worse…” and all that “stuff” in your mother’s vow that makes you nauseous just thinking about.
Without understanding the scripture’s Grand Tapestry, this seems to be a very foolish recommendation yet the only conclusion available from scripture. But if, by the nature of God, we are to believe there is another function designed into the Type, we can grasp that Sarah’s faith of submission was in God as she practiced that faith by obeying her husband per God’s command (James 2:18). We learn in the historical narrative that God’s “guardian angel” angel, miraculously kept the king from harming Sarah when Abraham seemed to fail so utterly (Genesis 20:3-6). Such an experience gave Sarah hands-on proof of faith, that God was indeed trustworthy when we obey his commands even when nothing makes sense. This is the admonition Peter gives New Testament Christian women: trust God through practical application of submission to his commands. God usually worked his provision for Sarah indirectly through Abraham, and Abraham had to "fail" Sarah before she could personally see God’s ultimate provision in her obedience of submission. Now God’s provision is no longer just fanciful theory as her faith is applied in reality by obeying her husband.
Hands-on reality is what separates our faith from fairytale. Until God proved himself through Abraham’s failure, God’s provision through Abraham was just theory to Sarah.

Similarly, a lifelong struggle that fails to overcome but succeeds in not giving in, is a failed faith in practice, that, while avoiding some surface undesirable consequences, creates deeper and more hurtful ones that are well entrenched over time. Hiding the darkside might very well be the right thing to do as children, until we overcome, but the goal of a mature person is to shed the darkside; not learn to manage it (I Corinthians 13:10-11, Romans 6:6-8, II Corinthians 5:17). This concept comes quite clear as we continue to explore the ages of the Grand Tapestry and understand its ultimate purpose at the conclusion. In otherwords we need the bigger perspective of God.

Observance of the Old Testament confining law-- though somewhat oppressive if you want to see it that way-- kept God’s newly liberated people protected until they recognized the Shepherd and his voice. A New Testament spiritually mature people, now further liberated from even the law itself, have no fear of what the law protected them from, because our quickened hearts are bound in love to the Shepherd who protects and sustains us as we heed his voice. This is true liberty: freedom and protection.
NEVER be content to control sin in your life; the goal is to actually eschew it, (H5493: turn off, G1578: shun, G157: “off”). In otherwords; “Off” sin entirely (See: Job 1:8, I Peter 3:10-11). Be freed from sin by the death of a glorified-self focus (Romans 6:6-7).
This is the choice not made by Elsa when her infliction was made public. When a choice was finally required, she chose instead to regard her wickedness and abandon her kingdom (Romans 6:16-19). The alternate answer to the Ice Princess’s “storm within” is found in the following accusatory passage:

“Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god” Malachi 2:11.

Applying the virtue of this verse in the other gender role; the answer is in the love of holiness in place of self-love of the base nature. The holiness of the LORD is what made Cinderella so desirable back when we loved Cinderella. She loved being holy in the midst of her circumstance. But the perspective of the princess has really changed since then, and so has our own interests, which find our desires are now gravitating toward the shameless, sexualized beauty of the ice queen, who has revealed herself to be the daughter of a strange god. The question to both genders becomes; Why have we changed what appeals to us?
* * *

The Age of Liberation:
What then, do we godly men, do with our immature Christian wives, who having failed to trust God in the age of their youth through obedience to their fathers, now struggle with a rebellious heart toward their husbands as God’s next-level representative of Himself. Do we open the gate and let them run wild? Do we drive those out that won’t run for fear of what they will become?
As a legitimate response to demonically unspeakable violent oppression against women today, the democratic world has taken that choice from our hands through legitimizing feminine self-governance into Social Law as the reply. So now, if your wife wants an abortion you have no say in her “feminine health rights.” If your daughter wants to be a lesbian or date a bad boy, you now have no say in her “feminine liberation.” These are just a few examples in a much larger concept: Don’t imagine that instruction in the Christian faith is excluded from the social legislation. Like the Frozen ship going down in the storm; Dad and Mom’s generation of Republican governance is dead, and the young girls must manage themselves in this New Age.
The question now is, What will the pony do? The choice is now fully in her own heart, and we already know what liberated wild ponies are want to do-- even without the “animal rights therapists" declaring that they have a right to run and are better off for it. And frankly, it’s daily becoming harder to disagree.

Am I suggesting that we Christians just go along with the world’s ways because we can’t fight them? If you have been reading my work for any length of time you know I mean no such thing (Psalm 1:1).
So what am I saying?
As long as you keep your wife fenced in and protected by your own rules and power, she cannot experience God’s direct provision. Like Abraham, you need to seem to fail your wife before her faith in God can be truly tested.
As foolishly alarming as such a statement sounds, it provides the truth that Sarah faced, and the admonition given to women by Peter. Is your wife’s faith in you, or in God through you? This is really deep.

As men, it is in our very nature-- our God-given nature-- and need, to be the provider and protector of our wives. The scriptures even confirm this obligatory nature as biblically affirmed:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it;” Ephesians 5:25+.

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” I Timothy 5:8.

So it seems completely counter productive to have to fail your wife to empower her faith in God. How can we confirm that such an idea is biblical? I mean besides Abraham, the father of our faith.
How about Jesus?
When Jesus came to earth for the sake of his betrothed, his disciples asked in anticipation when he would establish the promised kingdom that would finally liberate them from their oppressors (Acts 1:8), and on a similar note, the Devil himself offered Jesus that which would liberate all humanity, including his own beloved (Matthew 4:8-9). But Jesus seemed to fail his fiance in both instances, and instead went to the cross “abandoning” his future bride to be ravaged by the kings of the earth… enabling her, like Sarah, to trust fully in God without fear and amazement, even when nothing made sense.
Moses too, failed to get his people across the long anticipated river to the land promised. And now we begin to see a plan of God emerge through the circumstances. In each case, there is an important undeclared element missing that required the “failure” to produce. Likewise, the best thing a Christian minister can do for another man’s wife who longs for Christian leadership, is to seem to fail her by sending her home, even to a godless husband. Let God prove himself to her by disrupting her emotional perspective of need. This is a huge problem today as many ministers fail to understand these intricacies and so find themselves mired in scandal they never intended but felt obligated to enter for the sake of her Christian well-being. In such cases it’s the minister that lacks faith in God’s provision for her through her husband’s failure. His own natural desires to be honored by women create a hazard only avoidable by obedience to God’s laws.

“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” I Corinthians 7:2.

“Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well” Proverbs 5:15.

So if we dare not accuse Jesus of failure, and we cannot accuse Moses or Abraham either, is it probable that you can rightly accuse your husband of failure when things don’t make sense and seem to go horribly wrong? (obviously there are limitations not covered in this general principle: Acts 5:29). Isn’t it more likely that God designed his failure for a reason, O ye of little faith?
Is God not greater than what we observe in our finite knowledge? Can we not by faith obey God’s commands, especially when things seem to go wrong? Can you now see the virtue in your mother’s wedding vows? They were not vows to your father but to God. They were vows of faith, as she promised to obey God's command to honor her husband in faith, knowing that her husband is but flesh.

“And he (God) said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness…” II Corinthians 12:9.

The Empowerment we need desperately to give our wives is faith in God, not in us. We do this by releasing our grip and seeming to fail so that her faith can take wings, no different than a parent does for a mature child: In the exercise of liberating them there is fear and doubts and concerns, and through these we give encouragement, council, and advice. The goal is to enable them capable of standing with God on their own faith, not relying on our faith to do the standing for them (Ephesians 6:13). A parent only has about eighteen years to help their child learn to wear the armor of God and practice in its use before they enter the battle alone. The time allotted to help ones wife prepare is undeclared, but she will stand before God on that day, by her own faith… or lack thereof. A foolish man wants to be his wife’s god between now and then, though God has given him that likeness to do. Much as the sun is as the moon’s god, though both were created to worship the Maker.
* * *

Liberation or Liberation?
While the world promotes the Liberation and Empowerment of women to satisfy their fleshly desires of unacountability, God has another intent for the same event pre-written into this sixth age.
As I have often repeated, the answer of distinction is usually found in the surgeon’s scalpel, skillfully and knowledgably dividing the cancer from the healthy flesh (Hebrews 4:12+II Timothy 2:15) while the common eye can’t tell the difference: “It all looks... gooey.”
Today, as with Islam using the Old Testament and Catholics using the New; the distinction is not so much in the word used, but in the use of the word. Let me explain:

“But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;” I Corinthians 7:29.

What in the word does this mean? I’m not sure I really know to the degree I should, but let’s consider mixing this concept with another prophetic declaration:

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;…forbidding to marry…” I Timothy 4:1,3.

I am seriously suggesting that we are now entering the beginning of that time prophesied, and this women-liberating movement will have very legitimate “Christian” reasons for legislating marriage as unlawful imprisonment of women. Of course intimate relations and cohabitation will persist by mutual pleasure, so what are Christians to do when they can’t marry? Christ forbids fornication (Ephesians 5:3).

If we know that the law will soon require us to open the gates and let all ponies free because of those that are oppressed, then we must proactively prepare for such an unavoidable event rather than fight it. We need to use it to our advantage, because we know it is ordained of God (Romans 13:1).

The feminine empowerment that I speak of-- though being the same word as used by today’s wild women with a different purpose-- is the same liberty that Christ speaks of in the New Testament:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me (Jesus), because he (God) hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach DELIVERANCE to the captives, and recover the sight to the blind, to set at LIBERTY them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord” Luke 4:18-19, all-cap emphasis added.
(See also: Isaiah 61:1, Leviticus 25:10, Psalm 119:43-45, Romans 8:21, II Corinthians 3:17, Galatians 5:1,13, etc.).

It is quite clear that God intended this ancient prophecy to be speaking of a very specific point in time; the time that Jesus came to earth to create an entire “paradigm of curing” through the breaking down of imprisoning walls of perspective.
Read it again.
But what many cannot see in the democratically legislated opening of all fences and gates, is that imprisonment in “the other master’s” dogfight-pen is not the same as sojourning in “this master’s” loving sheepfold:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them” John 10:1-6.

Now stay with me. I am sure you glazed over this passage because you are so familiar with it. But realizing in the last sentence that there is far more here than we might perceive, let’s consider this parable in the New Age, when the walls and gates are to be broken down, even against the faithful sheep’s desire.
Does it alarm the good shepherd that the sheepfold of protection might not remain? No. By the time the sheepfold of protection is destroyed the shepherd has prepared to put forth his sheep by familiarizing them with his leading voice (Matthew 28:19+Acts 11:19, 13:50-52). In effect, the shepherd preemptively opened the gate metaphorically before the world’s social legislation required it actually. His sheep are already happily roaming the pasturelands without leash or fence or care, like the Post 190 dog in the field chasing rabbits yet not displeasing his master for doing so, but rather actually delighting him. (Romans 8:1-2 [continue even to v.8]).

It is important to understand that the dog-leash, or pony-stall… or sheepfold, was actually for the purpose of identifying the proper shepherd of good will, as well as keeping the sheep safe until they did (Galatians 3:23-26). Once the sheep got that straight, the sheepfold can be left behind as they willingly follow the shepherd as one option among others (running, or following another shepherd, or going the faith alone). The sheepfold therefore is a Type of the Law and the proper shepherd must come through the gate of that law to become known, and then familiar to his sheep, before leading his sheep out of the law and into liberty (Romans 6:14-18).

Many “sheep-nappers” with exploitation as the goal, will use the confines of the sheepfold to convince the sheep of their authority as shepherd, but come in by another means (Matthew 24:24-25, Mark 13:22-23, II Corinthians 11:13-15, Galatians 2:4-5), this is indeed Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, forced marriage, State religions, etc., as they pervert the sheepfold of the written word and intent, by failing to use the porter’s gate for fear of being discovered as fraud (I Chronicles 9:22-27, Mark 13:34-37).
The substantial issue of exploitation is why the sheepfold will be deemed by legislation of man to be torn down in the effort to liberate the sheep.
What then, when we Christians seem to find ourselves feeling failed of God: wall-less; vulnerable in the open fields as far as the eye can see? There are no gates to identify the right shepherd, no walls of limitation for discovering breach! What is the Christian to do without a sheepfold of protection? It’s the same question as what Christians are to do without the sanctity of marriage, and what Jews are to do without the law. The Age is growing up fast!

The reason that this is not cause for fear and amazement in this sixth age-- though being the age of confusion-- is because the shepherd has already come and been recognized by the porter of the sheepfold and been made familiar over time, and so the limiting sheepfold has no further purpose. By breaking down the walls of restraint, the world is liberated to run wild toward their own destruction, while you follow the shepherd of good will to distances heretofore impossible because of the walls! (Jeremiah 33:3=John 3:8-12).

“But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” Genesis 50:20.

Can you come up with any reason why we might rejoice in our nation’s borders-of-security being unlawfully opened by our own foolish government to the children of other nations resulting in our shot-less conquest?
For one; we don’t have to send missionaries anymore, they’re coming to us!
But their salvation that could reclaim this land by numbers alone, is ours to do. Will we? or shall we hide behind the walls of our homes and mourn the loss of a great Christian nation because “they” didn’t protect us? They failed us!
If you are already so afraid of your American neighbors that you never got to know them even by name, the chance that you will now preach the gospel of salvation to invading foreigners is not high.
But this is only one reason. The scriptures have given us another in the example of the early Christians finding themselves persecuted in their own homeland were motivated to go into other nations and share the Gospel where they would not have otherwise gone (Acts 1:4+Mark 16:15+Acts 1:8+Acts 11:28, etc).
* * *

Be Not Afraid: The Holy Spirit porter in you already knows the voice of the shepherd (Mark 5:35-36).
Why did Peter include afraid with amazement/alarm in the above passage of I Peter 3:5-6?
The answer is because fear is so heinous in fact that the fearful will be cast into the lake of fire with all the other abominable wickedness's listed (Revelation 21:8).
Apparently fear is something we are in fact accountable for as if we have a choice, but isn’t fear a spontaneous response like blinking? A person cannot rightly be accountable for something that is uncontrollable… can he? Likewise, the case of an uncontrollable “darkside” should also be something that cannot rightly be held against us… right? The movie Frozen has not falsely represented the girl’s diligent efforts to control the uncontrollable; “Couldn’t keep it in, heaven knows I tried,” so how can she be held accountable as I suggest?

“Then I said unto you, Dread not, neither be afraid of them. The LORD your God which goeth before you, he shall fight for you, according to all that he did for you in Egypt before your eyes;” Deuteronomy 1:29-30.

The answer is found in the reason not to be afraid: tested Faith in God, not faith in love, or even faith in faith.
Now that might sound a bit simplistic to people with very real issues, but frankly, the reason they have their issues is because they don’t actually believe that Faith in God is the answer… because they have no tested faith that has succeeded and thereby proven correct.
Let’s hear what Jesus had to say regarding faith in a situation worthy of fear... like boating in a hurricane:

“And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish. And he said unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm” Matthew 8:27-26.

Like Sarah, Did the disciples have room and cause to be afraid and alarmed? ABSOLUTELY! But Jesus held them accountable for their too-limited faith because by now they should be comprehending the value of their experiences with him as the intensities of the tests increased. It takes experience to gain more faith (Romans 10:16-19+James 2:24), and what creates a need for faith is the perfect setting for fear and alarm. That setting cannot exist when some protection has not seemed to be insufficient. Jesus slept.
Even millions of words later the answer is always the same: Turn your eyes fully upon the Lord and shepherd, the sole sustainer of your life. No one can do it for you; it’s something you have to do yourself. And when you actually do, the gridlock-curse that consumes your life will quickly and miraculously melt away. The storm within will become a great calm, providing experience of tested faith. I know, because it is personal to me and my experience, which confirms the scriptures are true: God is truly faithful, and for me, that’s not a theory.

A wild pony has no useful faith, and neither does a fearful one. The wild and fearful pony despises the stall, and a curse is a curse only because, by attraction and familiarity with the forbidden, you won’t cast it out of your heart for fear that you will become domesticated and learn to like it. Elsa’s life was incurably troubled because she harbored in her heart what God forbids. It’s just that simple (Psalm 66:18).

So, regarding no protective sheepfold for sheep, and no marriage license for Christian couples, the answer is; Who needs them?
A Christian needs no laws to obey the law, and a couple committed before God needs no license to be married. The breaking down of walls does not diminish the sheep's loyalty to the shepherd, it intensifies it by the nature of liberty! This is what Christ came to do.
He enabled us to be Christian in the absence of laws, to show that we want to be Christ-like Christ followers.
* * *

The unexpected game-changer; overturning all that is right by a slight alteration:
Far more than the spiritual whoredom of the older sister, my concern is regarding the younger, who, although charming and refreshingly fearless in a pure and innocent, carefree, quirky way-- made even more appealing by comparison to her troubled sister-- is nonetheless evidently just short of the (Deuteronomy 18:13, II Corinthians 13:11, Philippians 3:15, II Timothy 3:17, Hebrews 13:20-21, Matthew 5:48) “perfect girl” majesty of the first three princesses.
According to the Type established in those stories, the not-at-all-offensive, slight “imperfection” of her character is visually represented in the cute freckled “blemish” as accents of uniqueness in her more earthy physical beauty (II Timothy 2:20-22). Remember, in fairytales, beauty represents her nature: good=beautiful, not originally suggesting that beautiful=good, but that has changed now. Yet, while her older sister is stunningly beautiful, nobody can argue that it’s not, a very different kind of beauty than that of the first three princesses who were indeed fitting of marrying into royalty, while these girls, being born into it, have nothing to gain in the upward sense of hope, called anticipation. No wonder they "don't need a prince"; the world is already theirs!... But not the castle in the sky, also called the kingdom of heaven.
Sights seem to be lowering dangerously while the seer remains content for having attained what they see (Proverbs 29:18).

And so we see our pure and honest, but slightly imperfect, unprepared princess leave her kingdom alone, in search of her wayward sister, instead of allowing her prince to come with her and do what he offered to do; i.e. Be the prince (Matthew 18:11-12).
I honestly don’t believe that Christ is disappointed in the heartfelt effort to rescue a lost loved one, he just wants to be included as the “knight in shinning armor” that he is. And I feel that it is noteworthy to recognize that this prince, (though 13th in line as a classic Disney mar to his person *4-extracted), was always the perfect gentlemen of love in every revealing situation, including a clearly love-struck expression when he got a surprise soaking with no one to see his natural reaction. No real villain acts like that. But true; this all suddenly and dramatically changed after she contracted a frozen heart, the very thing that the opening song warned about as the main plot of the story. Therefore, per the very plot; the young princess indeed failed her sister, her prince, and her kingdom:

“How? What power do you have to stop this winter… to stop me?” her sister asks pleadingly as Anna confronts her issues by suggesting that they can find the answer between just the two of them.
This extremely resonating, fearful question in the animation no longer even attempts to mask the real meaning. How can the wholesome happy but powerless sibling alter the unalterable “curse” in the troubled elder-sister who earnestly declares she is happy and free being all alone with her self-focused Britney-Spears-kind-of sensual infliction (Post 308b), but clearly longs to be helped if only she could?... which, by her years of failure to overcome before giving in, she is convinced is impossible. What makes someone so committed to what they know is destroying them? It’s akin to the Stockholm syndrome as they surrender in despair of hope, and make due with their reality.
The point is, the younger sister goes armed only with the faith that her love alone can cure the incurable. And while this is the entire theme of the Jewish trolls, and of our Christless Christian world today; Christ claims that it is his own love that is the cure, not ours.
While the moon shines bright to give light to the earth, only the sun's light brings life.
It might indeed be humbling to accept the fact that you’re “just the moon” with no special powers of your own, but to embrace the need of the sun's fire in order to shine glorious, eliminates the cursed storm within.
The well-meaning little sister destroyed her own kingdom when she brought the wicked girl and her magic back to the kingdom, and through the tolerance of unconditional love taught the people to love the sensual whore who freezes everything, but now just for fun (Revelation 17:2).

The answer is to come home, but leave your magic in the mountains where it belongs.
That’s not the magicless message you’re going to hear from Disney, the makers and bold promoters of such intoxicating sorcery.


The remainder of this Post has been left out to maintain the topic at hand, and may be included in the fairytale collection of works that more completely reveal the demonic nature of these presentations.
* * * * * * *

(*1) Assimilate: [Modern use:] To learn (something) so that it is fully understood and can be used. To cause (a person or group) to become a part of a different society, country, etc. To adopt the ways of another culture: to fully become part of a different society, country, etc. - Merriam-Webster 2014 online dictionary.

(*2) Extracted
(*2a) The Runes and Old Norse in Disney’s Frozen:
March 26, 2014 in Pointless self-indulgence | by Jackson Crawford
“I [Jackson Crawford, who have been teaching Njal’s saga for several years at UCLA] had the cool opportunity to contribute the runes in Disney’s Frozen (on the magic book, & on some graves in the background in one scene), as well as the Old Norse lines the bishop speaks in the coronation scene. Now that the movie is out on DVD, I see a lot more people guessing about what they say. I’m not sure I can reveal that, but for the benefit of the folks who are out there guessing, here are some helpful facts:
-The runes are Younger Futhark.
-The language used in both the spoken coronation lines and the runic writing is Old Norse.
-The bishop uses reconstructed Old Norse pronunciation, not Modern Icelandic pronunciation.
-I’ve seen the bishop’s lines floating around on the internet, but only in the form of the pronunciation notes that I made for the actor (“Sehm hon HELL-drr…”), not with real Old Norse spelling (“Sem hon heldr…”).”
- (http://tattuinardoelasaga.wordpress.com/author/jacksoncrawford/).

I didn’t include this bit of background for you to begin a curious investigation, but to show that there is stunning depth in what is included in an “innocent” Disney production. It seems that the Njal saga of Star Wars-- the very occult leaning movie-- has a substantial hand in Frozen’s own untold backstory that caused this princess to be born with her curse.
Adult people now seem to have an insatiable curiosity about the smallest details in cartoons as if they were important to understanding the mysteries of life, but they can’t seem to find fifteen minutes to give in an exploration of God’s message in scripture. I don’t imagine that will go over real well on the day of accountability. Is their heart already frozen by an affinity to a beautiful sister’s wickedness?

(2b) Extracted

(*3) Wandering Stars: are both a biblical and astronomical description. Planets are seen from earth because of their moon-like reflection of the sun that makes them shine in the night sky among the shining stars that produce their own light, thus in ancient times, planets were called “stars” too. But planets are not fixed in space as are the stars; they travel through the night sky disconnected from the starry backdrop. As both the earth and the planets are speeding in their courses around our star called the Sun, the passing and lapping of their courses cause the planets to appear to go this way, then that way, then this way again, as they traverse the sky as “wandering stars.”
Jude’s point is that like the nature of the dark moon and planets, there is no internal light in these “wandering Christians” missing the fire of the Holy Spirit indwelling them, giving them life from within.

(*4) Extracted.
*