Reframing Christian marriage part 4: judging the performance.

Christian wives have been taught to see their role in biblical marriage primarily as a judge of their husband’s obligation to love them as Christ loved the church.  This is as I showed in the beginning of the series essential to their inverting the biblical frame of marriage and placing themselves as the leader over their submissive husbands.

This important biblical command has become the focus of an unhealthy obsession amongst Christians when considering marriage, effectively crowding the rest of the commands regarding marriage out.  Prior to the release of the movie Fireproof, co creator Stephen Kendrick was asked how he and his brother Alex (the lead in the movie Courageous) decided on the topic for the movie.  The opening part of Stephen’s answer is very telling (emphasis mine):

We had been praying specifically for a storyline that would help strengthen our culture and had considered several options. To be honest, Alex didn’t initially want to do a movie on marriage though he was taken by the idea of daring a man to love his wife. After months of prayer, the Lord clearly led us to go after this issue through a compelling story that we hope captures the hearts of both women and men…

These are two men who are presumably well versed in the bible, and yet only one command stood out when considering making a movie on Christian marriage.  And even here, they managed to twist the original meaning to something straight out of pop relationship psychology.  It isn’t about the firm love of leadership, but the touchy-feely love of romance novels and chick flicks.  It is Christ’s love for the Church interpreted through the lens of Jesus is your boyfriend.  They took it a step further and ultimately made it not about the husband demonstrating his faithfulness to this command, but him winning the heart of his whorish wife away from the man she is pursuing.  It didn’t matter until she felt it sufficiently, and only total submission to his wife would do.

This mindset is also on display in a post Sheila Gregoire did back in December, Am I Too Hard on Women?  Sheila quotes a commenter on her blog:

I for one am tired of well-meaning Christians not holding men’s feet to the fire. The Bible is pretty clear that men need to love their wives as Christ loved His Bride, the Church. I don’t see Jesus standing at the foot of the cross saying to Himself: “Well, you guys are weren’t dying for today because there’s a ballgame on and you don’t look very pretty to me.”

Did Jesus and does He still ACTIVELY pursue His Bride? Should men continuously make their wives a priority and pursue them?

But it isn’t just men watching non wife approved ballgames the commenter is angry about.  She is furious that men are listening to what women tell them they want in order to feel loved:

Another thing: I hate these lists that men are given to tell them how to show love to their wives. Buy her flowers. Write her little love notes. Do this for her. Do that for her. I think the best thing a man can do is quit relying on those generic lists, even such advice from “Christian” counselors, and start studying your wife. Make your own lists, men, that show you wanted to be sincere and genuine in your relationship with your wife. . . That you actually treasure your wife and realize she is a unique creation by God given to you to CARE FOR, PROTECT, SERVE, and HELP.

She closes her rant with:

Please, Christian church ladies, quit making excuses for Christian husbands. Somebody, PLEASE SOMEBODY, hold their feet to the fire. As long as you keep telling women to do what men ought to be doing, it’s not going to improve.

Sheila tells us that she agrees with the commenter, but that her blog is targeted to women and not men.  She uses the comment to demonstrate what she experiences when she and her husband do Christian marriage conferences.  Each time Sheila speaks to the wives at the conference about what they need to do, the women resent being told they have anything to improve:

One of the interesting things about giving the wife talk is that, as I start to talk about what a woman can do to make marriage great, I see many in the audience looking distinctly uncomfortable and shifting in their seats.

At this point Sheila stops her talk and reassures the wives that their husbands are getting it even worse:

…right now my husband has all of your husbands in another room, and he is blasting them and telling them what they need to do, too, in no uncertain terms.

Only after this are the women willing to listen and consider their own obligations.  She explains that she often experiences the same sentiment from the readers of her blog, which she characterizes as:

I won’t listen to your advice for how women can make their marriages better unless I’m assured that someone is lecturing my husband first, because he’s the one who really needs to change.

Sheila reassures her readers that she understands their concerns, but that she writes a blog for women, not men.  Her point is that neither sex is given a pass to not follow biblical commands because their spouse isn’t living up to them.  She also mixes in a vague accusation that men aren’t as interested in fulfilling their biblical roles in marriage because it is women and not men who read “relationship blogs”.   She then feels compelled to give an offering to the standard feminist bogeyman of wives becoming doormats and being abused:

This does not mean that we are to be doormats, and indeed, acting like a doormat and enabling him to treat you disrespectfully can make your marriage worse. I have spoken about this at length. It also does not mean that we put up with abuse.

Sheila’s obsession with wives not becoming doormats is so great that one of the linked posts she references was actually one she wrote after reading my post Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers.  She read about the need for husbands to show firm leadership, and felt compelled to write a post of her own warning wives not to become doormats.  In an age where wives are openly rebelling against the biblical command to submit to their husbands, in classic feminist form Sheila is consumed by fear that wives might submit too much to their husbands.  She continues to harp on this even after admitting in a previous post that Christian women are obsessed with “being true to themselves” and that the church gives women a pass:

In general, the church is very hard on men and very easy on women, and yet it is women who instigate most divorces. We need to get back to the message that we have a responsibility and an obligation to make our marriages work, even if those marriages do not make us happy. But that goes against conventional wisdom, and seems mean. We really are fighting upstream!

But that was an entire three months before Sheila wrote the post asking if she is too hard on women, so this has already been forgotten.

Fortunately Sheila can at times be temporarily reminded of the fact that churches are giving wives a pass for open rebellion, focusing instead only on husbands.  Elspeth jogged her memory with an excellent comment.  After Elspeth’s comment several other women expressed similar sentiments, including Mrs. P:

Unfortunately feminism has become such an accepted part of our culture that even the church gets caught up in it. You’re right about the vast difference between Mother’s Day and Father’s Day church services. Mother’s Day is all about honoring and glorifying motherhood/womanhood while Father’s Day is all about telling men that they’re all terrible husbands/fathers and they need to get their lazy bums off the couch. Isn’t Father’s Day supposed to be about HONORING fathers? Yeesh.

This lead to a startling turn around by Sheila in the comments:

I agree that the church really is harder on men. I’ve known two women to leave their husbands in the last few years in our church after affairs, and everyone still assumed it was the husbands’ fault. It was really tough!

Don’t worry Christian wives;  Sheila had forgotten all about this a month later, so her blog is once again a safe place to judge the performance of husbands who refuse to submit to your authority.  Carry on.

See Also:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Feminists, Fireproof, Kendrick Brothers, Marriage, Sheila Gregoire. Bookmark the permalink.

118 Responses to Reframing Christian marriage part 4: judging the performance.

  1. okrahead says:

    Christ’s church is His bride. Yet Christ warned several churches that he would “divorce” them as it were in John’s letters to the seven churches in Asia found in the first part of Revelation. The Hebrew writer warns us that every son who is received will be scourged (Heb. 12). We are commanded to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them.” The womyn in the church who disdain their obligations to marriage are no different than Israel of the Old Testament, who rebelled against her husband and was eventually cast off. Womyn are right to demand that husbands love their wives as Christ loves the church, but they are wrong in their definition of love. Biblical love demands obedience to rightful authority, beginning with Christ through His revealed will, which states that womyn are to submit to their husbands just as they do to Christ. If these womyn cannot submit, then they are not truly wives to their husbands, nor are they part of the Bride of Christ, His church. As Samuel told Saul, “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubborness as idolatry.” I can think of no better words to describe the feminized “Christians” who refuse to submit to their own husbands and their own Lord. They should keep in mind the end result of Saul’s rebellion and repent while they still have time.

  2. The Antigrrrl says:

    As someone who has previously experience the “bad” end of submission, I truly cannot get over the constant advice not to be a doormat. If the husband is ordering his wife to do something evil, just refuse, because “I was just being submissive” will not be a good defense at the pearly gates( biblically, verifiably against God’s commandments not just “I don’t like that”). We are told to submit and if a woman asks before marriage “would this man ask me to do something evil?” and the answer is yes, and she still marries him, I would argue she is pretty far beyond any ability to reason, so she should still just submit.

  3. ballista74 says:

    What is lost in modern Churchianity in this phrase of “loving Christ as Christ loved the Church” is the fact that Jesus is the head over His Church and that the Church is to submit to Him. This has been lost on people for a very long time, as His Church hasn’t submitted to Jesus for a very long time. It’s hard to tell if there is a chicken and egg relationship (which came first?) between the feminist false gospel and the modern feminine view of marriage, but without a single shadow of doubt, one is definitely driving the other, if not driving each other.

  4. Chaz345 says:

    “What is lost in modern Churchianity in this phrase of “loving Christ as Christ loved the Church” is the fact that Jesus is the head over His Church and that the Church is to submit to Him. This has been lost on people for a very long time, as His Church hasn’t submitted to Jesus for a very long time. It’s hard to tell if there is a chicken and egg relationship (which came first?) between the feminist false gospel and the modern feminine view of marriage, but without a single shadow of doubt, one is definitely driving the other, if not driving each other.”

    The other thing that’s missing is that loving as Christ loves does not equate to always feeling warm and fuzzy. Christ’s love did, on occasion, take the form of some pretty direct and hard to hear truths. Things that most definitely did not feel good.

  5. HeligKo says:

    I find it interesting that what gets prescribed for the man to love his wife so often seems to actually be the prescription for how we are supposed to love Christ. So isn’t this actually the prescription for how the wife should love her husband. The husband is to love her as Christ loved the church. He loved the church as a leader who made no bones about what needed to happen. Who when push came to shove was willing to die for a church that was unworthy of his sacrifice. It just seems that things are a bit reversed here. This isn’t just a case of the world being broken, but a case of what is said in Isaiah 5:20

    “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

  6. The doormat crap is a distraction. Imagine that tactic on any other life topic.

    You should exercise regularly and eat right———but that doesnt mean you should become body obsessed and anorexic

    You should work hard——–but workaholism is sin and bad and no one ought to

    You should attend church————-but not to the point you are never home and neglect your family

    Countless ridiculous examples show that this goofy urge to “warn” women is not really to warn then at all….frankly who HAS NOT heard these stupid admonishments and warnings about the ogre man? They act like they are the last line of defense before all women are corralled and used as beasts of burden and sex slaves, like we are right on the cusp but for their courage in standing up.

  7. Look, its simple…mutual submission PLUS hubby loving as Christ the church means one thing….she is in charge, not just a task master, but the moral and spiritual compass as well. His very essence is under her, the morality of his choices, the wisdom of same, his time management, how he comports, IF he comports with others, how and when he “shares his heart (she craving some empathy…best he put out)
    You cannot stir mutual submission and love wife as Christ the church and not get an evangelical feminist souffle

  8. The Continental Op says:

    They act like they are the last line of defense before all women are corralled and used as beasts of burden and sex slaves, like we are right on the cusp but for their courage in standing up.

    The extremes make bad law, but that’s the regime we’re under. Similarly, if you think about “what’s happening to white Europeans?” you’re a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

  9. Jacquie says:

    HeligKo says:
    “The husband is to love her as Christ loved the church. He loved the church as a leader who made no bones about what needed to happen. Who when push came to shove was willing to die for a church that was unworthy of his sacrifice.”

    Christ went into the temple and overturned the tables because of the sin that was going on in His Father’s house. He didn’t just see what was happening, then overlook it or simply shake his head and walk out. He made a distinct point that it was unacceptable behavior. He wasn’t abusive in this manner, he never struck anyone, but there was no question about his actions and why.

    Christ didn’t mince words. He was clear and to the point, making known what was acceptable and what was not. When someone came to him needing something from him, he told them what they needed to do. Those with open submissive hearts heard and obeyed him and honored what he asked. Those with cold and deceitful hearts took his words and twisted them, mocking him.

    Christ died in place of the church because of our actions. He didn’t claim guilt. We are still the guilty. Salvation does not come by placing the blame on Christ for what we have done wrong. Salvation involves that we take responsibility and ownership for our own sins then we are to turn away from repeating those same sins.

    So if we are to accurately compare the husband wife roles in marriage with that of Christ and the church, we ought to look at how Christ loved the church enough to give the people what they needed(not wanted and whined about) when they needed, not worrying about hurt feelings or their happiness, and also the proper response we are to have toward Christ as a leader. It puts a proper perspective how husbands are to lead and how wives are to respond.

  10. HeligKo says:

    I am not sure that Jesus didn’t strike anyone in that moment. He was overturning the chairs of those who were selling the doves, and made a whip to chase them out with. It doesn’t say overtly that he did, but to exclude the fact someone was probably sitting in that chair, and on the other side of that table when it came crashing down seems a large leap to me. To assume the whip was just for show also seems a large leap. Jesus did not defend himself physically or supernaturally, that we do know from the scriptures. Your example does make it clear however you read it that Jesus didn’t passively accept disobedience from those who claimed to follow him or his father.

  11. Im not sure but I think some woman was abused in the temple

    just sayin

  12. Joe Sheehy says:

    @empathologicalism

    Yes, many of these people act as though a woman possibly getting yelled at or slapped is worse than abortion, illegitimacy, divorce, adultery, etc. You have to wonder how civilization managed to progress in the “bad old days” if it was so terrible for wives practicing Christian forebearance. You really have to wonder how it is possible for so many supposed Christians to have such a skewed emotional response to these issues, where outrage at “violence against women” is real and visceral, but the reaction to abortion, illegitimacy, and divorce seems to be mere sanctimony and empty words.

  13. Chaz345 says:

    “empathologicalism says:
    May 18, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Im not sure but I think some woman was abused in the temple

    just sayin”

    Heck by today’s standards of abuse, simply mentioning those passages where Jesus got violent could be called threatening or abusive in the right circumstances.

  14. Suz says:

    The doormat crap IS a distraction, but “doormat” is the extent of how our culture defines submission. Feminism has seen to that. Nobody knows what submission looks like, any more than we know what dominance looks like. They have both been reduced to caricatures and stereotypes.
    When someone tells a woman, “Submit to your husband but don’t be a doormat,” WHAT’S NEXT??? Gregoire can tell us what submission is not, but she doesn’t have a clue what it *is.* Almost nobody does. “Submission doesn’t mean being a doormat,” is a good way to introduce the topic. Without the rest of the speech, the part about what submission does mean, it gives women a free pass (that ironically some of them don’t want) to define it relative to personal experience and perspective. This is why I went on a tear about it the other day. The nature of submission needs to be brought out into the light. It’s in the Bible. However, it doesn’t reach most Christian women because the church either twists its meaning, or discounts it altogether (“Oh its like the rules against pork and shellfish. We don’t need that anymore.”) And it reaches even fewer secular women.

    Women need to understand submission so they can submit; men need to understand it so they can recognize it when they see it.

    The most “empowering” thing I’ve ever done is to submit to my husband, not because it gave me power over him, but because it gave me power over myself. It gave meaning to the identities I took on when I became “WolfAlpha’s Wife” and “Lance Criminal’s Mom,” both of which I did because I wanted “Suz” to be more than the girl she always was.
    (Yes, I hate that word too, but it makes people sit up and pay attention. Especially women.)

  15. What word do you hate, Suz?

  16. Dalrock says:

    @Suz

    Gregoire can tell us what submission is not, but she doesn’t have a clue what it *is.*

    In Sheila’s defense she really has spelled this out. It means giving your husband a list of chores so he can feel included in the household you manage. Just be careful not to become a doormat while your husband spins around the house cleaning like the Tasmanian devil.

  17. Suz says:

    “Empowering,” especially as applied to grrrlz.

  18. Suz says:

    Oh, right. Sorry, Dalrock, I got distracted…

  19. I still think we need a full list of chores for the good wife. We could call it Sheila’s List.

  20. ukfred says:

    I can’t remember where I first saw the concept. If it was your idea and I haven’t given you credit for it, please claim the credit. All I know is that it was not my idea. The idea of husband and wife being captain and first officer of a ship springs to mind as a good analogy for how a marriage should work.

  21. Violence against women…..crime
    Abortion……a right
    Divorce…….a need

  22. Ariane says:

    @Suz– “empowerment” gaaaaah. Right along with “you deserve”, “give yourself permission”, “don’t put yourself last…” and all that other baloney. I have to avoid actively making a face and shuddering when I hear this load of garbage.

  23. The Antigrrrl says:

    isn’t violence against anyone usually a crime?

  24. Jason says:

    Hi Dalrock,

    I am really enjoying this series of yours. Thanks.

    Just wanted to offer one small bit of pushback. You observe that

    “In an age where wives are openly rebelling against the biblical command to submit to their husbands, in classic feminist form Sheila is consumed by fear that wives might submit too much to their husbands”

    Although this is true, this is unfortunately a rather universal blindspot of the church throughout history on all sorts of issues. They are most diligent about issues that aren’t actually a problem, while ignoring ones that are. Screaming about the need for fire prevention and while the flood waters are rising as it where.

    You find it all over the place. In the theological arena, you see groups of arminians desperately concerned about the need to avoid extreme fatalism while they slide off into the heresy of open theism.

    So it isn’t just unique to the this area, it is a common condition in the church.

    Unfortunately the result of this behavior generally is that you can expect to get beaten up for sounding the siren on a real problem because it looks to many like you are trying to advocate for the position everybody is most afraid of at the moment.

    Still fight the good fight, you do a valuable service and things must turn around eventually as they always do.

    Jason

  25. CS Lewis, Jason?

  26. Jacquie says:

    Suz, That word is inappropriately used anyway since the definition of it is to give authority to somebody. Seizing, grabbing or stealing authority is much different than being given authority. Even the alternate definitions and synonyms don’t fit the usage; allow, sanction, give power to, etc. all have to do with being given as opposed to taking. It reminds me of the word entitled.
    I can see why it bothers you so.

  27. Jacquie says:

    “The idea of husband and wife being captain and first officer of a ship springs to mind as a good analogy for how a marriage should work.”

    The first time I saw the analogy used was by Athol on MMSL.

    I also saw another use of captain I thought fit well, written on Red Pill Room in discussing if husband and wife both work and the wife makes more money, how that plays into the equation of the husband in headship. He wrote, ‘So step up and be the Captain. Drive the boat while she fishes.’ That helps keep things in perspective.

  28. Great saying, Jacquie. Now that I am retired and my wife still works, I “drive the boat while she fishes”.

  29. wfprice says:

    First, a woman who calls herself Christian and presumes to preach to men should be shut down immediately. That’s a no-no. I’ve been following the nun controversy with some amusement, because most liberal commenters are portraying nuns as these innocent, sweet holy types, whereas any Catholic who grew up in the Catholic church knows that they are bullies. Nuns have been tyrants in the US Catholic church since at least the 1940s.

    Now, it seems to me that Evangelical women have taken on the same arrogant, pushy attitude. In the Catholic church, that led to rampant lesbianism, feminism and, of course, heresy. It took the Catholics decades to address the problem, but finally they are doing so, despite screaming from the usual suspects.

    From the beginning, the Christian church has been an institution led by men. The gall of these women demanding that the church subjugate their husbands for them is breathtaking, and it suggests only a couple of responses. First, reject any women who take on any authority over men in the name of Christianity. They are in direct violation of church doctrine. Secondly, reject any men who enable them in this. I really think it should be made clear that any preachers, priests and ministers who cooperate in establishing female leadership in churches must be shunned by any and all male congregants. Let Stanton and Driscoll lead entirely female flocks; let them be rams rather than shepherds, because that’s all they are. Rams, as we all know, are fit for sacrifice. Men should abandon female churches immediately when preachers fall in league with harridans. Don’t set foot in the church; don’t give it a dime. There is first a contract between Jesus and the church, and then there is a contract between the church and its male followers. Finally, there is a contract between the male congregants and their wives.

    It goes like this:

    God –> Church –> Men –> Wives

    Women who speak out of turn are placing themselves before the church and men. This is prohibited by scripture. If you take scripture as truth, God is not pleased with them. Preachers who enable them are quite clearly engaged in heresy. Don’t just take my word for it — read the Bible.

    Of course, the women will not shut up of their own accord, which is why we have to hold the preachers responsible. If they are defying the Word of God, what right do they have to call themselves men of God?

    Behind every shameless whore is a pimp who covers for her. Such is the state of Christianity in the West today.

    I am so incensed by this that I am going to create a resource for Christian men to deal with this amongst themselves. Although I do not consider myself a moral authority in this matter, the church has sunk so low that even I feel it is my duty to take a shovel to the gutter, and I’m not afraid to get my hands dirty.

  30. wfprice

    Sheila’s problem is that her female mind can grasp what she has been told, a smattering of excuses to explain away scripture. But she lacks the fuller intelligence of a man. Women are fine at teaching, under the authority of a man. And repeating what a man in authority permits her to say. Nuns were fine when ruled by bishops. Feral, no.

    Behind every feminist and Christo-feminist is something a man wrote. They are vessels for male ideas, just the wrong ones.

  31. 7man says:

    @wfprice

    I encourage you to do that or support Christian Men’s Defense Network. The time is short and the devastating repercussions will probably be felt in within the next few months.

    I encourage everyone to listen to the Hagmann & Hagmann Report interview with Steve Quayle. This is worth thinking about because the current world, domestic and economic situation will not resolve happily.

  32. pb says:

    ukfred:
    “The idea of husband and wife being captain and first officer of a ship springs to mind as a good analogy for how a marriage should work.”

    Athol Kay?

  33. The Continental Op says:

    Seizing, grabbing or stealing authority

    The word for that is “usurping.”

  34. Brendan says:

    Nuns were fine when ruled by bishops. Feral, no.

    And there is no authority for such feral nuns, either. It’s a total novelty.

  35. Nuns were all ultimately under the authority of bishops, at least the Bishop of Rome.

    Nuns were silly too, in my day, but they were silly in a good way. They used to relate pious stories and pass on the folk culture. But now they are silly in a bad way. There is nothing wrong with thinking like a woman in principle. It is just that the silly, flighty, feminine intellectual style can be very dangerous if it becomes unmoored from masculine reality.

    Oddly, my wife seems to understand this instinctively. So does her mother, I think. They seem to know when it is time to defer to men, including priests.

  36. will says:

    @wfprice
    1 timothy 2:11-15
    11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

    Thus saith the lord through paul. For to permit a woman to have authority over man including teaching is an inversion of the natural order.

  37. Also, “the head of every woman is the man”. Sheila should perhaps be at least clearing what she writes as public teaching with a man.

  38. Anonymous Reader says:

    isn’t violence against anyone usually a crime?

    In some US states, a man who is attacked physically by his wife will be arrested if police are called thanks to “mandatory arrest” laws. So the answer to your question is “no, not if it is a woman committing violence against a man in some circumstances”.

    Welmer, always good to see your thoughts. A resource such as you describe can only be a good thing.

    David Collard, some Catholic nuns such as the Maryknolls have been hotbeds of Marxism since the 1970’s. “Liberation theology” was very popular in some parts of the Catholic church, especially among such groups as the Maryknolls. Maryknolls were involved to varying degrees with the Marxist groups in Central America in the 1970’s and 1980’s, for example.

    Also, some women’s groups in the RC church have been heavily involved in “goddess worship” since the late 1980’s. The RC church has an uphill fight ahead if there is really going to be any serious effort to bring nuns into discipline, because there are surely bishops and even cardinals who came to authority in the 80’s and 90’s that will work to protect their Marxist sisters, although not necessarily in an open fashion.

  39. AR, yes. The Church moves slowly. This should have been done decades ago. I suspect that Rome fears an Americanist schism. Also, to be machiavellian, I suspect Rome thinks the old bags remaining in the feral orders are a spent force now. Many of the younger nuns are veiled, feminine and obedient.

    Incidentally, I distinguish between women like Suz and Jacquie, who are 1) explicitly covered by a male authority, 2) simply restating truth in most cases, and 3) not purporting to teach in an official way – and cases like Sheila Gregoire.

    One sociologically important lesson I learned recently is this. Women who effectively rule their husbands are easier to undermine. They find it hard to cope with a head-on challenge, unless they are protected by strong blog moderation, for example (some are not). And they cannot rely on protection from their emasculated husband and male supporters. I have seriously damaged two Femdom sites lately because of this sociological fact. Also, women’s weak point is their bodies.

  40. I made this very argument over on CF the other day:

    I don’t see ANYWHERE in the Bible that remotely suggests that either spouse should dictate the terms of service for their partner. When someone raises the point that Jesus was a leader because He gave of Himself I think it’s necessary to point out that we as believers didn’t get to decide when, where and how He died in order for us to accept Him. If we don’t agree with how Christ sacrificed Himself or the conditions that He places upon His bride (such as entering into covenant by laying down their own lives) we can always choose to remain unmarried and call Him a tyrant. I don’t think rejecting Him is going to work out well for anyone.

  41. ray says:

    from the page of Sheila Wray Gregoire (yes Christ’s Voice to Women retains her maiden name as a gesture of obedience . . . to herself and her flock)

    http://sheilawraygregoire.com/frequentlyaskedquestionsc184.php

    “Her main focus is helping women get out of the cultural trap we often find ourselves in and figure out how to reflect Jesus in our homes, our families, and our communities”

    another American female preaching how Jesus is best reflected

    no authority, no nothing except rebellion

    worse, she makes an entire business out of presuming to understand Christ sufficiently to preach how he ought be reflected

    books, dvds, events, marriage conferences, women’s retreats, it goes on

    all in the Holy Name of our precious Lord, whose blood is still before us

    here, the Critical Question of Christendom at last is answered: “Will Sheila do workshops?”

    thus spake Sheila Wray Gregoire, preacher and minister, interpreter of God:

    “At this time Sheila is focusing on keynote addresses at conferences. However, she is willing to do workshops at some larger conferences”

    regrettably just the Larger Conferences (the big money you dorkass rubes) don’t fools like you understand that Sheila Wray Gregore is focusing on KEYNOTE ADDRESSES at this time?

    honestly . . . may the Lord help Sheila to keep Her Patience amid such incompetence

    oh btw here’s the header at the top of the page:

    “No Pretensions. Just Real Life, and Real Solutions.”

    Sheila and Co. are in a lot of trouble

  42. She should dump the maiden name. Total insult to her husband.

  43. The realization that is still slowly soaking in is this either Jesus>Husband>Wife OR it is Wife>”Jesus*”>Husband.

    * Jesus defined as whatever it takes to properly tame the husband and turn him into a blubbering panty-waist. Not to be confused with the Alpha and Omega, Jesus is a tool and so is the husband. This is the “liberty” in Jesus they were always promised in Sunday school, you always get what you want even if it means you have to prostitute yourself to get it.

  44. @ DC: Yes but it is such clear communication, we all know exactly what we are seeing, just like her husband should have. None of her Christian lexicon destruction should come as a surprise after one see’s the simple inclusion of “Wray” in her name.

  45. Yes, of course. That is why, much as I like Jonah Goldberg, I have little respect for him. His wife “kept her name”. That is, her father’s surname. Women don’t have their own surnames really.

    A man who lets his wife keep her maiden name has lost at least one of his balls before the marriage begins.

  46. freebird says:

    Because they cared not for the Truth they were given a strong delusion.
    This is the spirit of anti-christ, and
    That is what’s ruling the secular churches today,that and $$.
    Sad to see churches helping to destroy marriages.
    But then again, the real Teeth is in the LAW.
    Yeah, pay that tribute to Caesar,except he wants your soul as well as your money.
    I don’t think that’s what the scriptures had in mind…

  47. locard says:

    FB post from Mark Driscoll…..

    For the first time in the nation’s history the majority of births to women under 30 are out of wedlock. The bar for fatherhood is now so low just making the birth certificate is a win.

    Best reply by far:
    Not true Justin. Men want relationships without commitment or responsibility. Most are boys who want to be taken care of. Im 31 and own a home…have an amazing career and want to settle down. Many of my friends have started considering adoption outside of marriage including myself. I have faith that Jesus has the right guy out there for me, but it gets harder and harder all the time not to doubt.

  48. locard says:

    She goes on:

    ” In the past it was shameful for a man not to marry a woman he got pregnant out of wedlock….now those same men unload all the shame on the women and they raise the children alone. Remember God sought Adam in the Garden first.”

  49. Maybe others know of this…..I know of one man who hyphenated his name along with wife hyphenating hers, too awkward , he as a guy I did biz w/.

    I assume in several countries because Im sure this isnt unique, but in Czech Rep and Slovakia where I am on biz trips alot, the women add a suffix to the husbands last name, I really like that system. You need no wedding ring or Mrs. moniker to know she is married. They simply add “ova” to the husbands last name and that’s her last name. This starts getting sideways with gay unions but thats another issue

  50. Suz says:

    There’s not much I can legitimately “teach” men. If I were to hold a “workshop” on marital submission, it would be for women, but a few men would be wise to listen in. Otherwise they might be unprepared for any positive changes in the one or two women I might actually influence. It’s not like they have much experience with submissive women; indeed I’d be concerned if the husbands weren’t at least a little skeptical.
    Visiting men’s sites, developing theories, and bouncing ideas off of critical thinkers, is the best way for me to learn. Here I’m relatively safe from the influence of feminism.

  51. Opus says:

    I have not (for obvious reasons) felt it appropriate to comment on any of the recent posts, nor did I have any particular view, yet I feel the following paragraph from Chapter V of The First Book of Volume of II of De Tocqueville might be worth considering. He wrote:

    ‘All the American clergy know and respect the intellectual supremacy excercised by the majority: they never sustain any but neccesary conflict with it. They take no share in the altercation of parties, but they readily adopt the general opinions of their country and their age: and they allow themselves to be borne away without opposition in the current feeling and opinion by which everything around them is carried along. They endeavour to amend their contemporaries, but they do not quit fellowship with them. Public opinion is therefore never hostile with them: it rather supports and protects them: and their belief owes its authority at the same time to the strength which is its own and to that which they borrow from the opinions of the majority.’

  52. Dalrock says:

    @ray

    from the page of Sheila Wray Gregoire (yes Christ’s Voice to Women retains her maiden name as a gesture of obedience . . . to herself and her flock)

    Do we know for sure it isn’t her middle name?

  53. gdgm+ says:

    *Sigh*… if we’re going to bring up people yelling on stage, rather than Mark Driscoll, I think the late Sam Kinison would be much better here. Crass language, volume and theology warnings, but a very funny 2 minutes.
    Jesus didn’t have a wife

  54. Opus…..very interesting and typical for him, very accurate, even through the ages

  55. krakonos says:

    @empathologicalism
    You have it wrong. The suffix comes to any last name which you have (when you are a woman). It does not matter if you are married or a toddler. This is common in slavic languages.
    BTW: Even last names of foreigners (women) are altered.

  56. ray says:

    PD — yeah i considered that too then decided didnt matter, didnt try to look it up

    if it is her middle name, the point remains, that esp in her position as self-appointed Priestess Over Women, use of the three names infers retention of maiden name, and thus suggests rebellion/sovereignty/independence to her female disciples — who v much want to hear exactly that message

    in interest of full disclosure lol i will gladly retract the maiden name stuff should Wray be her middle name, hows that?

    Suz — “There’s not much I can legitimately “teach” men. If I were to hold a “workshop” on marital submission, it would be for women, but a few men would be wise to listen in.”

    no Suz, men would not be “wise” to attend your workshops on marriage, any more than men (or women) are wise to spend money on Sheila Wray Gregiore’s “Christian Conferences” and “Marriage Seminars” and “Womens Retreats” that Christ would rather see given to the poor (or probly used for almost ANYTHING constructive)

    after visiting Sheila’s page, and realizing she’s not alone working this particular scam, i understand that not only should women not teach men (in spiritual or any other context) but women also should not teach women either — esp about the Bible, spirituality, culture, marriage, or anything else besides education related to chlld care, domestic duties, etc

  57. Dalrock says:

    @ray

    if it is her middle name, the point remains, that esp in her position as self-appointed Priestess Over Women, use of the three names infers retention of maiden name, and thus suggests rebellion/sovereignty/independence to her female disciples — who v much want to hear exactly that message

    I just looked up the word Wray in her “I don’t have a headache” book. It looks like it is in fact her maiden name. From the Acknowledgements:

    Many thanks to Susan Douglas, Karen Dorey, Lisa Wood, and, as always, my mother Elizabeth Wray…

    I have some more gems from Sheila lined up for tomorrow in the finale to this series.

  58. ray says:

    ok thx for doing my homework (there seems no end of it which is why i cut that corner)

    I have some more gems from Sheila lined up for tomorrow in the finale to this series

    look forward to it, however, despite my mondo faith in you, i do not believe you can top this for the 2012 CogDis Champeenship of Erf:

    “No Pretensions. Just Real Life, and Real Solutions.”

    [followed by]

    “At this time Sheila is focusing on keynote addresses at conferences. However, she is willing to do workshops at some larger conferences”

    :O) hee hee!

    consider yourself challenged, the world yr oyster

  59. Suz might be best simply speaking to women, and reminding them of the traditional teachings. No “ministry” or pretence of preaching.

    Even doing this on the Internet would be good.

    What women forget is that they are still under the curse of Eve. St Paul makes this clear. This means, no trying to “teach” or claim official authority. They are to learn and ask questions to clarify. Discussion is fine, but they eventually should check any new ideas with proper male authority. I would read the approved writings of a woman saint, but not Sheila Wray’s ramblings.

  60. The Antigrrrl says:

    women are called to teach and train their children and their younger sisters.

    Titus 4:
    The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
    4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
    5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

  61. Suz says:

    Yes, Antigrrrl. We are.
    David:
    “…but they eventually should check any new ideas with proper male authority.”

    Exactly. Who’s going to rein in what women are teaching each other if wise men don’t “listen in?” It’s been pretty well established that women under the influence of each other, can get, er, slightly off track. However many women I reach, and in whatever venue, my discussions with “proper male authority” are essential.
    “Visiting men’s sites, developing theories, and bouncing ideas off of critical thinkers, is the best way for me to learn. Here I’m relatively safe from the influence of feminism.”

  62. Yes, Suz, but who is your masculine authority? It probably depends on what type of Christian you are. I think you are saying that you will defer to a consensus of men at places like this. But don’t forget your husband. How does he fit in? In the NT it says that wives should discuss anything they don’t understand with their husbands, if I recall correctly.

  63. Suz says:

    No, David, I wouldn’t automatically defer to a consensus of strange men from cyberspace. (You may have noticed, blind acquiescence is hardly my strong suit!) I’m in the Manosphere to educate myself, and lend my support where I can. WolfAlpha fits in pretty much where he want to, as is his habit: He’s not really interested in the details and specifics of these conversations, but he approves of most of the views I’m developing. He’s warned me not to become too narrow in my focus, and I think he’s right (although sometimes I first have to stop and consider….) For instance, he’s fine with sarcastic generalizations and blaming the blameworthy, but he doesn’t want me influenced by bitter or perpetually angry people. And while he has no problem with people criticizing my ideas, he gets irritated when people try to manipulate me emotionally. He has told me to avoid people who bully me, but to keep in mind the difference between bullying and reasonable disagreement. In this situation, submitting doesn’t feel at all like work. (But you should see how hard I have to bite my tongue over this house-hunting crap! Ugh!)

  64. Sounds good. I assume WolfAlpha is your husband.

  65. ray says:

    (But you should see how hard I have to bite my tongue over this house-hunting crap! Ugh!)

    i know a lot of homeless guys Suz they have house-hunting woes too, small world aint it

    pleased to hear you reined in yr annoyance and wrath from the stress

    WolfAlpha? suz you made this name up come on! with 2 caps? i havent seen Avengers but i think thats one of the characters?

  66. Elspeth says:

    I appreciate the honorable mention, Dalrock.

  67. Anonymous Reader says:

    ray
    i know a lot of homeless guys Suz they have house-hunting woes too,

    How many? How many is “a lot” of homeless guys?

  68. Suz says:

    Hah! Yes, I made it up for my blog (and I’ll pitch a miniature hissy fit if some screenwriter steals it.) “WolfAlpha” suits my husband’s personality. He’s in charge of his territory and his pack, he actively taught his “pup” (now “Lance Criminal,” USMC) how to be a proper wolf. he also knows how to pick his battles, which gives him the freedom to occasionally sprawl out in the sunshine and relax. He’s a good man and I’m lucky to have him.

    “i know a lot of homeless guys Suz they have house-hunting woes too, small world aint it”

    Yes, we know we’re in a very fortunate situation – a pay increase and a buyers’ market. However, living in different states for the past 4 months, while house-hunting long distance, has been a challenge.

  69. ray says:

    they wouldnt steal it for a guy, mebbe for a female lead — sounds like something a female author would use for a male in a romance novel about vampiric werewolves who ravish lonely wives repeatedly when theyre not sprawling in the sunshine displaying the sleek superiority of luxury hours

    “he also knows how to pick his battles”

    LOL! you never give u do ya suz?

  70. ray says:

    How many? How many is “a lot” of homeless guys?

    741

  71. Suz says:

    He doesn’t have to pick his battles with me. ONCE in 24 years, did I need something worth fighting for. I hated every minute of it, especially being right, because that meant he was wrong. I have never been more scared in my life than when I had to be the strong one.

    I chose my husband carefully.

    You just described a really bad book that would make millions as a movie. Maybe I should copyright “WolfAlpha.”

  72. ray says:

    thx for the biblical instruction Suz and Antigrrl — i figgered someone from The Group would rush to Titus

    my phine pheatherd pharisees!

    i wrote: “women also should not teach women either — esp about the Bible, spirituality, culture, marriage, or anything else besides education related to chlld care, domestic duties, etc”

    there’s nothing in Titus to contradict this, nor to contradict my criticism of Gregoire — and in fact the passage in Titus is specifically restricted to the LIMITED instruction by AGED women (are Suz and Antigrrl and Sheila Gregoire AGED ELDERS?) of YOUNG WOMEN

    female instruction is severely limited by scope and by age of instructor/instructee — Titus does NOT give instructive permission to ALL WOMEN, nor to EVERY AGE OF FEMALE READING YOUR WISDOM ON THE INTERNET, nor to the audiences of Sheila Wray Gregoire, who decidely do not fit the strict parameters of Titus as “young women”

    nor Suz does Titus permit you instruction of men, anywhere or anytime — the author of Titus does not agree with you that it would be “wise” for “a few men to listen in” at your workshops (along with the other non-young-women you arent supposed to be “teaching”)

    beyond this, i cleave to Christ’s word and the words of the prophets — i am no fundie and it is misguided to equate proverbs or titus or any apostolic work with the prophets

    the author of Titus does not grant permission for females to interpret and/or preach scripture, in the pulpit or anywhere else

    Titus’ “aged” women teaching the female young a short list of obediences to God and husband is a zillion miles from current license for women to instruct about cultural, biblical, and spiritual issues free-range and without male supervision in the churches, in the schools, on the internet, and every place else

    the result has been a DISASTER yet The Group responds to calls for obedience (instead of endless argument) with Letters of the Law that, even so, you did not understand, could not interpret correctly, and failed to follow by the evidence of your own words

    go find some other stuff in the bible now, this is kinda fun

  73. ray says:

    You just described a really bad book that would make millions as a movie. Maybe I should copyright “WolfAlpha.”

    it’d sell as a bodice ripper

    copyright it immediately also gobble up all related net domain names (do it now Dalrock is Very Big and word will leak quickly)

    the vampiric werewolf combo is a sure winner, already suggested by the twinned name

  74. Cane Caldo says:

    You’re wrong, Ray. Even by your own standards your wrong: Suz has 24 years, and a grown child from her marriage. She’s not a young woman unless she got married at 12 (no offense, Suz).

    That’s the flip side of my desire to hear less from them in the manosphere. There is a legitimate audience for Suz, Antigrrl, etc. Elspeth’s blog is an excellent example, in my opinion. I try not to stink up the place with my comments. Though, sometimes my ego gets the better of me.

  75. ray says:

    Cane Caldo — You’re wrong, Ray. Even by your own standards your wrong:

    proof? analysis? “youre wrong” is not v convincing

    ok let’s grant that single point you have so helptully isolated out of the entire comment, and say Suz qualifies to teach as an “aged woman” according to Titus (tho in imparting all that info about Suz you didnt manage to actually establish her age)

    so i’m also wrong (even “by my own standards” whatever that means) that suz is unbiblical in instructing females other than “young women” per Titus? does “young women” mean something to you other than “young women”? (and what was meant in Titus by that wasnt 25 year olds, but girls and teens)

    tho even if Paul meant 25 or 30 year olds — considered old maids in the ancient world — Suz and other female Christian “teachers” would be in violation of the Bible via Titus by teaching middle-aged and elderly females

    “That’s the flip side of my desire to hear less from them in the manosphere. There is a legitimate audience for Suz, Antigrrl, etc. Elspeth’s blog is an excellent example, in my opinion”

    look it wasnt ME that dredged out the authority of Titus to back up their words and behavior, that was suz and antigrl

    theyre all great blogs in your opinion, but that’s exactly the issue here (obedience vs opinon/will) — do we follow the opinion of Suz and Antigrll and Sheila Gregiore and Cane Caldo who know “great blogs” when they see them, and bestow their approval . . . or do we obey the Bible/Titus? and stop resisting those who DO obey?

    othewise the world is just everybody’s Opinion, ball o’ confusion, the (Babylonian) system we have now

    are suz, antigirl, elspeth, gregoire and the other female bloggers who provide “christian” advice, books, dvds, conferences, events, and workshops (when they suffer to descend to mere workshops!) adhering to the requirements of the scripture that Suz and Antigrl cited?

    are all (or even most ) of them “aged women” and do they limit their teaching strictly to “young women”? . . . and that, only within the categories of instruction cited in Titus?

    even granting the minor point concerning Suz’ age, still unsettled, looking forward to hearing your explanations of my error

  76. Patriarchy reasserted:

    http://ncronline.org/news/women-religious/options-facing-lcwr-stark-canon-lawyers-say

    Nuns have to place themselves “under the authority of an archbishop” or lose official status.

    The problems were the result of female disobedience and presuming to teach officially.

  77. Krokanos

    Thanks for correcting me, I could have sworn my Slovakian friend Pavol told me what I wrote there, but I guess Martina Navratilova was not married to a man named Navratil (though it is her family (male side) name…..I should have realized.

  78. MackPUA says:

    Isnt the Church doing what it does best?

    Co-opting & worshipping & creating a religion out of the culture of a society.

    Christianity has always been about worshipping culture …

    They worshipped traditionalism when it was popular to do so, & they worshipped catholicism & romanism before the advent of traditionalism.

    Christians have always been pagans & heathens, the fact theyre now worshipping & enabling sluts & whores & actively encouraging women to divorce their men in their churches, is no surprise …

    A religion based on heathenism & paganism, will always turn on men & their children, as goddess worship & gaia worship plays a massive part in paganism … ask any feminist man hating Wiccan …

    Feminism IS goddess worship, by allowing feminism into their churches, Christians are reverting back to their Paganism & heathen roots

  79. The Antigrrrl says:

    Using the most stringent standards possible, women would never be able to use the word “God” among themselves because they might accidently “teach” each other something. A friend and I, discussing our different struggles and instructing and supporting each other on how we deal with issues, would be in disobedience under those rules.

  80. Krakonos says:

    @empathologicalism
    It’s OK. And do not forget it is applied to foreign women too. If you see “Hillary Clintonová” one day you will know which old hag is ment :) .

  81. Comment_Whatever says:

    Actually, to really be blunt, women would benefit from accepting criticism from people who don’t have a vagina. And no, they don’t.

    Look at Twilight. It tells young women that it is okay to have a boyfriend who fantasizes about killing you and “everything will be okay”.

    And yes, women who think of themselves as “good mothers” let their children read Twilight. You are a horrible mother if you let your daughter read Twilight. A miserable failure as a parent.

    Does anyone want to even compare that with the “serious problem of pornography”?

    Now, I’m not talking about the MORAL problems, I’m talking about the “bat-shit crazy ending up dead behind a dumpster” problem. Though sure, we can talk about the MORAL difference between the to as well.

    Practically, Little Johnie becoming a little to obsessed with large breast size is a lot less likely to end up with that particular problem.

    We are at a point in a culture where “blocking out” opinions differing from what the moronic majority has been trained to think is the norm. Thus they are free to believe some epically retarded things.

  82. dragnet says:

    @ David Collard

    It will interesting to see how this turns out—if the Vatican is willing to see this through to the end despite the inevitable hue-and-cry that will result.

    If they do, this could be the first step toward returning to traditional teachings about marriage and family as well. For too long, the Vatican has only cared about gays and contraception—total irrelevancies compared to the epidemic of single motherhood, rampant divorce theft and misandry.

    I was raised in a very religious household—my father is a Baptist preacher—but have since become agnostic. However I recognize the value of institutions that support and enforce traditional marriage. If the state won’t do it then the churches must, because if they don’t there really is no one.

  83. Pingback: Reframing Christian marriage part 5: sex as a weapon. | Dalrock

  84. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ray, how is it that you know so many homeless men?

  85. Cane Caldo says:

    Ray, I apologize for letting my polity cloud my meaning.I’ll speak clearly now.

    Being wrong even by your own standards means you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground. All you know is that it’s dark in there.

    It follows that you don’t understand that when St. Paul says that older women should instruct the younger women, he meant that the women who have spent more years on Earth ought to teach the women who have been here less. For example, a woman of 44 could–with biblical approval–teach a woman of 12, 22, or even 32 a good bit of comparative wisdom. Of course, those teachings should actually be wise, and not destructive.

    Which, by the way, is a point you accidentally made in your ramblings above, but then overlooked because of that ass-hole conundrum.

  86. Suz says:

    Ray,
    “look it wasnt ME that dredged out the authority of Titus …”
    Nor was it me. I don’t presume to “instruct” men on anything from a position of authority. I have been known to offer advice to younger women who struggle with issues that I’ve faced. I’m 48. Also don’t write a Christian blog. And btw, who cares?

    Speaking of “single points” isolated from entire comments, you forgot to mention the process of blowing them hugely out of proportion and assigning to them a vary narrow interpretation, ironically full of potential theoretical implications. Here’s an example: “Men would be wise to listen in.” To you, Ray, that seems to mean, “Men had darn well better listen to what I have to say!” or maybe, “Men are such idiots, they need my help.”
    There are actually quite a few good reason why men “would be wise” to pay attention to what women are telling each other. The world is full of concepts that don’t neatly match up, word for word, with random phrases in the Bible. It may surprise you to discover that the concepts themselves are still addressed in the Bible, but with more subtlety than your “Keyword Search” approach. There is a difference between “wisdom” and blindly parrotting phrases from a book full of wisdom.

    Once again, you’ve managed to engineer an entire dialog out of a moot point. You had to add your “spin” to it to make it even remotely relevant. But it makes you feel superior, doesn’t it? Here’s a thought: Since you’re so keen to point out my (and just about everyone else’s) weaknesses, why don’t you chastise me for allowing myself to be suckered into responding to (and therefore reinforcing) your self-aggrandizing little tirades? Believe me, every time I do it, I regret it.

  87. elm says:

    I have heard the advice before ‘don’t become a doormat’. But it was meant in the context of: “Don’t passive-aggressively make a martyr of yourself. Don’t keep resentfully doing chores and making quiet sacrifices while seething underneath the surface.”

    I think that happens a lot in modern marriages. The wife stores up reasons to complain that she herself is responsible for by refusing to ask for help, or voice her feelings, or make her opinion known. Then she feels justified in lashing out, or ‘finding herself’ or any number of destructive behaviors.

    I suppose there are men who make passive-aggressive martyrs of themselves too. I just see mostly females doing it. In any case, it’s not helpful to a marriage.

  88. Brendan says:

    @ David Collard

    It will interesting to see how this turns out—if the Vatican is willing to see this through to the end despite the inevitable hue-and-cry that will result.

    If they do, this could be the first step toward returning to traditional teachings about marriage and family as well. For too long, the Vatican has only cared about gays and contraception—total irrelevancies compared to the epidemic of single motherhood, rampant divorce theft and misandry.

    @Dragnet and David —

    It’s perhaps a first step. The Vatican moves at a very slow pace, in general, but there are some quite bright boys over there. The issue with the nuns is that they were basically placing themselves outside of the authority of the Church — so the Vatican, after warning them about ten years ago (again, they move slowly), decided to step in and reassert that authority in a rather pushy way. I would expect, as well, that while they would welcome repentance and a return to the fold of canonical obedience for the nuns in question, they likely do not expect this from the “hardcore”, and the hope may be to push these women out of recognized Catholic religious life due to failure to obey canonical authority.

  89. ray says:

    Cane Caldo — Being wrong even by your own standards means you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground. All you know is that it’s dark in there.

    you begin by telling me that “i’m wrong” while citing no evidence or justification, then follow up with no response to my biblical points, except for a (weak) personal attack

    v manly, v Christian

  90. Cane Caldo says:

    Ray, that’s just a flat out lie. You’re either a troll, or delusional.

  91. ray says:

    Ray, how is it that you know so many homeless men?

    how could i help knowing them? theyre everywhere . . . all over the cites and countryside, heck in this single rural county there there are over 1000 homeless vets (meaning males)

    extrapolate that and you get the picture

    uh, and i think the correct number i know is actually 14,829, not 741 :O)

    it might also be 577 . . . i could verify that if youre still interested!

    if youre living in the u.s., i’d ask how you could NOT know many homeless men — but of course that’s part of the problem — suffering males are invisible and despised in our matriarchies, whereas every mosquito bite received by a female requires new legislation, aid programs, monetary advantages, and enforcement agencies to ensure compliance

    my personal involvement began back in the 80s, when i was working for the State, but doing a little “homeless outreach” on the side . . . after separating from the State i was homeless many times myself, most recently last fall

    the two groups of people that i find are (generally) closest to God currently are autistic folks (esp non-verbals) and homeless guys

    doesnt means ALL homeless/autistic are near to God, just means there’s a preponderance or perhaps predisposition there . . . it’s v obvious too

    check back w/me soon if you need my Revised Tally, it mightve been 775 instead of 577, i’m a little lesdyxic

  92. ray says:

    Suz — “I don’t presume to “instruct” men on anything from a position of authority”

    Suz, May 19 at 8:28 — “If I were to hold a “workshop” on marital submission, it would be for women, but a few men would be wise to listen in.”

    what’s the opinion-du-jour Suz? what’ll it be today? you dont instruct men on anything or they’d be wise to listen in?

    “you forgot to mention the process of blowing them hugely out of proportion and assigning to them a vary narrow interpretation, ironically full of potential theoretical implications. Here’s an example: “Men would be wise to listen in.” To you, Ray, that seems to mean, “Men had darn well better listen to what I have to say!” or maybe, “Men are such idiots, they need my help.””

    i imputed no such thing to you, nor did i anywhere suggest this, i merely objected to your instruction (esp biblical instruction) of men and of females above the age of “young” (per Titus, which YOU and Antigrll DID bring up, your denial notwithstanding, just scroll up)

    yr hystercial distraction about “men are such idiots” is only in yr own mind — you have to resort to suggesting sentiments i never had, offering statements i never made, and appealing to emotion/stirring up chivalry, b/c you have no refutation of my points, nor excuse for your rebellion

    “But it makes you feel superior, doesn’t it?”

    all you have offered Suz is all the grrlz and their enablers ever offer — personal attacks and shaming, with emotional appeals to third parties that you are being abused (i’m an “Attacker of women,” i’m arrogant, i need to feel superior, you know lots of women who’ve barely escaped from Batterers like me etc etc)

    it was Antigrrl with YOUR confirmation, Suz, that brought up Titus as defense for women’s preaching, teaching, workshops, dvds, etc (i’d have gone with Joel 2 — it’s closer to yr indefensible defense) . . . but you guys immediately grabbed for Titus, it’s the go-to verse these days to justify female ministers, rabbis, and related rebellions

    so i used YOUR citation and rassled the verse, illustrating that it does NOT mean what you and the Grrls want it to mean

    your response to that wasnt biblical citation or explanation, but more personal attacks — exactly the behavior i’ve witnessed the past half-century from your State and your “churches”

    no refutation of facts, no biblical or spiritual authority — just shaming, coercion, legalism, intimidation, attempts to exclude/silence, denials, force, and punishment

    you and the Group want to instruct other women, men “would be wise” to listen-in to yr teachings and workshops, but you are children, and worse, children of babylon . . . and babylon’s females already have enough “teachers” who tell them whatever they wish to hear, and one more woman with a career in Christian Counseling only worsens the trouble

  93. Suz says:

    Delusional. That was epic.

  94. The Antigrrrl says:

    It would be wise for men to listen in so they could correct her if needed and make sure she doesn’t get into heresy. And I have never, ever, in my entire life advocated for female priests. For someone who complains loudly about shaming language, you sure resort to it quickly.

  95. dragnet, funny I had the same thought this morning. John Paul II was very starry-eyed about people in general, including women. I think that Benedict is much more realistic. It would be nice to see him, or the next pope, reiterate a few basic traditional teachings, such as the authority of the husband and the subordination of the wife. It irritated me that JPII gave wives a bit of a pass, given that he never had to deal with one himself. Maybe seeing what a pain in the arse nuns can be has given Rome a reminder that women are not angels.

    The natural order must be constantly restated. The man is the head of the woman. Women are certainly entitled to discuss issues and write books and so on. But as soon as they purport to teach officially, they create trouble. There is a conservative priest blogger, Fr Zuhlsdorf who refers sarcastically to the “magisterium of nuns”. That is the problem in a nutshell. Women purporting to lay down the law. (As a Catholic, I view Sheila Gregoire as another example of the same deplorable phenomenon.)

    The Antigrrrl, that was precisely what the Vatican was doing. Listening patiently to women to make sure they were not leading each other into heresy. As Brendan said, Rome moves very slowly but with considerable forethought. Rome realised that the girls were on a rampage, but tried to rein them in. Really, those nuns had every chance. And they took it to show over and over again how crazy they are. I think Rome has learned from this. Women really cannot be trusted without close male supervision.

    My earlier point stands too. Sheila Wray Gregoire would have been told to shut up by now if she had been purporting to teach as a Catholic woman with a public ministry. She is a Protestant, so she gets away with it.

  96. Cane Caldo says:

    DC
    Speaking of Rome moving slowly ( and because DC won’t give out an email address) I went to a FSSP RCC this morning for a cousin’s first communion. Very intriguing. The first thing I noticed was how good-looking the congregation was; both sexes.

  97. Yeah, CC, there are some cute Traddie chicks. They look especially cute with their heads covered. I used to get the missus along like that, in a veil, or latterly a hat.

    Women don’t get this, to generalise. Being a bit feminine and submissive is sexy. Being “empowered” is not.

    The FSSP Latin Mass is the one I have attended most in recent years. But I do go to English masses as well.

  98. CC, I don’t give out my email address for commonsense reasons. Also, I have another persona, blogging under my real name on science. A couple of times, one of my personas has referenced the other in a thread, or once I commented under both personas on the same thread, altho’ that was mainly by accident.

    Incidentally, I appear to have shut down that dominatrix site I mentioned before. One of the dominatrices asked me for my email. But I told her, no. I think I managed to game her a bit, and she made a bit of a fool of herself online. I probably intrigued her.

  99. Pingback: Christian Marriage | Air & Space

  100. Elspeth says:

    [is elspeth] adhering to the requirements of the scripture that Suz and Antigrl cited?

    I take great pains to do so Ray though I don’t claim 100% success. I have been harshly criticized on numerous occasions for reminding young Christian female bloggers with young children that they don’t have the authority to teach me (40yrs old, 18 years of marriage) anymore than I have the authority to teach a woman who’s been married 30 years and raised her children to adulthood.

  101. Suz says:

    Elspeth,
    Genuine authority involves more than age and experience. Wisdom and morality are also factors. Only a fool would reject wisdom due to the age or sex of the “teacher.” Indeed I have already learned from you, though by Ray’s standards you’re not qualified to teach me.

  102. Cane Caldo says:

    Authority is more than age and experience, but it is almost never less.

    There’s a point of sufficiency that is passed in age and experience after which a person should be viewed as having authority. Elspeth has passed that point. I don’t know you (online you, anyway) as well, but you probably have, too. You’re in the position of being able to teach each other.

    Teachers can teach students and teachers, but students should teach neither.

  103. GKChesterton says:

    @Cane,

    Well put. The problem isn’t women teaching in as much how they teach. Ray’s argument presses the case too far. For example a mother holds authority over her son until his majority. Most men would be good to at least give an ear to (but not be ruled by) older women. Paul gives Timothy advice in both directions and we have to hold that advice in tension.

  104. Elspeth says:

    Genuine authority involves more than age and experience. Wisdom and morality are also factors. Only a fool would reject wisdom due to the age or sex of the “teacher.” Indeed I have already learned from you, though by Ray’s standards you’re not qualified to teach me.

    Of course (and thank you Suz). I was thinking more about having the humility to appreciate that at 27 years of age and 5 years of marriage under one’s belt, there may be more to learn about wifehood before daring to teach others.

    You’d be very surprised to see how many “Biblical womanhood” blogs are out there authored by 20-somethings. I’ve even read a few wise gems on them back before I stopped reading the vast majority. I stopped reading them mainly because it quickly became clear to me how much these well-intentioned women didn’t understand. Not because they’re bad women, or even because they aren’t right on some issues. The youth and lack of experience eventually overshadows their ability to impart anything of importance.

    The great thing about them is that they’re young enough to be passionate and they have succumbed to shades of gray when such shades are really unhealthy compromise. The bad thing is that there’s really no way for a young healthy newlywed raised in a cloistered community to relate to women living in the real world.

  105. ray says:

    why would any secular man who has managed to retain any semblance of masculinity in your matriarchies ever want to join your “Christian” church denominations?

    he is already subjugated by females and their enablers at school, university, the workplace, the home, in the streets and forests, and by the feminist government in general

    he’s looking for a sanctuary FROM collective female power, which long ago conquered the west

    you pass out biblical teaching “authority” on your own whims, as if it’s yours to bestow, tho it comes ONLY from God . . . then cover it up with self-serving interpetations of scripiture, so women can continue to do what they wish (teach and rule)

    “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and WOMEN RULE OVER THEM”

    let’s hear The Group’s endless Clever Responses to that, shall we? doubtless i dont understand that verse either

    i’ve been listening to your “pastors” for fifty years, and that verse has never been mentioned (much less emphasized, much less supported in its condemnation of the ongoing domination of males by collective female power, IN THE CHURCHES especially)

    your females rebel openly, mock and isolate dissenters, and the “men” of your churches back them to the max, verbally and psychologically and physically and financially and legally

    what a f-ing joke, any real man would be forced out of your churches within a week, then you’d all pat yourselves on the back and forge ahead in comfortable apostasy

    the emasculated male “pastors” whine and cry on their radio networks that men wont come to their churches, that men wont shuffle off into their Assigned Break-Out Groups and play Pastor Pattycake, that men wont marry the damaged and disobedient women that the Church and State support in their rebellion and in their manipulations

    why wont men attend your false churches? scroll up, your own words convict you

  106. Pingback: Sell Me Marriage | The Society of Phineas

  107. Pingback: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the oh my god I can’t believe she’s wearing those heels with that skirt! | THE UNIVERSITY OF MAN

  108. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Purely Blogroll Selection Edition « Patriactionary

  109. Pingback: The Sheila Wray Gregoire School of Hamster Acrobatics | The Society of Phineas

  110. Pingback: - In search of the Uncorrupted Christian Leader: The Gospel Coalition | The Woman and the Dragon

  111. Pingback: Only if you make my husband do it too. | The Karamazov Idea

  112. Pingback: The Cowardly Pastor | Sunshine Mary

  113. Pingback: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the oh my god I can’t believe she’s wearing those heels with that skirt! « stagedreality

  114. Pingback: When submit in everything means “but not this thing.” | Sunshine Mary

  115. Pingback: Why Christian Men Choose Not to Get Laid Before Marriage | The Reinvention of Man

  116. Pingback: What a Typical Christian Wife Looks Like | The Reinvention of Man

  117. Pingback: The flower of rebellion. | Sunshine Mary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s