She who must be obeyed.

One thing I have to admit about Pastor Driscoll is that he is an incredibly talented preacher.  Part of this is his unmatched charisma and a gift for teaching.  He also has a highly developed understanding of his audience, and he knows how far he can safely push them.  This last gift gives us a unique window into modern Christian culture.

The overt message of Driscoll’s sermons on men and women is that modern Christian women are too passive and submissive, while the mass of Christian men are in rebellion, refusing all authority and misusing headship as an excuse for despotism.  Yet his preaching betrays just the opposite.  Driscoll knows Christian men are eager to submit to authority, and are delighted to be corrected.  He knows he can abuse the men in the congregation with impunity, and they will not only keep coming, but other men will learn of this and seek his church out.  He knows he can accuse the men of being abusive and lording their authority over their wives, and that delivering this message is an ideal opportunity to abuse the men while lording his authority over them.  Driscoll has no reason to fear the husbands and fathers in the congregation, and he knows this.  But Driscoll does have reason to fear the women in the congregation.  Our society celebrates feminist rebellion as the highest virtue, and this is part of modern Christian culture.  Even the mighty Driscoll fears this rebellion.

An excellent way to see this dynamic in action is to review Driscoll’s matched pair of sermons on biblical marriage roles;  one sermon is to the women, and the other is to the men a week later.  I’ve already written about the one to the men.  It is a sermon packed tightly with abuse and disparagement of the men in his congregation.  It is so tightly packed with abuse that this begins with the opening prayer and continues on even in the closing prayer.  When preaching to men, Driscoll has the boldness and self confidence of a bully who knows he has picked the right victim.  Yet when preaching to women his demeanor is one of fear.  We can see this in the other sermon in the pair, Driscoll’s sermon on Women and Marriage.

Driscoll knows the women in the congregation are in open rebellion against biblical marriage.  If he teaches biblical marriage roles for women he will become the focus of the rebellion of half of his congregation.  This is made worse because the source of this rebellion is the wives usurping headship, so as de facto heads of the family the women are the ones who hold the purse strings and ultimately decide which church the family will attend.  He knows that he couldn’t survive such a rebellion and remain in his position.  Yet teaching on biblical roles in marriage is one of Driscoll’s signatures.  He simply has to teach headship and submission, but he has to find a way to show that he has taught it without offending the women he is terrified of.

How Driscoll manages this is nothing short of fascinating.  He begins by taking a page out of Jacob’s playbook in Genesis 32 when he was terrified of meeting his brother Esau.  Driscoll starts by sending wave after wave of peace offerings to the wives he lives in fear of offending.  The first peace offering is an explanation that what he is going to teach today is optional for Christian wives, but he thinks they will be happier if they elect to adopt this optional form of marriage.  He also explains that while he believes what he is teaching to be true, it is highly controversial:

I’ll say this as well, that Christians disagree, actually often times very vocally, on this issue. You can be a Christian and disagree on this issue, but in my humble opinion it will have negative consequences if you are unbiblical in how you organize your marriage. You can be a Christian but I don’t think you can be a fully biblical happily married Christian as God intends, unless you obey the things that He has set forth as principles today.

The peace offerings don’t end there.  Next he reminds the wives that they have the power to punish their husband via the police or the church if they ever feel that he is sinning:

What this means is that the husband is not the highest authority, ok, God is.  And that over the husband there are other authorities like the government, we already dealt with that in chapter 2.  And the church, we will deal with that in chapter 5.  What that means is if a husband is in sin the wife and kids don’t need to live under unjust tyrany;  they appeal to the higher authorities of God, and the authorities which God has established both by the state.  She can call the cops, and the church, she can call the elders and begin church discipline.

For his next peace offering Driscoll assures the women that he isn’t just going to preach this week on the (optional) role of wives in 1 Pet 3:1-6.  He also has a sermon prepared for husbands next week on the (not optional) role of husbands in 1 Pet 3:7.

Proceeding forward to 1 Peter chapter 3. He says this, these are commands and exhortations to the ladies. I’m not just picking on the women this week, we’ll pick on the men next week as well so do come back.

Elsewhere in the sermon he reinforces this message (emphasis mine):

Submission Does Not Mean that a husband is in ultimate authority.  Above the husband is the church.  If he is sinning, call the elders, lets start church discipline.  Also, there is the government.  If he is breaking the law, call the police.  A husband is not an ultimate authority.  All of his authority is derived.  It’s derivative authority, it is not innate authority.  He’s not God.  Some guys think they are.  We’ll deal with those guys next week and it will be unpleasant.

He continues minimizing the authority of headship, then pivots to suggest that submission is only required if the husband is godly enough:

And this same word here for being subject to or submitted to is what kicked off the whole discussion of 1 Peter chapter 2, verse 18.  It is the theme of the second half of the book of 1st Peter.  Now, what we mean by be subject to or submit to is that the husband is to lovingly, humbly, sacrificially, selflessly, let me put lots of words behind this, lead his family.  And that the wife is to respect him and follow his leadership.

In doing this he has substituted a definition of headship for submission, and suggested that only wives with godly husbands need to submit.  This is the opposite of the message in the verses he is teaching (1 Peter 3:1-6).

With the waves of peace offerings complete, Driscoll finally starts to get to the meat of the issue.  First he explains that ideally husbands and wives should be able to come to agreement.  It is only when they are unable to come to agreement that headship applies.  He further explains that headship doesn’t apply to day to day decisions.  If the husband and wife disagree on anything but a “big” issue, the husband is to give the wife what she wants:

Those are easy, just give her what she wants. Those are easy. Just love her, serve her, do what she wants.  What we are talking about here are big issues. When do we start having kids. When do we buy a house. What house do we buy. How many kids do we have, where do we attend church. Some big monumental cataclysmic life decisions. The big ones.

Having excluded headship and submission from all but a handful of occasions in married life, Driscoll then further restricts headship.  He explains that for these rare occasions where a husband and wife don’t agree on a “big” issue, the husband is to do one of three things.  Driscoll’s rules of headship can be summarized as:

  1. Delay (do nothing)
  2. Defer (let someone else decide)
  3. Decide

The first choice of a husband is to do nothing, and instead to wait for his wife to agree:

What do you do? Well at that point, the husband has three options. Number one, he can just prayerfully wait for his wife to come to agreement with him. And this isn’t that immediately that the man makes the decision the wife has to submit to it.    There are various things that as the head the man can do.  The first can be, you know what, my wife is strugling with this, I want to be considerate, I want to be patient, as God is considerate and patient with me.  I’m going to love her, pray with her, talk to her, we are going to work through all of the variables, and I think she is going to come around I just need to wait a while.

The next option Driscoll presents is to give the authority to someone else:

 Number two: The husband may decide to appeal to a higher authority. He may choose to bring in a mediator. We are deadlocked. I’m going to call a Pastor or a biblical counselor, or an older married couple that we both really respect, and we are going to let them play the role of umpire and we are going to let them make the call. A husband may want to defer that decision.

Up until now Driscoll has been dithering, but now he can dither no more.  Having minimized the husband’s authority, explained that biblical marriage roles are optional, that headship doesn’t apply 99% of the time, and for the one percent of the time it does  (optionally) apply the husband should mostly either do nothing or give the decision to someone else, Driscoll finally explains that there are extremely rare occasions where a husband will actually make a decision:

The third option, is, he can make the decision– sometimes this is because the matter is pressing and the decision has to be made, and he makes the decision. She is then to submit to him, to be subject to him, to respect his decision, and to follow his leadership as the head of the household. That’s the language that the Bible repeatedly uses. That is what it says.

Driscoll follows up with examples from his own marriage, which he presents as the template to follow.  He starts by acknowledging that the women in the audience are going to bristle at the examples he is about to provide because the women in the congregation are feminists (emphasis mine):

Now, I asked Grace, I said can I share some examples from our life, and she said sure. So, these are some examples that she has given. And some of you ladies will immediately bristle at this, because, truth be told, the vast majority if not all of the people that attend Mars Hill church are feminist to some degree. They don’t begin with a biblical understanding, and when they read the Bible, they sort of roll their eyes and [sighs loudly] take those deep heavy sighs, and then start looking for books that say thats not what it means. That’s your natural disposition. Romans 1 calls it suppressing the truth, because you just want to keep on doing what you are doing.

Having warned the women that they will bristle at the examples, he gives three of them.  All three involve Driscoll spoiling his wife:

…every example she gave me to share with you is a situation, and this may shock you, where she didn’t want to take as good a care of herself as I wanted to take care of her, and I asked her to submit to me so that I could spoil her. See you think of submission, sometimes all you think of is “well the husband is making his wife do terrible things”. Most of the time, if the wife has godly character, is really humble, works really hard, the husband is trying to spoil her because she is not taking enough care of herself.

One of the examples he provides of headship is the time he gave her “lots of money” and forced her to go on a shopping spree:

Another one was when we first got married, my wife hadn’t updated her wardrobe in a really long time because she didn’t want to spend money on herself. She felt bad. I finally looked at her and I said “Honey, you need to go get some new clothes.” “No I don’t want to spend the money.” So I gave her lots of money and I said “Go buy yourself whatever you want.” She said “I don’t want to.” I said “Well you need to follow the leadership of your husband. Go shopping.” True story. We do that quite often in the Driscoll house.

Notice that Driscoll is playing an old game, signalling to the wives in the congregation that it would be easier for them if they were married to him.

Driscoll reinforces that headship really means the husband spoiling the wife after offering the three examples:

Almost all of the disagreements that we have had, where I have pulled out the “Sweetheart I love you, follow me on this” is that she doesn’t want to spend the money, and she wants to work even harder, and I know that she is busy and I know that she is tired, and I want to do something to help her. And because she works hard and she is a good steward and she has a hard time receiving. So often times submission is the husband wants to take care of his wife, than she is taking care of herself, and she feels a little bad about that. But he pulls out the “Hey, I love you let me do this for you. Let me make this decision for you.”

If you are oftentimes disagreeing, there is a problem in the marriage, and you hit these disagreement points, if it is over fundamental issues you may have a real crisis, because you disagree biblically. But if it is the details of life where the husband is trying to protect, love, serve, and spoil the wife, you are probably on the right track.

With this we can update our summary of Driscoll’s three rules of headship to:

  1. Delay (do nothing)
  2. Defer (let someone else decide)
  3. Decide (spoil her)

Later in the sermon he tackles the fact that Peter offers Sarah as the example for wives to follow regarding submission.  He explains that this bothered him initially because Sarah is known for submitting to Abraham even when his directions were foolish, even dangerous.  Driscoll then explains that what Peter really meant when he said wives should follow Sarah’s example is that wives should consider her example and learn from her mistakes (emphasis mine):

Additionally, he [Abraham] is the one who said “Uh oh I’m going to get hurt, lets lie to this person and then you go with them and then pretend that we are sister and brother” and she went along with it twice.

And its always bothered me, why would he say, “ladies look to Sarah”? Couldn’t we find someone better, ie Ruth? But see Sarah was the mother of the nation of Israel, and I think he in his wisdom, as I meditated on this, I realized, there is a good strategic reason that God put Sarah in the Bible, not because she is perfect, but because she is imperfect.

What he [Peter] is saying is this: Ladies, you aren’t always going to be a perfect wife, Sarah wasn’t.  You are not going to always give good counsel, Sarah didn’t.  Sometimes you are going to follow your husband when you shouldn’t, because he is not following God. That is what Sarah did on more than one occasion.  And sometimes you will not follow your husband when he is following God, and that is what Sarah did as well.  That she was a godly woman but an imperfect woman, and if you look at the totality of her life you will see a godly woman but if you look at segments and occasions in her life, you will see a woman who made some tragic mistakes.  And she comitted some actual sins.  And that’s hope for you women, you don’t expect to be perfect but you hope to make progress by the grace of God.

Driscoll has turned a clear instruction to follow the example of Sarah regarding submission into a warning not to make the mistake of submitting like Sarah did.

After all of this, Driscoll finally gets around to calling wives out  on their feminist rebellion in the most gentle way possible:

Additionally, I think this is perhaps why I find Sara most intriguing. God came to her on one occasion and said “Sarah, this is how your life is going to go”. And she laughed at God. Some of you women even in hearing me read this text, you’ve done the same. Outwardly, chuckle chuckle chuckle, submit to my husband? Here he is, look at him, obviously that will never happen. Or you chuckle in your heart, you chuckle in your mind, like “This is dumb. This is an old book. I went to college. This is not for me. I’m very smart talented gifted and capable, I don’t need this old book to give me old ideas. Many women first hearing God’s expectation for them as women and wives, their first instinct is like Sarahs to laugh at God. What a joke. He must be kidding. I hope He knows He is funny. And what he is saying is that as Sarah laughed at God ladies, some of you have laughed at God. As she thought that God was foolish, some of you have thought God is foolish, in fact that is foolish. God is not foolish He is wise.

And he is inviting you to laugh your laughs and to commit your sins and to make your mistakes, and to learn from them, to repent of them, to grow through them, to increasingly become more godly. So I think Sarah is a wonderful example. She’s a wonderful example, for all the women and wives. Not in that she is perfect, but in that by the grace of God she made progress.

For those who doubt that Driscoll is truly a gifted preacher, revisit that last quote as well as his description of the fall and women’s inclination to rebel here.  After explaining women’s inclination to rebel, he explains what original sin means for men:

That’s Genesis 3. It’s a culdesac that humanity has been driving around in for thousands of years. Men abdicate their responsibility, and women are deceived.

In other words, women’s sinful inclination regarding their husbands is to rebel, and men’s sinful inclination toward their responsibility of headship is to err toward:

  1. Delay (do nothing)
  2. Defer (let someone else decide)
  3. Give her what she wants (spoil her)

Note:  All of the quotes I provided are from my own transcription of the sermon.  If you spot any errors in wording please note them.  I have worked to keep the quotes as short as possible while including links jumping to the part of the sermon where they came from.  In some cases the links start earlier than the quote so you can get more context of the quote.  Despite the length of this post I have only quoted and addressed part of the sermon, so don’t take this as a definitive summary of the sermon.  If you are interested I encourage you to listen to the entire sermon.  Lastly, I had planned on doing one more post on Driscoll, but with this post I have decided that I’m done with the topic.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Headship, Mark Driscoll, Marriage, Rebellion, Submission. Bookmark the permalink.

197 Responses to She who must be obeyed.

  1. Pingback: She who must be obeyed. | Manosphere.com

  2. Pingback: She who must be obeyed. | Neoreactive

  3. pancakeloach says:

    The “delay” part is interesting in that Driscoll shoehorns “reason with your wife to convince her” into the “sit around and wait” advice – “talk to her, we are going to work through all of the variables”. The thing is, if you have talked to your wife and worked through all the variables with her and then DON’T make a decision and say “this is how it’s going to be,” it’s very clear that you are not the one in charge.

    Driscoll is basically saying to run a marriage by committee here, isn’t he?

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    Irony abounds, because of texts such as the above Driscoll has been attacked by the church going feminists for years as a misogynist. So some of his followers have been able to pretend he’s a real, he-manly dude because feminists attack him.

    The reality is obvious in Dalrock’s analysis: he is more of a pedestalizer than anything else. It’s the same old neo-Victorian “your wife IS your better half and don’t you forget it” bogus moralizing. Vagueness like this is why the word “complimentarian” has little meaning, by the way. A man who continually supplicates to his wife, forever fearing her displeasure or even momentary unhappiness, is not in a “complimentary” relationship, but more of a egalitarian, or even submissive one. Maybe Scott can comment on what appears to be mommy issues?

    Dalrock, I can understand why you are done with this now, congrats for going this far in analysis. Because Driscoll is just the most visible of such preachers, there are plenty, plenty more men out there peddling the same junk thought while waving a Bible around in the air. Churchgoing men need to develop very fine “Driscoll Detectors” in order to know when to walk out a door & not return, and by keeping in mind the clear points you’ve made in this series, I’m sure some men will be able to do just that..

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oh, and one addition, the 3 steps Driscoll offers for conflict resolution within a marriage;


    1. Delay (do nothing)
    2. Defer (let someone else decide)
    3. Give her what she wants (spoil her)

    I can think of 3 men just off the top of my head I have personallly known who took this approach and wound up divorced, one of them I heard from about a year ago. So from the pragmatic point of view, this advice does not work in the long run, and eventually not even in the short “keep the peace for an hour, can we?” run.

    Because it is the same old split between authority and responsibility – the man retains responsibility and a facade of authority, but really authority is handed to the woman who can then hand all responsiblity back to guess who?

    One more time, this is what passes for “Bible based marriage”, for “complimentarity”, even for [shudder] “patriarchy” in many modern churches. One wonders why the divorce rate isn’t even higher than it is.

  6. Looking Glass says:

    Dalrock, my thanks for dissecting this dreck. Oy.

    It’s fascinating — isn’t it? — how this supposed misogynist is playing right from the Churchian-Feminist (I repeat myself) playbook? You can’t appease evil, nor can you stand before God after preaching such falsehood.

    Then again, if Driscoll would repent and deal in Wisdom, he’d get even less renown, but he could do a lot of Good. But that’s rarely been what this is about, unfortunately.

  7. Boxer says:

    Driscoll is a very cunning manipulator and a clever speaker. The first 12 minutes of this sermon are actually really great. He details the problems of feminist discourse and speaks of a need to resist its interpretation of marriage. Listen as he skillfully shifts between minutes 12-15. Suddenly, it becomes the wife’s job to discern when the husband is “in sin” and appeal to outside institutions (such as, coincidentally, himself) when her husband is not following her orders to the degree that she’d like. In the span of three minutes, he 180s without anyone even noticing.

    Men who want to push society in a healthier direction need to learn rhetoric from skillful speakers like this.

    Boxer

  8. Boxer says:

    Driscoll is basically saying to run a marriage by committee here, isn’t he?

    What I’m hearing is that marriage is a relationship between a wife and his church. The husband is something along the lines of a mid-level manager, employed at will by his church, who can be dismissed by either party at any time.

    It’s cuck time! The wives of Mars Hill are all responsible to Pastor Mark!

  9. Dalrock, there may be a typo here; he probably said “repeatedly” toward the end of this quote:

    “She is then to submit to him, to be subject to him, to respect his decision, and to follow his leadership as the head of the household. That’s the language that the Bible repeated uses. That is what it says.”

    [D: Thank you. You are correct. Fixed.]

    You can just hear the apology in his words here, without viewing the sermon. And he’s still wrong: that’s not “what it says.” It doesn’t say she’s “then” to submit to him, only on those big decisions when he’s godly and he’s delayed and he’s sought guidance from the church and so on. It just says she’s supposed to be subject to him, period.

    “And he is inviting you to laugh your laughs and to commit your sins…”

    That’s a mighty quick jump from laughing at God (Sarah’s example) to committing sins. God invites us to sin? That’s an interesting translation he’s working from there.

    Dalrock, I think you’re right in stopping the series here. You’ve fully deconstructed this game; anything more would be beating a dead horse. The important thing for people to know is that this isn’t unique to Driscoll, or to mega-churches. He’s notable because he was good at dressing it up in a scriptural-sounding wrapper and delivering it with a style that attracted people, but this is the underlying message coming from nearly every pulpit any time topics of men/women/marriage/family are raised.

  10. okrahead says:

    Driscoll said, “And he is inviting you to laugh your laughs and to commit your sins and to make your mistakes, and to learn from them, to repent of them, to grow through them, to increasingly become more godly. So I think Sarah is a wonderful example. She’s a wonderful example, for all the women and wives. Not in that she is perfect, but in that by the grace of God she made progress.” (The “he” here is God).
    As I noted in the previous thread, Driscoll relies on a complete ignorance of basic New Testament doctrine on the part of his audience in order to advance his own message. God does not call anyone to sin (James 1:12-16), and enjoins us not to “be deceived” into thinking that He would do so. Furthermore, Driscoll encourages women to “grow through them” in reference to their sins, which is the opposite of Paul’s teaching in Romans 6; not to mention the doctrine that we may do evil to accomplish good is rebutted by Paul in Romans 3:8, and the purveyors of that doctrine placed under condemnation by the apostle.
    Driscoll actually advocates sin as a means of spiritual growth. To anyone with a basic understanding of the New Testament, or to early heresies, it is clear that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Even the most basic teachings of the Nicene Creed seem beyond his (and his audience’s) grasp when he equated women having children out of wedlock with Mary. Regardless as to whether you are Catholic, Orthodox, protestant, or whatever, this is clear blasphemy in that it equates the miraculous Incarnation of the Son of God with a bastard child born of fornication. That this false teaching is so easily and eagerly embraced is a clear indicator of a lack of teaching on the first principles of Christ. As Hosea said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Okrahead

    Driscoll said, “And he is inviting you to laugh your laughs and to commit your sins and to make your mistakes, and to learn from them, to repent of them, to grow through them, to increasingly become more godly. So I think Sarah is a wonderful example. She’s a wonderful example, for all the women and wives. Not in that she is perfect, but in that by the grace of God she made progress.” (The “he” here is God).

    I think in that specific case he is referring to Peter, since the context is Peter explaining in 1 Pet 3 that Sarah is the example women should follow in submission to their husbands.

  12. okrahead says:

    Dalrock,
    Okay, I see your point… but even if that is the case nothing changes. I hold (and Driscoll would, I believe, claim to hold the same) that Peter wrote that through direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit, and as such it is still the Word of God. If Peter wrote that encouraging women to sin, the ultimately it was God who gave him the words, and who is ultimately encouraging them (women) to sin. At that point I must most emphatically part ways with Driscoll.

  13. bob k. mando says:

    what you’re looking at with Driscoll is the difference between “Leadership” and “Social Dominance Gamemanship”.

    a Leader seeks to improve the lot of those associated with him. his is a Positive Sum Game.

    a “Social Dominance Gamer” ( of which AMOGing is the male subset, it’s almost universal on the distaff side ) considers reality to be Zero or even Negative Sum. SDG’ers advance their position by tearing down those around them.

    this is what is so very dangerous about putting women ( almost all of whom are reflexive SDGer’s ) into positions of authority;
    even though they HAVE and wield legitimate authority, the only way they know how to deal with the world is through the tropes and methods of SDG. ie – they continue to play dominance games and undermine / tear down everyone around them that they view as a ‘threat’ ( someone more competent than themselves ).

    SDG’ers can be tolerated as long as they have little real authority. once they get into an org, they will do everything they can to expel non-SDGer’s.

    this is also why it is necessary for men to have authority over their wives and why women who ( sociologically ) decide that their husband is not ‘strong’ enough start attacking him.

  14. bradford says:

    Glad this is your last post on Driscoll. Anymore and my head would explode. These are just so incredibly painful to read. This is a guy that is just begging for a good ass-whipping.

  15. Driscoll is a sick man.

    That’s too easy. He’s not sick, he’s normal. (Or he’s sick to the extent that our entire society is sick, but it amounts to the same thing.) Find a “conservative” church in your town and stop in on Mother’s Day and Father’s Day for more of the same.

    He’s preaching the Modern Christian Message on marriage here. Nothing out of the ordinary, except that many preachers wouldn’t even throw in a quick sop to male headship, but he was skilled and popular enough to get away with it as long as he got back to the “Chicks rule!” message in a hurry. That must have been an uncomfortable few seconds, though.

    So his sermon for husbands is about how they suck and should do better, especially in being nicer to their wives. His sermon for wives starts with how feminism is bad in theory, then turns into….how husbands suck and should do better, especially in being nicer to their wives.

  16. earl says:

    1. Delay (do nothing)
    2. Defer (let someone else decide)
    3. Give her what she wants (spoil her)

    Ok let’s say a man is put into a leadership position at work and he uses these three options. Now a problem comes up. If he does nothing the problem could get worse…if he defers to someone else he didn’t really have a plan to solve the problem…if he placates the problem, it come back down the road and be even worse. In all 3 cases it’s weak leadership and people will start to rebel against weak leadership.

    There’s always the ‘ask God for guidence and then tackle the problem head on route’.

  17. javaloco says:

    I’d be done with the topic too.

  18. earl says:

    ‘Men abdicate their responsibility, and women are deceived.’

    Interesting about that quote…I read something similar here.

    http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2015/01/three-fundamental-truths-about-men-and.html

  19. Cane Caldo says:

    @AR

    Churchgoing men need to develop very fine “Driscoll Detectors” in order to know when to walk out a door & not return, and by keeping in mind the clear points you’ve made in this series, I’m sure some men will be able to do just that..

    That’s not a take away from observing Driscoll, and if it were, then it’s already obsolete because Driscoll is gone. A Driscoll Detector is useless in the face of an Olsteen, and an Olsteen Detector would not prepare one for a Rick Warren attack. Driscoll, summarized, worked on anger. Olsteen is all smiles all the time. Warren is tearful. One needs faith, truth, righteousness, peace, salvation…the defenses found in Ephesians 6. There is no substitute, or technological advance in thinking that can replace those. I’m sure my saying so will strike many as trite and unsophisticated, but they are vital, and I would be remiss to not say so.

    Just as important to keep centered in the examination is this: Driscoll’s rule wasn’t the result of him duping good people. He told bad people what they wanted to hear, and he only ruled as long as they pleased.

  20. knepper says:

    In other words, it takes a church (and a gifted pastor, such as himself) to raise a husband. If a wife gets to choose when she submits, and when she is permitted, by God no less, to laugh at and mock her husbands decisions, that is not submission in any way, shape, or form.

  21. earl says:

    ‘Another one was when we first got married, my wife hadn’t updated her wardrobe in a really long time because she didn’t want to spend money on herself. She felt bad. I finally looked at her and I said “Honey, you need to go get some new clothes.” “No I don’t want to spend the money.” So I gave her lots of money and I said “Go buy yourself whatever you want.” She said “I don’t want to.” I said “Well you need to follow the leadership of your husband. Go shopping.” True story. We do that quite often in the Driscoll house.’

    Anyone elses BS meter spike when they read this?

  22. earl says:

    A question I would ask about his church authority is if any of these people were married in his church? What basis of authority does he have to go over the husband’s in the marriage? Where biblically does it say the church (or government for that matter)…can ursup a husband’s role in marriage?

  23. Anonymous Reader says:

    knepper
    In other words, it takes a church (and a gifted pastor, such as himself) to raise a husband.

    Succinctly put.

  24. Bill says:

    Has anyone ever thought of writing a Red Pill bible it would be like the Men’s bible, but explain the bible in red pill language? I think it would be a giant hit. I am not religious but I would definitely buy one.

  25. Neguy says:

    I watched most of this sermon series on video back when I was blue pill. I didn’t take away the fantastic Dalrock breakdown here, but it was clear even then the contrast between his approach towards men and towards women. I’d already deduced for myself at this point that by saying that headship implies a man is 100% responsible for anything that goes wrong in the home, women were de facto resolved of accountability for what they did. (What’s more, that notion is also identical with the prosperity gospel because it links worldly outcomes directly to your correctly implementing biblical truth. If you get sick/your marriage has troubles its because you don’t have enough faith to be healed/aren’t leading well enough).

    I did not until this year truly understand the radical context of 1 Peter as a whole. He’s writing to a church enduring severe persecution and offering them no worldly hope, but only eternal hope (this is what he means when he talks about “at the revelation of Christ”, meaning Christ’s return). The section on wifely submission to husbands in the third installment in a series of applications about submission to unjust authorities like the government that was persecuting the Christians in question, or evil slavemasters. He puts wifely submission in the same category as an unconditional duty. The same message applies as before: imitate Christ who “kept entrusting himself to him who judges righteously.” Thinking about how we all navigate a sinful world, there’s a lot of challenge in there.

    One thing I didn’t pick up on when I originally listened to this but really caught my eye in this post is Driscoll claiming that the authority of the husband in the home is subordinate to that of the church and the state. I’m not sure where the Catholic Church falls on this, but I don’t see anywhere in the Bible, nor am I aware of a historic protestant teaching that says this. I would say authority in the home is an independent sphere of authority, the same as the church and the government are presented as independent spheres of authority. Clearly the husband would have to respect any judgments of the court made against him related to his marriage, and the church would be within its rights to discipline for bona fide sins, but otherwise these institutions it seems to me have no authority over the husband in a marriage. Having the wife appeal to the pastor would be like telling a child to appeal to the pastor if he didn’t like his parent’s discipline.

  26. Bluedog says:

    Mostly I wonder who among men would want to sign up for this.
    And then I wonder what woman would want a man who would sign up for this.

    And that’s the part where I really get stuck and keep running a mental rewind.

    So – emphasis here that this is the outside-looking-in point-of-view: ladies – here we have a case where the leader of a community espouses internal incoherency and failure of internal integrity, while making tolerance of indecency – and I emphasize that: indecency visited upon the person of men, a condition of their membership in his community.
    Really? **Really** – these are men you’d want?

    Or put it this way:
    “Hi ladies. I’m Mark Driscoll. Here’s how my community works. I tell you with my words that I’m about to challenge you while silently blowing rainbows up your asses and all the while I make it a condition of male members of my community that they let me kick dirt in their eyes while I heap insults on them.
    “Wanna join?”

    Ladies: you buying?
    If so – why? What’s in this for you? Dalrock’s put it all out there. Ball’s in your court. Explain yourselves. If you weren’t signed up don’t speak for those who were.

    Also – “red pillers” – don’t answer for the ladies here either. I already know your answers. This is not where we psychoanalyze. We all know slimy car salesmen pull our reptilian buttons – nothing changes unless someone is called to account and made to explain why they didn’t walk off the used car lot.

    Ladies – this is on you – you are called. Come and speak up. Explain.

  27. Lyn87 says:

    Driscoll is basically saying to run a marriage by committee here, isn’t he?

    I see it as being even worse than that – he views the husband’s job as being the Committee Chairman, but he views the job of Chairman to be the one responsible for implementing the decisions of the members of the committee. And since he only gets to advise rather than actually vote (and certainly not lead), that leaves all the decisions up to the only remaining committee member… who just happens to be the wife. Note that the husband is to get his wife’s approval for every decision, and second-guess himself every time she disagrees, to the point of handing the reins to other people, yet Driscoll never encourages the wife to agonize over the 99% of decisions she gets to make, including whether or not to rebel against her husband if she doesn’t think he’s doing it right enough for her tastes. Amazing.

    This is submission-pretending-it’s-leadership-while-hiding-behind-a-fig-leaf-of-complimentarianism.

    Anyone who has ever been in the military – especially on a battle staff – can see the problem right away. This inverts the proper order. It is the job of the staff to advise the commander and implement his decisions, not to pass orders to the commander for him to implement. And Discoll went even farther by limiting the “staff” to one person – the wife. That gives her all the authority while neatly passing all the responsibility to her hapless helper – the husband.

    Dalrock is right about him being gifted, though. God spreads talents around to everyone – not just Christians. There are many talented musicians and writers who could be using their prodigious talents for God, but are producing crap and pursuing worldly reward, for example. We’re all guilty of “hording our talents” to some degree. Driscoll has a real gift for preaching, but he uses it to spread heresy, condemnation, and dissension instead of truth, encouragement, and unity. The fact that he had such a large following speaks volumes about the popularity of easy lies versus hard truths in the modern church.

    It’s obvious that he relies on his congregants not knowing Christian doctrine, and he tickles their ears by giving them what they want to hear:

    1) Men who want to get better are told they should do so… and he tells them how (although his advice is terrible).
    2) Men who want to be passive are told to defer to their wives.
    3) Women who want to rule their husbands are encouraged to do so.
    4) Women who want to submit are given a fig-leaf to hide behind.

    The only people whose ears he doesn’t tickle are men who understand their leadership role in marriage, but Driscoll can safely ignore them since they would have long-since left and not returned.

  28. One thing I didn’t pick up on when I originally listened to this but really caught my eye in this post is Driscoll claiming that the authority of the husband in the home is subordinate to that of the church and the state. I’m not sure where the Catholic Church falls on this, but I don’t see anywhere in the Bible, nor am I aware of a historic protestant teaching that says this.

    There’s no such Catholic teaching either. Even in very traditional circles, where people have great respect for their pastors and may even have a priest as a “spiritual director” to whom they promise obedience in spiritual matters, a husband is the king of his castle at home. He might very well ask his pastor or spiritual director for advice, but he’s not required to do so or to follow it.

    It’s strange that Joe Smith who sets up the Church of Third Street would claim a greater authority over the personal lives over the people in the pews than a pastor in a church that claims a chain of authority going back to the Apostles. What authority does a guy like Driscoll have to tell these men what to do, beyond what they implied by showing up that morning?

  29. Lyn87 says:

    Cail asks,

    What authority does a guy like Driscoll have to tell these men what to do, beyond what they implied by showing up that morning?

    None. He’s a bully, and he tells men what to do because he gets away with it. He knows they’ll do it, and the one who don’t will leave quietly.

    Neguy writes,

    Having the wife appeal to the pastor would be like telling a child to appeal to the pastor if he didn’t like his parent’s discipline.

    Very insightful observation. If feminists realized how infantilizing their philosophy is, they might re-think their allegiance to it.

  30. Bluedog says:

    I’m not sure where the Catholic Church falls on this, but I don’t see anywhere in the Bible, nor am I aware of a historic protestant teaching that says this.

    and then Cail Corishev says:
    “There’s no such Catholic teaching either.”

    You obey the law, that’s the teaching. I mean we can talk about “except when the law conflicts with moral …” but that’s not the point – you obey the law and anyone who believes that the church made agent of empire by Constantine comes down somehow differently on the point has the burden of proof.

    The confusion seems to be that there is a perception that the law prescribes spousal behavior or spousal behavior in the home when it does not. The law proscribes assault, neglect, abuse – and I doubt the church would take issue with such laws, but the law doesn’t prescribe much.

    We’re not taking up our husbands or wives behavior in the next open city counsel meeting. There’s no overlap here, but maybe because some behaviors are validly and licitly proscribed some take that to mean that a prescriptive authority exists where actually it does not.

    Next predictable step in the dialect: someone says “no no the law prescribes you have to send your kids to public school”. Hoping we can skip the predictable dialect and accept the point as given.

  31. RichardP says:

    @Cail: “What authority does a guy like Driscoll have to tell these men what to do …”

    The following scriptures, quoted below, are meant to apply to the brothers and sisters in the church. Are not husbands and wives part of the brothers and sisters in the church. If this applies to disagreements among unmarried church goers, does it not also apply to married church goers?

    If your brother OR sister sins againsts you, point it out and rebuke them. That means sister can rebuke brother. Why, then, can a wife not rebuke husband? Oh, wait … because a DIFFERENT scripture says she is to submit herself to him in EVERYTHING? Doesn’t that attitude put the lie to the scriptures quoted below? Other scriptures say that God is the head of the husband, and husband is the head of the wife (no verses anywhere that says husband is head of family). Doesn’t that heirarchy put the lie to the scriptures quoted below? Or maybe we just need to be careful how we apply any scripture, making certain that the application is consistent with what the rest of scripture says.

    “So watch yourselves. If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.” Luke 17:3

    “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church (members, or governing body?); and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Matthew 18:15-17

  32. RichardP says:

    The Bible is full of admonitions to both mothers and fathers to bring up their children in the fear of the Lord. Those admonitions make both husband and wife responsible for the welfare of the family. And we all know about Proverbs 31. The Bible says the husband is head of wife, but never says directly that husband is head of family. Some may consider that splitting hairs, but there is good reason to split that hair.

    A woman who buys into the idea that the husband is the head of the family may default to that and make no effort of her own – eventually frivorcing because she has a “right” to. “He didn’t step up and assume his role as head of the family. He actually tried to tell me that the Bible places as much responsibility on me as it does on him for taking care of the family.” Abuse. Abuse.

  33. David J. says:

    @RichardP: In any hierarchy or chain of command — husband/wife, congregant/church, employee/employer, citizen/state — the biblical way to seek correction of a perceived wrong is to appeal to immediate authority before moving up the chain. Example: Daniel, when presented with the Persians’ demand that he and the three other Hebrews with him adopt the Persian diet, appealed to the official who had given him the command and presented him with a respectful, reasonable proposal that would allow the Hebrews to adhere to their God-commanded diet. So of course a wife who feels her husband has wronged her in some way should take it up with him first, respectfully — not as a rebuke, but as an appeal. If he will not hear her, and if (but only if) the issue is one of serious sin that is an appropriate subject for possible church discipline (which itself is a multi-step process) — i.e., adultery, alcoholism, drug abuse, pornography, etc. (NOT “he won’t buy me what I want” or “I don’t want to move there”), she can then bring the matter to a pastor or elder.

  34. Tom K. says:

    I’m sorry, Dalrock, I can tell you put a lot into this article but I just could read almost NONE of it. Not after reading your posts about Driscoll’s so-called “prayer”.

    THIS is why I refuse to go to church any more. This disgusting pandering to women. This fear of offending the rebellious bitches. This constant denigration of men who are “the image and the glory of God”, while forgetting that “woman is the glory of the man.” Which is why women were supposed to wear a covering, to show to all. everywhere. even the angels, that she was under the authority of her husband. But not anymore!

    I know how hard it is to our pride and ego to admit that there is anyone over us. I’m as much a rebellious sinner as the next person. But the heart of the Gospel is repentance from such attitudes whenever they rear their ugly heads. Yet this is something I could never get my ex-wife to do. Admit when she was wrong! EVER! Not once in 19 years of marriage. What a nightmare! There can be no hope of love or intimacy or reconciliation if one’s spouse refuses to ever admit that she is a sinner. Instead she would accuse me of trying to lord it over her; trying to break her down. Make her “feel bad” about herself. I’d say, “No. That’s not it. You confess your sin, God forgives you and you move on, pure and holy. Forgiven.” But she refused to bend. Ever.

    I have no answer to this dilemma. I know one thing I do differently now, in my second marriage. Divorce is ON THE TABLE. I unfortunately learned about Dread Game from Rollo (or was it you? I forget), but I’ve also learned it is very effective at stopping emotional meltdowns. I am thinking now that we Christian men should reintroduce the Jewish idea of simply saying, “I divorce you! I divorce you! I divorce you!” to end our marriages. The challenge for me in my first marriage was that was what she wanted but by the time I found out she was pregnant with my son. I blackmailed her into obeying her vow for 19 years but in the meantime I did everything the modern church-ministry complex told me to do: I admitted the problems were all caused by ME and my failure to be an adequate representative of Christ.So I set about to do everybetathing I could to change and be the so-called Real Christian husband I was told I should be.

    Which means I did every-wrong-thing-possible. Insane!

    My stomach churns to even scan over this Driscoll crap. I want to beat him and every other so-called Christian leader/mangina to a bloody pulp. That especially includes Gary Smalley and James Dobson. In fact, every man who’s ever written a book on Christian marriage in the past 60 years should spend at least a hundred years in the “purifying flames of purgatory”, if only there were such a place. The damage they have done to the church and American society is immeasurable.

    “My brethren, be not many teachers knowing we will receive the stricter judgment.”

  35. earl says:

    ‘The Bible says the husband is head of wife, but never says directly that husband is head of family. Some may consider that splitting hairs, but there is good reason to split that hair.

    God gives fathers authority over their children and children are give the obligation to obey their mothers. Hence both have authority when it comes to their children.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach+3&version=GNT

  36. If your brother OR sister sins againts you, point it out and rebuke them. That means sister can rebuke brother. Why, then, can a wife not rebuke husband? Oh, wait … because a DIFFERENT scripture says she is to submit herself to him in EVERYTHING?

    Yes, that’s why. No, that doesn’t “put the lie” to anything. The first command is general, the second is specific, as are the others about children, slaves, etc. If a teacher says, “Class dismissed; you all can leave. Oh, John, stay a minute, I need to talk to you,” the second sentence doesn’t mean the first one was a lie.

    It’s also possible that a wife could “rebuke” her husband for a sin against her while being subject to him. Something like, “I think you’re wrong about this, but I will obey you with a graceful smile.” Not easy to pull off, but if you’re going to base your behavior on two bible verses taken alone out of context, that can be difficult sometimes.

  37. Spike says:

    The biggest problem with Driscoll’s views (Churchian views) is they not only destroy the current generation of believers by putting husbands in a no-win rebellious household. Driscoll destroys the NEXT generation, as the daughters of rebellious mothers grow up with the same views of dialectic on Scripture.
    My favourite cafe is down the street from the local Christian girl’s high school, most of them ethnic Asian children brought up in Western society, the children of deeply conservative parents. Occasionally these high school age high-school girls are within earshot while I am having my coffee.
    What do I hear? Apart from the usual inanities, excitement about “Fifty Shades of Gray” by underaged girls (boys furtively looking through ‘Playboy’ or Internet porn would be frowned on, surely). Talk on sex, how while the Bible commands us all not to have sex out of wedlock, they have ‘reinterpreted’ this to mean that “You can, you’re just not supposed to…”
    Sure, God wants sinners to come to repentance. God loves and God saves. But the damage done to the social fabric, to marriage, to the future wife in terms of her partner baggage, inability to bond, possible abortion trauma, silent STIs and cervical cancer risk, not to mention birth defects in the next generation of children as they will undoubtedly have children when they are older and past peak fertility – this happens in this world, and are consequences borne in this world.

    St Paul alludes to this as the “due penalty for sin” in Romans 1. It is my view that fathers should do three things:
    1) Immediately stop attending such churches, taking the children out with them. They are then o ‘home school’ their kids in Scripture. Wife doesn’t like it? Too bad.
    2) Instruct their sons EXACTLY on the nature of women, starting with MGTOW, and possibly Esther Vilar’s “The Manipulated Man”. Although written by a woman, Vilar is more scathing and acidic about women than any hardcore MGTOW.
    3) Daughters are to be told in no uncertain terms that yes, an education is necessary for them to earn a future living. Their education an career is SECONDARY to their future marriages. They must thus begin searching for a suitable husband at after the age of 20-21.

  38. Mr B says:

    At the end of the day women do rule the roost whether us men like it or not – biblical version of marriage is gone ……forever – you either tow the line with modern women or go without …. Like me because I’m stubborn – but my married friends are all happier – the choice is yours gents

  39. Oscar says:

    @Anonymous Reader says:
    January 31, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    “Irony abounds, because of texts such as the above Driscoll has been attacked by the church going feminists for years as a misogynist.”

    Exactly. Surrendering to feminists only invites further attack. It’s like the old Arab saying: “an injured camel invites a thousand knives”.

  40. Bluedog says:

    Mr B, January 31, 2015 at 6:13 pm:
    “At the end of the day women do rule the roost whether us men like it or not”

    On the basis of a raw distribution of power – he (or she) who can walk away from the deal, controls the terms of the deal. There is no universal or absolute that follows from that, that may be attributed to either gender.

    ” – biblical version of marriage is gone ……forever – you either tow the line with modern women or go without”.

    I say here as a non-believer … this is outside-in judgment of another’s internal coherency and of another’s product:

    1) “Biblical” marriage – or better still: any Christian, monogamous marriage construct – will have purchase among prospective takers when it is able to demonstrate itself as a partnership that transcends power relationships – it is in the transcending of relative power distribution that free human agents are able to create meaning together by way of a thing people recognize as love.

    It is the reduction of male/female relationships to their relative power distribution (and all of its shifts from the ages of 18 to 80) that leads to the catastrophe of male/female heterosexual relationships that is discussed so much here

    2) The unfolding of events is sinusoidal, not circular or linear – but it sometimes feels like one or the other because – that’s what a sinusoid does. Applied here: marriage and monogamy will re-consolidate. It may never again be the majority form of familial form between men and women – but as long as there are people willing and able to give it meaning, it will happen.

    Making that happen requires a cultivation of character. I don’t know why women “bought in” to Driscoll – which is to say: I’m letting women off easy who did. They bought a bill of goods. Dalrock, and Christians – have a product too: monogamous, traditional, Christian, patriarchal marriages. To reconsolidate Christianity has to produce both men and families that are desirable to (at least some) women, as well as cultivate in women – as well as men – the character necessary to place lifelong monogamy before all the other products they’ll be tempted with.

  41. mrteebs says:

    You are really on your game, Dalrock. Keep it up.

    I discovered your site sometime in 2014 and it has really crystallized some things for me. Kind of like walking into a fully furnished house, looking around, and being quite sure something is not quite right, but not being able to put your finger on it because the realtor cannot stop gushing about the property. But you know something is missing – and you’re pretty sure that every single house you have visited is missing the same thing. Then one day it hits you between the eyes when a flyer arrives in the mail: dear occupant – ever notice that none of the houses your realtor shows you have any electrical outlets?

    – I knew there was a reason I hated the movie Fireproof
    – I knew there was a reason I reacted almost viscerally to the “conventional wisdom” in marriage books, DVDs, radio programs, etc.
    – I knew there was a reason the counseling my wife and I had received was so absurdly unbalanced
    – I knew it couldn’t be just me that kept hearing sermon after sermon, teaching after teaching, that tried to sound “balanced” but just could never come right out and hold wives/women responsible for anything – they were always victims and men were always outright abusers or “soft” aggressors that would gravitate towards selfishness if not for “their better half” to keep them in line
    – I knew the one instance in the entire Bible where a man is told to “listen to his wife” was being used completely out of proportion compared to the times male headship/leadership was reinforced.

    Now I know why they call it Red Pill. It really is seeing the world – and the Scriptures – for what they are.

  42. Oscar says:

    I see a lot of questions about whether or not pastors have authority over husbands and fathers.

    Of course they do. But as with all Godly authority, it is limited. The books of Titus and Timothy are good places to learn about a pastor’s authority over his flock, because Paul wrote them specifically to instruct two pastors (Timothy and Titus) concerning their roles and responsibilities. For example:

    10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”[c] 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith ~ Titus 1:10-13

    If a husband and/or father is behaving like a “liar, evil brute, lazy glutton” with his family, then a pastor has the right, and the responsibility to “rebuke him sharply, so that he will be sound in the faith”.

    That is not what Driscoll did. Driscoll accused ALL husbands and fathers of being “evil brutes” and “lazy gluttons”, and more.

    Driscoll also failed to apply the lessons of Titus 1 to women. Clearly there are many “rebellious [women], full of meaningless talk and deception” in the Church who “are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach”. Paul tells Titus – and Driscoll – that such people (male or female) “must be silenced”. Driscoll didn’t bother.

    But, like I said, a pastor’s authority is limited. The absolute worst any pastor can do is that “If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17)

    Paul gives further instruction in 1 Cor 5:

    1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife…. 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

    That’s the absolute worst a pastor can do to an unrepentant brother or sister – refuse to associate with him/her and instruct the rest of the church to do the same. That’s true even if the unrepentant is doing something as vile as having sex with his own stepmother.

    And even then, Paul advised mercy, forgiveness and love when the man repented in 2 Cor 2:

    6 The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. 7 Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. 9 Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10 Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11 in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.

    I neither saw nor heard anything like that in Driscoll’s sermons.

  43. DeNihilist says:

    Really?

  44. One thing I have to admit about Satan is that he is an incredibly talented preacher. Part of this is his unmatched charisma and a gift for teaching. He also has a highly developed understanding of his audience, and he knows how far he can safely push them via gina tingzlzlzozozozolzoz. This last gift gives us a unique window into modern Christian culture.

    lzozzlzz

  45. Oscar says:

    @Messenger Hatred says:
    January 31, 2015 at 7:28 pm

    “The next great war, in which hundreds of thousands will die, is coming. This time, let the majority of dead be women – not men.”

    So, your dream utopia is a sausage fest. Got it.

  46. BC says:

    Just as important to keep centered in the examination is this: Driscoll’s rule wasn’t the result of him duping good people. He told bad people what they wanted to hear, and he only ruled as long as they pleased.

    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is not for good men to do nothing…

    …It is for otherwise good men to listen to and obey the evil.

  47. Bluedog says:

    Attention moderator: commenter ideating violence warning. Possibly a troll.

  48. Messenger Hatred says:

    “Attention moderator: commenter ideating violence warning. Possibly a troll.”

    Yes, yes! I’m a violent, ideating troll! Ban me!

    Bye folks. Nice messing whicha.

  49. Josh says:

    Driscoll is nothing more then a classic narcissist. I grew up in a dysfunctional family with having two narcissistic parents.

    On a side note, it would be nice to hear Dalrock’s view on the next Kendrick movie? I don’t even know if he has heard about it or not? The movie is called “War Room”. From what I have seen online about it. It’s about a workaholic husband and his ” praying” wife for the family to be fixed.

  50. Dalrock says:

    @Bluedog

    Attention moderator: commenter ideating violence warning. Possibly a troll.

    Well done. She had my trolldar up, but I hadn’t seen that comment. You smoked her out quite nicely. Problem solved.

  51. infowarrior1 says:

    @Dalrock
    How do you know it is a she?

  52. Poseidon says:

    A link to a Patheos blog where the finances of Mars Hill are being discussed. Very interesting:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/01/24/mars-hill-churchs-kids-ashamed-of-the-parent-church/

  53. Dave says:

    I see a lot of questions about whether or not pastors have authority over husbands and fathers….Of course they do….

    I disagree with the assertion that pastors have authority over husbands. Scripture made the line of authority very clear as it relates to Christian families, and the pastor does not feature at all:

    But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11:3

    From the foregoing, it is clear that God is the Supreme Authority in the home, followed by Christ, then the husband. The pastor has absolutely no authority over a man’s household. Just as God has placed the pastor to lead the local church, so has He placed the husband to lead his own home, and the two are independent of the other. There are several other passages where God commanded the wife to submit to her own husband, and none where God asked the man, in his capacity as a husband, to submit to the pastor in matters relating to how he runs his household. Notice that, as a Christian, the man is expected to submit to church leadership, including the pastor (Hebrews 13:17).
    The pastor must give account to God for how he leads/feeds the Church of God, just as the man must give account of how he runs his own family. The final earthly authority in the local church is the church leadership; the final earthly authority in the home is the husband, not the pastor.

  54. Dalrock says:

    @Cail Corishev

    You can just hear the apology in his words here, without viewing the sermon.

    I included the link above, and I’ll include it here as well. It is worth viewing to see the fear on his face and hear it in his voice. You might also want to see him explain why he had to have Grace answer the women’s questions “because if I answered all of the women’s questions it would go really really bad.”

    His explanation that she isn’t preaching/teaching is that she is just answering questions he as a man can’t answer. But this is part of the teaching. A much better explanation would have been Titus 2, however she didn’t limit herself to the role in Titus 2.

    Lastly, there is a quote from Inside Mars Hill’s massive meltdown that I didn’t have room to include in the OP:

    People are genuinely afraid of Driscoll, especially the men, said Smith. Women have often been the first to stand up to Driscoll.

    “He’s calling on men to be men,” Smith said, “and all the men are cowering.”

  55. Notice that Driscoll is playing an old game, signaling to the wives in the congregation that it would be easier for them if they were married to him.

    Game recognizes Game. This is exactly why I’d predict Driscoll will have a Hugo Schwyzer style downfall. Driscoll the AMOG is running a classic ‘Boyfriend Destroyer’ on the women in his congregation.

    http://www.rsdnation.com/node/61702

    1) When BFdestroying you walk a tightrope between evoking too many bad feelings
    and having them anchoured to you, and getting the chick to want to dump her BF.
    Don’t forget that your end goal is to f-close, not to break her up for some
    other dude to enjoy.

    2) It is preferable that you don’t make it appear that you want her to dump her
    boyfriend. Rather, make the idea appear to be something from within her (more
    of a Socratic thing, than a direct thing).

    3) While BFdestroying, you must direct the convo. to make her prompt you to
    tell her how you would treat a woman. Make her work it out of you, because
    she’s worked up, and wants to know if she’s got a fair deal or not.

    4) You must REFRAME all behaviour to appear like insecure nice guy behaviour.

    Even behaviour that -WE- as ASFers would use on girls (such as not agreeing to
    LTR) is to be REFRAMED as being nice guy behaviour, as someone who is too
    afraid to be decisive and go for what they really want, since they are too
    afraid that they will lose it once they’ve been emotionally vulnerable (as will
    be explained below). All behaviour can be REFRAMED.

    5) By making the guy look like a “NICE GUY”, you are making him the most
    sexually unappealing guy conceivable. Once you’ve done this, there is NOTHING
    that he can do to get back into her good books, as you’ve put him into a
    predicament where anything that he does will be interpreted by his GF as being
    insecure. So, if he’s too distant, and he makes up for it by buying her
    flowers -> he’s insecure. If he’s too needy, and he makes up for it by getting
    a life -> he’s insecure. You are trying to DIFFUSE his outer glossy shell, and
    give the girl a window into his inner workings, so that he no longer appears
    “mysterious” in any way. You make her understand him so well, that she likes
    him more as a person, but no longer has any sexual desire for him.

    6) Rather than re-explaining EVing, I’ll just quote some MrSEX4uNYC archive, to
    give the basic frame that you’re working with WHILE you are using the stuff
    that I’m mentioning. Without using this at the same time, my shit is USELESS:
    “A major point though is that if her relationship to her boyfriend was so good,
    what is she doing sitting out for coffee with you? This does not need to be
    stated by you. It is obvious. Your job is to find out what SHE wants from you
    and how you plan to demonstrate that you can provide it to her through your
    stories about yourself. Of course you need lots of stories about yourself
    dealing with women in the same fashion that she likes to be handles herself.
    This stuff seeps in and makes her think of you as “her type” without you even
    complimenting her once.” (MrSEX4uNYC)

    Driscoll is just running a BF Destroyer from his pulpit, but rather than just destroying these women’s husbands from their side he also convinces the men (in the men’s sermon) that they are in fact the pathetic powerless losers he convinced their wives they are a week earlier.

    I should also add that this is a common technique for Emotional Tampon guys in the ‘friendzone’ with a woman who likes his emotional availability to listen to all her complaining about the Alpha Jerk she keeps going back to for the “incredible sex.”

    This is Driscoll’s MO. His wife’s pre-marriage ‘infidelity’ is widely known and has always been a major sticking point for Driscoll. Trust me, this guy will go the way of Hugo at some point.

  56. The One says:

    Clearly the husband would have to respect any judgments of the court made against him related to his marriage

    ~Neguy

    Considering the majority of martyr throughout history were killed by governments, I strongly doubt this. For example, if an adulterous divorces her husband taking the children and moving in with another man, the husband biblically should take the children and leave the country. According to the government, he would not only be failing to pay child support, he would be committing kidnapping

  57. Oscar says:

    Dave says:
    January 31, 2015 at 9:34 pm

    “There are several other passages where God commanded the wife to submit to her own husband, and none where God asked the man, in his capacity as a husband, to submit to the pastor in matters relating to how he runs his household.”

    Are you stating that if a Christian man runs his household sinfully, the pastor has no right or obligation to “rebuke [him] sharply, so that [he] will be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13)?

  58. The One says:

    Are you stating that if a Christian man runs his household sinfully, the pastor has no right or obligation to “rebuke [him] sharply, so that [he] will be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13)?

    ~Oscar

    IMO, the pastor has no right to CALL ANY OF THE HUSBAND’S BEHAVIOR SIN except a direct violation of the ten commandments. Since there are thousands of denominations, a wife would simply shop for a pastor that calls her husband’s behavior sin.

  59. Bob says:

    With all respect Rollo, why are you here? Dalrock’s blog is about the ways feminism has affected Christian culture, and the men and women who are trying to live a Christian lifestyle – you know, that one where no one has sex before marriage? You write guides for the pick up community, for guys that are trying to get a fuck buddy, not even commit to a girlfriend LTR, but just how to get to the sex. You have supported guides and movements that encourage guys to seduce married women (that are not their wives). Part of the Christian lifestyle is respecting the institution of marriage, as flawed as the current legal system surrounding it may be, and you do nothing to respect that.

    The simplest question is what possible content does Dalrock’s blog have that you would enjoy? Other than his displeasure with the ramifications of feminism it would seem that none of this content is relevant to you, yet here you are leaving comment after comment. Are you lost? Do you have a fascination with Judeo-Christian culture and values? Is he a good friend that you just like to support? I am just so completely confused and would appreciate any light anyone could shed on the answer.

  60. Ang Aamer says:

    I agree with Rollo that from a Game standpoint Driscoll is running the BF destroying gambit.

    But he is doing it in a sermon / public speaking role.I have often wondered about how people find themselves members of cults… But then many years ago I went to a “revival”. You know the type held in low brow hotels or tents with some charismatic “preacher”. It was like being in the movie “Leap of Faith”.

    Every time this huckster said a provocative tearing people down comment… he followed it up with some soothing comfort phrase. Finally I just left right in the middle of this wind bag talking (he didn’t pause… ever). My girlfriend at the time asked me why I left… I was shocked. It was almost a mini-deprograming session on the way home. She thought he was great!

    I became very negative on any religious speaker who is not a member of a mainstream denomination after that. It’s one thing to go out and speak. But when you clothe yourself in the garment of preaching. Many people will lower their rhetorical defenses. Also the power of groupthink is very palpable. I consider myself very strong-willed. It was an effort to leave a group while someone is talking. Driscoll is doing the turn up the heat slowly so the frogs don’t know their cooked. It’s hard to leave or not follow because there is never the smoking gun of a statement that is ever the last straw. Good hucksters know this so they just keep pinging with little negs.

    But “we” in this forum know what Driscolls game is. It’s hard for any religious person to know they are gamed when they don’t know what game is.

  61. Dave says:

    Are you stating that if a Christian man runs his household sinfully, the pastor has no right or obligation to “rebuke [him] sharply, so that [he] will be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13)?

    The pastor only has an obligation to rebuke the man because he is a Christian, not because he is a husband. If he were to be unmarried, and living a sinful life, the pastor still has the same obligation before God towards him. Even then, the goal is not to have dominion over the man’s faith, but to be an example to him as a member of the pastor’s flock (2 Corinthians 1:24). When the husband is unsaved (or if saved but not a member of his congregation), the pastor has even less obligation to get involved. The major task falls on the wife who must now win over the husband by her exemplary love and submission, as Apostle Peter says.
    The husband remains the undisputed final authority on any matters involving the leadership of his own home—where the family lives, which church they attend, how many kids they have, where the kids go to school, whether the kids get vaccinated, etc, etc. Of course a smart husband would want to carry his wife along on all these matters, since she has a unique perspective to contribute. The pastor may offer advice, but he has no authority whatsoever on the man’s family. Any pastor meddling in another man’s family uninvited is in clear violation of God’s order. No pastor has been given the mandate to run another man’s household, or to usurp authority over any husband regarding matters of the man’s family.
    Running a household sinfully is akin to the so-called “Domestic violence laws”: they have little to do with the home per se, but more about how one treats another, whether they are at home or in the workplace.

  62. The One says:

    OT- Female only mosque. Female preacher. Honestly I think the land is cursed at this point

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/31/us-usa-islam-women-idUSKBN0L405720150131

  63. Dave says:

    IMO, the pastor has no right to CALL ANY OF THE HUSBAND’S BEHAVIOR SIN except a direct violation of the ten commandments. Since there are thousands of denominations, a wife would simply shop for a pastor that calls her husband’s behavior sin.

    Actually, we are no longer under the so-called “Ten Commandments”. Keeping those laws will no more bring us into favor with God than whistling at the moon.
    God has made the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments “to be old, so that He may bring in the new”. The old has already passed away (Hebrews 8:13).
    We are now under the New Covenant, and we have well over 300 “commandments” under that covenant, of which the greatest is “love”–first to God, then to our fellow beings. The whole purpose of God’s laws is to make us have love in our hearts–no more, no less (Romans 13:10; 1 Timothy 1:5). Laws were never meant to bring us into bondage. Unfortunately, the Ten Commandments ended up bringing people into bondage, rather than freeing them to love God and man.

  64. Boxer says:

    Dear “The One”

    Thanks for posting this. I’ve written about the ongoing pozzing of my local Islamic center for a while now (I have lots of Muslim friends, and I hear the most amazing shite that occasionally gets preached there).

    The feminization of American Islam is happening faster than it happened to Judaism and Christianity, and when it’s complete, the great satan will export this femmed out crap back to the middle east. I’m sure Arabs and Turks will be easier to turn into consumer slaves when this happens… and no doubt that’s part of the motivation.

    Boxer

  65. infowarrior1 says:

    @Dalrock

    I am genuinely curious. I don’t see any indication in the comment which gives away the sex of the troll.

  66. infowarrior1 says:

    ”The feminization of American Islam is happening faster than it happened to Judaism and Christianity, and when it’s complete, the great satan will export this femmed out crap back to the middle east. I’m sure Arabs and Turks will be easier to turn into consumer slaves when this happens… and no doubt that’s part of the motivation.”

    Indications include the below replacement birthrates of many people in the middle east and:
    http://christiannews.net/2014/08/17/report-sexual-immorality-rampant-among-iranian-youth/
    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-27475752
    https://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/girls-beat-up-iran-cleric-over-dress-code/

  67. Dave says:

    OT- Female only mosque. Female preacher. Honestly I think the land is cursed at this point

    I said some time ago that America was under God’s judgment, and some people disagreed, because no bombs were falling on us and our currency is still being used all over the world. What people forget is that the judgment of God is always in degrees (See Deuteronomy 28 from verse 15). God almost never begins His punishment for sin by lowering the boom. It always begins with gentle and private convictions of the Holy Spirit. It is when those fail that He escalates the punishments, and makes them more public.

  68. embracing reality says:

    This was an excellent dissection of Driscoll by Dalrock and one that Christians in the manosphere desperately needed.

    I wish no ill on Driscoll but considering his fall in the eyes of many the one who’s disappointment should most concern him now is his wife’s. I’m tempted to make a prediction but I’m not going to do it. I’ll just say that 99% of his Alpha appeal just went straight out the window and we all know what that usually means.

  69. mrteebs says:

    Boxer said…

    Suddenly, it becomes the wife’s job to discern when the husband is “in sin” and appeal to outside institutions (such as, coincidentally, himself) when her husband is not following her orders to the degree that she’d like.

    Exactly.

    The “nuclear option” that is now the fulcrum point of most so-called complementarian marriages. Except today, women need not even appeal to an outside institution. They can be entirely self-contained in their assessment. It is sufficient to unilaterally declare that her unhappiness = his sin, and all too many counselors – both christian and secular – use that as the litmus test. In fact, I would venture to say that you are more likely to get equitable treatment from a non-Christian counselor because they are more likely to treat the sexes as equals and perhaps assume that the husband or wife could be at fault, versus the churchian foregone conclusion that unhappy wife = husband not doing his job. Happy wife, happy life = the woman is permitted to make your life a living hell unless you acquiesce to her because she has been taught repeatedly that the world revolves around her, just as christians are taught today that Jesus revolves around them. After all, Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her – so Q.E.D., husbands should orbit around the sun that is their princess and “give himself for her.”

    The Bible makes an observation about harping women, corners of roofs, and constant dripping. But to listen to the “counsel” offered today, it is as though these poor, dripping women are merely the product of men not properly loving them – so even those verses are twisted to become “the husband’s fault.”

  70. mrteebs says:

    Dalrock said…

    I think in that specific case he is referring to Peter, since the context is Peter explaining in 1 Pet 3 that Sarah is the example women should follow in submission to their husbands.

    Ah, but how many times have you ever heard this preached or taught, allowing the passage to just say what it says without a lengthy preamble to effectively disarm it and conditionalize it to the point that only an unloving, patriarchal husband would allow his wife to behave so “beneath” him if she is his spiritual equal? Now, ask yourself how many times have you heard women – and men – quoting Gen 21:12 as an admonition that men should listen to their wives, without so much as the tiniest reciprocal suggestion that wives listen to their husbands, or without referring to Gen 3:17 where the man’s sin was specifically singled out as “listening to his wife” (rather than obeying God’s direct command and risking her unhappiness or even alienation for the rest of his life).

  71. RichardP says:

    @DavidJ: “(wife) should take it up with him (husband) first, respectfully — not as a rebuke, but as an appeal …”

    The word “rebuke” is actually used. These are actual instructions in the Bible for how the church is to encourage each other to stand strong in the Lord. Husbands and wives who are part of that church would be subject to these instructions. I don’t see any words anywhere that exempt husbands and wives from these instructions. Much is made above about whether a pastor or the church elders have any “authority” over a husband or wife. The issue in the following verses is not an exercise in authority. It is an exercise in reminding members of the church (not sinners outside of it) of God’s claim on their lives and their responsiblities to honor that claim.

    “So watch yourselves. If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.” Luke 17:3

    “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. (you know the rest) Matthew 18:15-17

  72. MarcusD says:

    So, Not-CAF:

    (Click through to the channel, too – there’s also a blogger collective, as well)

  73. RichardP says:

    @Cail: Re. my comment above, you said it didn’t put the lie to anything – thereby proving that you got my point. Perhaps I should have stated it as directly as you. I picked two verses that seemed at odds with the commands to the church to police themselves by confronting those in the church who were operating in error. “Puts the lie to” was said tongue-in-cheek. It obviously does no such thing, as you point out. And as I pointed out, with the follow-on sentence:

    “Or maybe we just need to be careful how we apply any scripture, making certain that the application is consistent with what the rest of scripture says.”

    Luke 17:3 and Matthew 18:15-17 highlight the proper attitude and procedure for handling issues within the church. The Bible gives the church no role to play in setting the families’ dinner menu for Thursday. That is outside the sphere of what the church is called to do. But calling husbands and wives to account for how they are treating their spouses IS within the sphere of what the church is called to do. Spouses are not subject to the pastor. They are subject to God. The pastor’s job is to remind them of that. To repeat what I said to David J: The issue in the verses cited (Luke 17:3 and Matthew 18:15-17) is not an exercise in authority. It is an exercise in reminding members of the church (not sinners outside of it) of God’s claim on their lives and their responsiblities to honor that claim.

  74. earl says:

    ‘Instead she would accuse me of trying to lord it over her; trying to break her down. Make her “feel bad” about herself. I’d say, “No. That’s not it. You confess your sin, God forgives you and you move on, pure and holy. Forgiven.” But she refused to bend. Ever.’

    Obstinate heart 101.

  75. Pursuing Holiness says:

    Hi there,
    First time commenter, been reading for a few months now…

    I just thought I’d chime in as a woman whose marriage has been fairly influenced by Driscoll’s teachings over the years.

    It has been hard reading your analysis, Dalrock, as I always thought of Driscoll as a good teacher, particularly on marriage issues. But I must admit that a lot of what you say makes sense. I listened to Driscoll with the goal of improving my marriage, but always seemed to come away from his sermons with a lingering sense of discontentment there.

    Have you listened to his talk, The Respectful Wife, from the Real Marriage series? I listened to it last year and found it pretty convicting re: my personal disrespect of my husband, so I would be interested to see if you thought it had the same failings as this “Women and Marriage” talk.

  76. Miserman says:

    One thing that is being exploited, even subconsciously, is that the bible has no explicit spiritual punishment for female rebellion. If a man does not love his wife, there are serious consequences, such as ignored prayers and, in the case of divorce, the immediate mark of adultery. However, what are the biblical consequences of women rebellion against male headship? Also, there is the fact that Jesus Himself never spoke a harsh word toward women (as far as I can see), but He dropped the hammer on men, such as when He said to Peter, “Get the behind me, Satan.” This example of a lack of harshness toward women in the NT is something that preachers and women have picked up on.

  77. earl says:

    ‘However, what are the biblical consequences of women rebellion against male headship?’

    Read the first two chapters of Esther. A rebellious woman was a queen and got tossed out for a righteous woman.

  78. freebird says:

    Tale after tale in The Bible tells us of that which we are currently experiencing.
    We are cut off from G-D for being willful to ourselves,and for failing to take biblical headship over our homes.
    1.The State owns us,our homes,and children
    2.Rampant sodomy over procreative sex
    3.Corruption in The Church (The body of Christ,for Christ’s sake)
    4.So on and so forth et all

    The prescription is clear,this Generation shall not see the promised land.
    (Stable loving homes,real civilization,instead crime and perversion)

    You know what happened at Soddom and Gomorra
    You know what happens in ALL the parables.
    If there is a G-D expect a scorched earth type cleansing scenario.

    This explains the wishful apocalyptic,it is the mind’s manifestation of G-d’s answer to our problems.
    Perhaps this last generation of fem-raised thugs will be so anchor less as to bring this vision to fruition.

    Bring the cleansing desert G-D of war

    (Not the troll,whomst was merely touching on the edges of this
    w/o understanding his own motivations,which may have been cleaner than some here)

    Meanwhile
    NONE FOR YOU
    CUT OFF

  79. freebird says:

    The definition of hell being cut off from God’s face and presence.
    A stiff necked and rebellious Generation shall not pass.
    (nothing to be done with you!)

    While Roman’s was written under Roman rule,look what happened to the Roman empire.
    Same as all the empires that over reached.
    We have seriously over reached,Islam is coming,and they will rule over us until we find a generation strong enough to be gentle again.
    Until then MIGHT MAKES RIGHT
    obey your masters,down you go

  80. freebird says:

    Dave says:
    January 31, 2015 at 11:44 pm

    “Unfortunately, the Ten Commandments ended up bringing people into bondage, rather than freeing them to love God and man.”

    You have seriously wandered off the path brother.
    By hook or by crook,of God loves you he will correct your path
    (Shepard’s crook)
    It may look like persecution from those you ‘love’ so much..
    It does hurt a lot,but in the end you will be stronger.

  81. Tam the Bam says:

    “He also has a highly developed understanding of his audience, and he knows how far he can safely push them. “
    Just had a vision of him being bottled off, Blues Bros. fashion.
    Nah, ain’t gonna happen, with his selected prey, is it?

    As for wife or “committee” directing the marriage, well nuts to that, as my old grandma said “If you want to wear the trousers, you pay the bills” (to lippy orphan teen girl cousins, brought up by her and step-grandad, doing the standard “you ain’t my dad, I’ll do what I want” stuff. A sobering effect, because the old cusses were (mentally) hard as nails, and tight as a shark’s wotsit. Actual carbon-dated Victorians (just)).
    The pastor(/elders/coven of church ladies) wants shares and a director’s seat? Well pony up, old boy, wifey’s going shopping. Ain’t you, darlin’?

  82. Dear Freebird,

    You correctly note: “Tale after tale in The Bible tells us of that which we are currently experiencing. We are cut off from G-D for being willful to ourselves,and for failing to take biblical headship over our homes.
    1.The State owns us,our homes,and children
    2.Rampant sodomy over procreative sex
    3.Corruption in The Church (The body of Christ,for Christ’s sake)
    4.So on and so forth et all.”

    But why? Why did this happen?

    Perhaps when Dalrock gets around to discussing the cause, we can make it better?

    lzzlzoz?

  83. earl says:

    ‘But why? Why did this happen?

    Perhaps when Dalrock gets around to discussing the cause, we can make it better?

    lzzlzoz?’

    That will certainly be scary journey. Finding the root cause may just knock over that whole house of cards.

  84. williamwilliam says:

    True pastor story: My former pastor switched profession to become a realtor. I switched denominations to return to the Catholic church. I was buying investment property, using my former pastor as realtor. My shit-testing wife leaves a voice mail to him loudly claiming she does not want me to buy any property and any action I take is without her consent. He played the message to me during an office visit for paperwork. I listened and just said ‘OK, thanks.’ I Red-Pilled the moment and proceeded with the transaction. No explanations, no discussion. I already researched the law, etc. The deal closed. With his commission on the line, this former pastor seemed fully supportive of my Red Pill position. To his credit, this realtor went above normal service and found my first renter at no additional cost to me (not required) and negotiated a lower property management fee (not required.) Great victory for Red Pill.

  85. Miserman says:

    I wonder how many men sit in church, being berated by their pastor and feel like this …

  86. Boxer says:

    Dear GBFM & Free Bird:

    We are cut off from G-D for being willful to ourselves,and for failing to take biblical headship over our homes.

    This is one definition of hell. This particular “Great Book for Men” is a suitable illustration…

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Conference-Birds-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140444343

    Hell is a self-imposed psychological state, wherein we put nonsensical physical things (money, credential, intellectualism, sex, etc.) in place of G-d, thereby increasing our distance from him. The inverse is also valid. Heaven can be seen as the act of turning our attention away from the fleeting, physical things that we are often so obsessed with, and concentrating on the divine and His laws for a good spiritual life.

    In this sense it’s ironic, in that there’s nothing that is sending us to hell but our own shortsightedness. Any time we want to leave it, we can.

    But why? Why did this happen?

    If you google “atomized-america-of-late-stage-capitalism” you will find some nice post-Marxist theory, in the style of the frankfurters themselves. I know you’re a big fan, as I am.

    At some point, historical forces caused us to lose sight of one another as human beings. We began worrying about striving, money, and showing off to our neighbors (i.e. seeing our neighbor as a competitor in the race to buy extraneous nonsense, rather than our brother or sister, as the Great Books for Men suggest). That was the beginning of a false state of consciousness, which we are all subject to today.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  87. Driscoll destroys the NEXT generation, as the daughters of rebellious mothers grow up with the same views of dialectic on Scripture.

    Ive tried this narrative as a way to break through the confirmation bias that Driscoll and his legion of cohorts suffer. Follow the life of the “saved as a child” church girl, from pre-school to marriage. I have to admit that if boys were steeped in the same kind of wrapped in ribbons, all corners and sharp objects padded off, and if something bad happens snot-my-fault, a good number of men would be as myopic and shallow thinking pro-male (in a silly way) as women are.

    The entire life experience of the Christian girl saved in church as a kid is framed as Driscoll frames the things in the sermon to women. Its never ever ever to be offensive to women. Driscoll is an outlier in his acknowledgement of feminism cum evangelical feminism in the church. He knocks his own decent statement down and ruins it though.

    Had lunch with my pastor this past week. We’ve been 2.5 years in this excellent smallish church with a 35 year old pastor who has managed to not ping my man-dar, not even once. he’d just preached , finally, on the scriptures that will reveal where he stands on marriage. And he made it through, even unequivocally stating the scourge that is NF divorce. id not lunched with him yet, so i booked it.

    He is solid. His teaching isnt of a nature that this woman coddling could even fit in. nevertheless, after discussion, I can say he is on good footing,

    He told me that there had been a handful of occasions where he reluctantly counseled couples process of divorce, and he used the word “typical” when he described men bending over backwards and women just flat stuck on destroying families. He’d tried everything and to the extent he pressed any notions of wrongness in what the women were doing, they left the church, found another, and he had had occasions where the gal’s new pastor phoned him (older pastors schooling this youngin) to admonish him over his harsh treatment of the weaker vessel because he’d made it clear she was off track in what she was doing.

    As innocuous as his marriage teaching was, I asked him how badly his email spiked. by then he knew my bent, so he rolled his eyes and chuckled saying he was still working the responses. This, after truly saying nothing with overt tones toward men or women. i suspect the lack of female admonishment left them wanting, so they were pissed about the lack of male admonishment.

    He left our meeting headed to meet with a wife who tossed her perfectly good husband out four months ago, and had refused the pastors overtures until that day. He planned a tact he’d not used before. Based on having been raised rural and poor, he asks if people tossing good marriages ever even think of how economically privileged they are to even be able to do that without worrying about resources for the mom, the dad, and the kids. I expect she was unmoved, but I was glad to hear him say he was going to use that.

  88. This example of a lack of harshness toward women in the NT is something that preachers and women have picked up on.

    They have picked up the wrong idea. the superficial lack of harshess to women leads them to conclude A. don’t hold women to account, and/or B. women have nothing to be held accountable for.

    there is a little bit of truth in A and B. The in this case the devil is in the superficial understanding I mentioned, the devil is not in the right understanding of the details.

  89. Boxer says:

    Dear Empath:

    They have picked up the wrong idea. the superficial lack of harshess to women leads them to conclude A. don’t hold women to account, and/or B. women have nothing to be held accountable for.

    In many cases (and this exposé of Pastor Mark is a great example) it’s even more sinister than that.

    My reading of the text suggests that the superficial lack of harshness to women reflects the authority of the husband or father when dealing with a women. It’s for the husband to decide whether a deceptive wife is to be punished, and what the punishment is, and therefore it’s not often spelled out explicitly, except in the worst examples.

    Pastor Mark is a good example of a man who has usurped the power of the husbands in his congregation, in order to enter an intimate psychological space with the wives. If you read his looney book, you get the sense that Driscoll lived a hellish marriage, with a total lack of empathy, sex or authentic feeling. He may have been abusing the authority of his position to get some emotional space with all the other women in his congregation, at the expense of the fathers and husbands of these women.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/13/mark-driscoll-s-sex-manual-real-marriage-scandalizes-evangelicals.html

    I have little doubt that if he wasn’t reined in by the prospect of criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits, he would have eventually pulled a Jim Bakker, and started having physical sex with some of the wives and daughters that were in his flock.

    Women naturally gravitate to authority. When I taught my first class, years ago, I was shocked by this phenomenon. It’s just how women are built. Preachers are seen in the same light, and the kooky ones often fall for the temptation.

    Boxer

  90. Red Knight says:

    Gotta hand it to Driscoll, what a magnificient bastard. He gives the appearance of asserting husbandly headship, but does everything to neuter it in practice, in order to appease all sides simultaneously while giving the appearance of being scripturally consistent.

    His point about how she can appeal to higher authorities (church elders, the power of the state via the legal system) for recourse if she thinks he is “sinning” is devious as it makes superficial sense, taking things to the higher levels in the chain of command. Which, though, makes the whole headship of the husband irrelevant since those higher levels don’t recognize that chain of command to begin with, and are all but sure to side with her due to how the wider culture pedestalizes women. Of course, the wife has sole discretion to determine whether her husband is sinning, and considering how massive requirements Driscoll puts on men to qualify as “godly husbands” in the next sermon, even an underfed female rationalization hamster will find sufficient sin with him to give a rebellious wife a pretext to take it to the next level.

    A chain of command where the lower level has a magical I-get-my-way button is no chain of command at all.

  91. Driscoll wants men to submit to the higher authority of the courts which actively destroy marriage:

    Why does Driscoll tell men to bow before the corrupt system? Did not Jesus call out the corrupt Scribes and Pharisees?

    lzozlzzo?

  92. He told me that there had been a handful of occasions where he reluctantly counseled couples process of divorce, and he used the word “typical” when he described men bending over backwards and women just flat stuck on destroying families.

    Yes, even traditional pastors who recognize women’s sin can fall into that trap of encouraging the husband to supplicate. I think it’s basically projection: if a man tells you he’s unhappy because of X, and you fix X, he will be more happy. If a man in marriage counseling says he’s unhappy because he never gets to watch football, and his wife agrees to stop nagging him to do chores on Sunday afternoons, he will be happier. So the pastor/counselor assumes that women are the same way. If she says she’s unhappy because she has too much housework to do, then if the husband takes over the dishes and laundry, she will be happier.

    It doesn’t work, because she doesn’t know why she’s unhappy. It’s certainly not for the reason she states, and it may not be for any external reason at all. If those reasons are taken away, she’ll find others. But watching her husband supplicate can only hurt in the long run; so the husband, with the pastor’s encouragement, keeps bending over backwards further and further until he breaks.

  93. bluedog says:

    Here’s a good piece operating on the meta level of first things underlying how we get to this place and demarcating the boundaries in which we have to find a solution.
    The boundaries do indeed make a solution tough, but they’re boundaries for good reason.

    http://m.nationalreview.com/article/397654/belle-knoxious-kevin-d-williamson

  94. Boxer, this is exactly what I was getting at with my A and B.

    My reading of the text suggests that the superficial lack of harshness to women reflects the authority of the husband or father when dealing with a women. It’s for the husband to decide whether a deceptive wife is to be punished, and what the punishment is, and therefore it’s not often spelled out explicitly, except in the worst examples.

  95. Boxer
    ,
    I meant to state that I was getting at with my final paragraph…the one that begins with no capital letter, a symptom of my aged keyboard (and aging arthritic fingers)

  96. DeNihilist says:

    Infowarrior, re the feminism in Iran, it’s a jewish plot!

    *sarc

  97. Pastor Mark is a good example of a man who has usurped the power of the husbands in his congregation, in order to enter an intimate psychological space with the wives.

    Simply put, he is chasing The Lift

  98. @Cail

    It doesn’t work, because she doesn’t know why she’s unhappy. It’s certainly not for the reason she states, and it may not be for any external reason at all. If those reasons are taken away, she’ll find others. But watching her husband supplicate can only hurt in the long run; so the husband, with the pastor’s encouragement, keeps bending over backwards further and further until he breaks.

    All true. Add that the idea of her deciding suddenly that she IS happy is so foreign, so bizarre, it simply cannot happen. It would mean that emotions are fleeting. Her existence, in the moment, and in overarching blocks of years, depends upon embracing insta-feelings and making them as objective as saying that 100 degrees with 85% humidity is hot weather. I use that example specifically rather than something binary and objective like black/white. The weather thing would be a stone wall of objectivity even though someone may find that weather NOT hot.

    On husband supplicating, true, but one can no better suggest that he go full on aloof and dismissive as a remedy for the marriage. It will offer him succor, his frame will mute his pain, but it is an equally invalid strategy for reconciliation.

  99. bluedog says:

    @empath re: February 1, 2015 at 11:50 am,

    That is a truly fine post and in two parts.
    First: acknowledging that men would be no different if they were mollycoddled the same way…that is the kind of point that could be throw away but should be center stage.
    Men aren’t mollycoddled and therefore aren’t that way. It follows that is women also were not, then they wouldn’t be that way either.
    Men in the manosphere can be guilty of a form of hubris where it isn’t so much that they speak confusing their ignorance for knowledge as they speak confusing key (and still rare) insight for professional psychological mastery. The effect is the same as with ordinary hubris: we act on ignorance that is confused with knowledge. Better not to act at all. Of all forms of error the wrong decision made for the wrong reasons leaves us most exposed to unmitigatable catastrophe. Hubris.
    Men make this error for a psychological reason similar to the first impressions error. For psychological reasons first impressions carry a disproportionate effect on our judgments that are irrational.
    Similarly the lenses of sexual desire and sexual inferiority that men view women through (where to be clear I mean many men unconsciously and powerfully perceive themselves as sexually inferior to the objects of their desire) has a disproportionate effect on their understandings of female psychology so they make women’s psyches out to be alien to the male psyche. This causes men to totally fail to understand women.
    If men could carry a pregnancy, if they were sexually aroused by an object of success rather than a sex object, and if their range of time to pass on their genes were restricted, and if they were elevated at an early age on account of sexual assets everyone else perceives but that they could not possibly understand … And if nearly every other aspect of their psyches were exactly identical in every other imaginable way to a mans … Then you have a woman’s psyche.
    There is this powerful subtext of woman as alien creature we see in the “red pill” manosphere and it does two things: it tells us a lot about the psychological confines that enclose the people who believe in it and it reinforces the belief that there is no hope to restoring intergender relations to some state of mutually beneficial parity.
    As for your pastor…good man. I encourage you to encourage him by suggesting he use these words when defending himself: “I will not dishonor the integrity of an adult woman the way society encourages and licenses me to by treating her with kid gloves and infantilizing her. I will treat her with the same high moral expectations that I do not reserve for men. Go ahead and condemn me for it but I am going to keep treating women like adults.”

  100. Boxer says:

    Dear Empath:

    Simply put, he is chasing The Lift

    No. It’s much worse than that.

    “But by far the most disturbing part of the book is the first chapter, in which Mark and Grace go into extraordinary detail about their troubled sexual relationship. In this section, Grace is often cast as the damaged and sinful wife who withholds sex from her deserving husband, Mark the hero who is justified in leaving his wife but instead comes along to rescue her. The amount of guilt and shame that pervades this part of the book makes me so sad.”
    http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/mark-driscoll-real-marriage

    Driscoll’s wife withheld sex from the man, in the style that I hear tell from so many other brothers here. Not only did “Pastor Mark” not call out the rebellious wives and daughters in his congregation, but he encouraged their rebellion, perhaps in an effort to make his own rebellious wife jealous, probably to enter into intimate relationships with his female members (at least symbolically) and certainly because he’s a pathetic coward who dared not challenge the root cause of the dysfunction.

    Boxer

  101. enrique432 says:

    Eat, Pray, Cats:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shelley-wetton/why-i-married-a-man-i-did_b_6575594.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

    Some of the red pill comments are priceless, including the sarcastic one’s women don’t seem to get are a joke on them:
    “Kudos to you. I really like your article and I could tell you would be a great novelist. I feel like more women should speak up about their thoughts and feelings on topics such as life, wisdom, and maturity, just like you did. Awesome job.”

  102. Mark says:

    @Earl

    “Anyone elses BS meter spike when they read this?”

    Mine did!……He gave her “lots of money”?……..so how much money is this guy raking in(for the cause of Christianity).The Christian Church I attend,the Pastor does not give his wife “lots of money”…..he does not have any! (The Synagogue that I attend?…the Rabbi has lots of money…most do!) In fact,I have given him money lots of times,put gas in his car etc.(he never asks me for money for personal use.I give it to him because I know that he needs it….and it is spent on life’s necessities).I have no problem with that what so ever.That is what having money is about.If you cannot help other people with your money?…..then it becomes worthless paper!

    @Tom K
    “”I am thinking now that we Christian men should reintroduce the Jewish idea of simply saying, “I divorce you! I divorce you! I divorce you!” to end our marriages.””

    That is an Old Testament practice.Maybe some “Jewish Sects” still practice that today?….but,none that I know of.The Muslims practice that today.Could you imagine the havoc that would wreak with the feminazis and the family court system?????……….WOW!…….We can only dream!…..L*

  103. @bluedog

    If I’m misunderstanding, tell me. But I didn’t intend to nor do I believe I needed to go so far as to include “carrying a baby” and all those things, therefore I didn’t mean to go so far as to state that men would be LIKE women….generally, full stop. I couldn’t tell if you were adding to my statements or paraphrasing them or some of each.

    The reason I pulled back from saying men would be just like women, if men were mollycoddled as you say, is because, well, men are men, don’t carry babies, etc. But men are also man, therefore some are prone to taking a lily lined down sloped road to a cool drink if one is laid before him.

    Men however seem to overcome the man part better in the slog of marriage and attendant Soldiering suffering. Soldiering on. Depending on what it is in a man that makes him do that it could also make him resist the soft path of no accountability leading to a pretzel shaped self righteousness. The man willing to suffer would resist more than the man too dang lazy to change his circumstances with his shrew.

    This about just one aspect of the saved in church girls life experience. Driscol even says she will want to control and rule things due to insecurity, fear, and a fallen proclivity to same. She will want to lead using passive aggressive voice. The coddling magnifies that.

    Men, not held accountable would tend to not want any part of leading, foot loose fancy free life, responsible to ME and ME only. At least if men could somehow be released from the bondage of misplaced guilt the church forges they may flame out but the backdraft catches no one else in its incendiary destruction.

  104. Mark says:

    @Dave

    “”Actually, we are no longer under the so-called “Ten Commandments”. Keeping those laws will no more bring us into favor with God than whistling at the moon.””

    NOPE!…..no sale!…….Every Pastor that I know….and every Priest that I have ever met,has a copy of the “Ten Commandments” hanging on their wall in the office & home.Jesus lived his life by the Ten Commandments….and he preached that his disciples and flock do the same.Think about it.If you live your life by the Ten Commandments you are doing alright! Every Pastor,Rabbi & Priest tries to live up to those Commandments.They will never be outdated as long as the human race exists!…….Shalom!!!

  105. Bluepillprofessor says:

    >That’s the language that the Bible repeatedly uses. That is what it says.

    This is the voice of Satan pretending to agree with the Bible.

  106. Bluepillprofessor says:

    “No I don’t want to spend the money.” So I gave her lots of money and I said “Go buy yourself whatever you want.” She said “I don’t want to.” I said “Well you need to follow the leadership of your husband. Go shopping.” True story. We do that quite often in the Driscoll house.’

    We do that in my house as well. The difference is she earned (most of) the money and I go with her to watch her try on her new clothes. I decided Macy’s wasn’t slutty enough.

  107. Boxer says:

    Dear Mark:

    Just for fun, and because it’s a valid argument (and the only argument I know), I’m gonna put on my magic green apron and bust into Mormon mode, and reply here. I’m sure few will agree with me, and revealing such secrets to the unwashed hordes of infidels here will put the Danites on my trail, but it’s just the sort of nonconformist I am…

    NOPE!…..no sale!…….Every Pastor that I know….and every Priest that I have ever met,has a copy of the “Ten Commandments” hanging on their wall in the office & home.Jesus lived his life by the Ten Commandments….and he preached that his disciples and flock do the same.Think about it.If you live your life by the Ten Commandments you are doing alright! Every Pastor,Rabbi & Priest tries to live up to those Commandments.They will never be outdated as long as the human race exists!…….Shalom!!!

    Like Christians, Mormons believe in the ten commandments also, and we often have them hanging up. To an observant Mormon of my generation, Christians are breaking the first commandment, by equating Jesus with God, and are therefore practicing idolatry. (Observant Mormons believe Jesus was a human being, who served as a good example, and a great prophet, and that’s it. When we baptize people into our religion, we do it in the name of God, not in the name of ‘father son and holy spirit’, which makes our baptisms invalid to Christians).

    Certain Christians, moreover, pray to saints, icons, statues and other things, and are therefore (in the traditional Mormon interpretation) polytheists, and not believers at all.

    I realize that everyone here is going to descend on this with their own interpretations. I’m not posting this to troll all you brothers or make you defensive. It’s just an illustration of the differences.

    So you see, we can all hang them up and claim we uphold them, but the various interpretive ranges that we all use when we read the words is the problem.

    Best,

    Boxer

  108. Josh the Aspie says:

    @bob k. mando,

    I have seen women in positions of power that do not tear down those most frequently around them. They typically frame things in mommy language. “I take care of my boys” says the woman put in charge of managing male engineers. “I make sure they have what they need, and I fight for them like a momma bear”. I have seen at least one of said managers leave to care for an ailing relative.

    Instead of building themselves up by tearing others down, they build themselves up by including the success of anyone they have authority under as their own success, and any good thing that happens to their subordinates as happening to their “work family”.

    I’ve seen similar management styles from men, who channel their fathering instinct into how they deal with their subordinates.

    And honestly, I think this kind of transference of parenting instinct is a lot healthier than “oh look at my little pocket-poodle, she’s my BABY! LOVE MY BABY!”

    And I’ve seen said men and women be more effective managers than some of the smarmy backstabbing guy’s I’ve worked with, or the check-box checker manager, or the micromanager. The argument “women should not be managers” is not likely to be accepted in isolation, as others have had similar experiences.

  109. MarcusD says:

    Potentially/likely NSFW (but relevant to what others have posted here before): http://www.nerdcore.de/2015/01/28/people-watching-porn-on-the-oculus-rift-for-the-first-time/

  110. Oscar says:

    @The One says:
    January 31, 2015 at 10:24 pm

    “IMO, the pastor has no right to CALL ANY OF THE HUSBAND’S BEHAVIOR SIN except a direct violation of the ten commandments. Since there are thousands of denominations, a wife would simply shop for a pastor that calls her husband’s behavior sin.”

    Where do you find that in the Bible?

  111. Oscar says:

    @Dave says:
    January 31, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    “The pastor only has an obligation to rebuke the man because he is a Christian, not because he is a husband.”

    No kidding. I never stated otherwise. But the result is the same. The pastor still has the authority to rebuke sinful behavior in the lives of the believers he shepherds, even if that sinful behavior takes place within the confines of home and family, and even if it’s the sinful behavior of the head of that family.

    Now, the pastor ONLY has the authority to rebuke the unrepentant sinner, or AT MOST to not associate with the unrepentant and instruct the rest of the congregation to do the same. He can’t – as a practical matter – MAKE the unrepentant do anything in his (or even her) own home. He can certainly instruct and advise. That’s part of his role as a pastor. But he can’t MAKE anyone do anything in his/her own home.

    However, the idea being spread by some here that pastors have no right to rebuke sin in a man’s life (or even call it sin) when that man sins against his family in his home is un-Biblical, unless someone can produce a scripture that states otherwise.

  112. infowarrior1 says:

    @DeNilhist

    Lol. Good one.

  113. Oscar, a pastor has the right/duty to rebuke a sinful man in his flock, but I wouldn’t call that “authority.” Authority implies that he can enforce his will to some extent, or at least that some higher authority has put him in charge of that person. But in a church that has no chain of command establishing that authority, any authority the pastor has over a member is given to him by that member by virtue of his showing up.

    Say a guy moved into a new town and was looking for a church, with no particular denominational requirements. His new neighbors recommended Frank’s Christian Church, or he opened the phone book yellow pages to “churches” and saw an ad, so he went and tried it out and liked it. Frank’s preaching seemed authentically Christian to him, so he did his best to follow it. You could say he gave Frank spiritual authority over himself — not because Frank claimed apostolic hierarchy or carried a holy staff, but because he agreed with Frank’s teachings.

    But then one day Frank comes to him and starts telling him he’s doing something sinful at home, and the guy honestly disagrees with him. Why would he continue to give Frank — who is now teaching something at odds with what he considers to be Christian — any authority over himself? After all, he picked Frank and gave him that authority; God didn’t, as far as he knows. So he picked wrong; he’s human. I don’t see why he would give Frank one second more of his time after realizing that he thinks Frank is wrong. Seems like he’d need to get busy finding a new pastor.

    If you can ignore someone’s rebuke and there are no negative consequences, I wouldn’t call that authority. Without any real authority, the pastor is rebuking as a fellow Christian, which is fine, but fraternal correction (that’s the Catholic term for it) certainly doesn’t override the husband’s authority over his own family (which is scriptural) as some seemed to imply.

  114. Anne says:

    @Tom K.

    I am thinking now that we Christian men should reintroduce the Jewish idea of simply saying, “I divorce you! I divorce you! I divorce you!” to end our marriages.

    This is not a Jewish idea at all. It is a Muslim practice. The Jewish idea is that in order to divorce your wife, you must give her a bill of divorcement (Hebrew — get). This is found in Deuteronomy 24, and is still practiced at least by Orthodox Jews.

  115. RobJ says:

    A few commenters here have said that Jesus didn’t rebuke women, but when he saved the adulterous woman from stoning, he told her, “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:3-11)

    When we read that verse today, it sounds very low-key, but the meaning is clear.

    In other words, Jesus didn’t say, “You go, girl! Get your freak on and party down, because no matter what you do, I will see you in heaven!”

  116. Neguy says:

    This is OT, but related. It’s a link to a post by a Catholic on the denial of essence and the turn to paganism by the church, particularly with regards to marriage and gender roles:

    The Fourth Crisis of the Church: http://wmbriggs.com/post/15176

  117. Dave says:

    Oscar, a pastor has the right/duty to rebuke a sinful man in his flock, but I wouldn’t call that “authority.”.

    Precisely what I wrote earlier. No pastor has any authority over a man in the latter’s role as husband. I would even go so far to say that, barring very few situations (e.g. egregious abuses by the husband to to the wife, etc), no pastor has a right to meddle in the affairs of any family without the man’s permission. The hierarchy of authority in a family is as follows:

    The kids–> The wife –> The husband –> The Godhead.

    Pastors do not feature at all. Even the government does not. It is a perversion of God’s original intent for the family when the pastor or the government can exercise authority over a man’s family without the man’s permission. Or, in the case of Mark Driscoll and other similar preachers, promote rebellion against a man by seducing his wife into rebellion.

  118. Robert What? says:

    Truly amazing. I’m just wondering on what basis the women in his audience – obviously lapping this up – consider themselves “Christian”? You might as well call anyone “Christian” as it has come to have no meaning in the modern church.

  119. Dave says:

    You might as well call anyone “Christian” as it has come to have no meaning in the modern church.

    In my experience in America, most of the religious women that I met and wanted to court claimed to be Christians “since birth”. The last one among them was a pastor’s daughter who grew up in her father’s church and yet claimed to have been a Christian since she was born. All my attempts to explain the necessity of being born again seemed to be above her level of understanding. Like Nicodemus of old, she was “a teacher in Israel” and still could not understand such a simple concept as being “born again”.
    It is unfortunate that most professed Christians in America are in the same boat. They are religious alright, but they have never had a personal, life-changing encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ. All their spirituality only dates back to being members of a church, being born “into Christian homes” and being baptized. They have never been “born of the Spirit” (John 3:6), so they remain “in the flesh” and therefore, cannot please God, no matter how much they tried (Romans 8:8).

  120. OT….that was the best Superbowl since the Titans-Rams Superbowl XXXV, In some ways, it was better than 35.

  121. BradA says:

    The One,

    IMO, the pastor has no right to CALL ANY OF THE HUSBAND’S BEHAVIOR SIN except a direct violation of the ten commandments. Since there are thousands of denominations, a wife would simply shop for a pastor that calls her husband’s behavior sin.

    That is not consistent with the Scriptures. Local churches have a duty to go far beyond the pablum we have today. The problem is not confronting sin, the problem is encouraging rebellion. Those are not necessarily the same thing.

    Earl,

    Read the first two chapters of Esther. A rebellious woman was a queen and got tossed out for a righteous woman.

    I somehow doubt Vashti would have sought to help the Jewish people avoid the threat from Haman. It is far more likely that God used that situation to move her out so Esther could come in rather than being a clear indication of some horrid sin on Vashti’s part.

    I do find it ironic you seem to posit that a pastor has no authority over a husband in a local church when the RCC claims ultimately authority over all.

    GBFM clone,

    What have you done with the real GBFM? The posts are mostly readable now!

  122. BradA says:

    IBB,

    Clearly we are destined to think differently. The thought of Beli-cheat winning again disgusts me.

    Are you ready to line up behind the annointed Jeb Bush now BTW?

  123. Oscar says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    February 1, 2015 at 6:00 pm

    “If you can ignore someone’s rebuke and there are no negative consequences, I wouldn’t call that authority.”

    Who says there are no negative consequences?

  124. Oscar says:

    @Dave says:
    February 1, 2015 at 7:42 pm

    “I would even go so far to say that, barring very few situations (e.g. egregious abuses by the husband to to the wife, etc), no pastor has a right to meddle in the affairs of any family without the man’s permission.”

    So, if a pastor sees a father exasperating his son, that pastor has no right or obligation to tell the father, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4)?

  125. Oscar says:

    So, I attended a Super Bowl party tonight, and oh boy! Few things are more sad and pathetic than a woman well past her prime who still dresses and behaves as if in her prime, especially when there are young women just entering their prime standing right next to her.

    It’s like watching a has-been champion boxer get beat up by local rookies.

  126. Brad,

    Clearly we are destined to think differently. The thought of Beli-cheat winning again disgusts me.

    Get over it.

    Are you ready to line up behind the annointed Jeb Bush now BTW?

    No.

  127. Boxer,

    I realize that everyone here is going to descend on this with their own interpretations.

    Not really.

    I don’t think anyone here really cares what the LDS believe or don’t believe. That is because the majority of the people of this country don’t take your religion seriously. They look at you and your beliefs the way you might look at Wiccans.

    I’m not posting this to troll all you brothers or make you defensive. It’s just an illustration of the differences.

    Difference are legion.

  128. Dave says:

    “So, if a pastor sees a father exasperating his son, that pastor has no right or obligation to tell the father, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4)?”

    Again, the above example did not confer any authority on the pastor other than to preach the gospel. The pastor is as much obligated to tell a businessman to deal honestly and not cheat their clients, and that would not be equivalent of the pastor having an authority on the businessman.

    The husband/father is a minister to his family. A pastor is a minister to his flock and to the community. Both of them are directly accountable to God. Which part of that is too difficult to understand?
    The husband/father has no authority over the pastor as far as his flock is concerned. The pastor has no authority over the family man as far as his family is concerned. I understand that that may be a little difficult to grasp, but the truth is, if more real men were marrying, as opposed to less mature men, the almost universal intrusion of the pastors and governments in the home would be much more curtailed.
    However, I do not mean to say that the pastor cannot admonish and advise the man regarding his family, or that the man cannot provide advice to the pastor regarding issues of concern. But neither is given a mandate by God to control or oversee the ministry of the other. Let us settle that once and for all.
    Even Apostle Paul was careful enough to admonish fathers, mothers and the kids, but he never directly intervened in the personal affairs of any family. At least I cannot say I am aware of any instance of him doing so (I stand corrected though).
    Generally speaking, today’s pastors are doing so many things which they really have no reason to be doing. At the same time, they leave off doing what they really should be doing. It is not the job of any pastor to run the household of any man, even if that man were a member of his flock. Christ sent him to “feed the church of God”, not to be a lord over God’s heritage, or to become an AMOG.

  129. Don Quixote says:

    Miserman says:
    February 1, 2015 at 7:52 am

    One thing that is being exploited, even subconsciously, is that the bible has no explicit spiritual punishment for female rebellion.

    According to Moses a girl caught fornicating could be stoned to death, even long after the event. Deut. 22:13-21

    A man could divorce his rebellious wife by giving her a certificate of divorce. Deut. 24.
    She didn’t have the option to initiate a divorce, under any circumstances.

    If a man does not love his wife, there are serious consequences, such as ignored prayers and, in the case of divorce, the immediate mark of adultery. However, what are the biblical consequences of women rebellion against male headship?

    Once upon a time before the age of feminism women were checked by:
    No easy method of contraception, fornication = unwanted pregnancy.
    No voting for women and therefore no stupid laws pandering to feminists. [major problem]
    The biblical consequences for women in rebellion are similar to those listed above, but the churches have abandoned the ole landmark.

    Also, there is the fact that Jesus Himself never spoke a harsh word toward women (as far as I can see), but He dropped the hammer on men, such as when He said to Peter, “Get the behind me, Satan.” This example of a lack of harshness toward women in the NT is something that preachers and women have picked up on.

    Prior to Jesus arrival a divorced woman was free to remarry if she received the certificate of divorce from her husband. Jesus forever changed the status of divorced women with the words: whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery This is also ignored by almost every church in the western world.

  130. earl says:

    ‘I do find it ironic you seem to posit that a pastor has no authority over a husband in a local church when the RCC claims ultimately authority over all.’

    A priest has no authority over a husband in a marriage with his wife. When it comes to church/spiritual matters of course a priest would have authority over a husband.

  131. Minesweeper says:

    @Don Quixote – and you think Jesus meant she would be sinning in perpetuity ? No what Jesus said was that there is no sinless divorce. Someone will sin – that breaks the contract, and they will pay the price for that with God.

    What the Jews thought was you could have a sinless divorce as many times as you liked, he showed them this was wrong.

  132. Pingback: Groundhog Day Mini-Linkfest | Patriactionary

  133. bear says:

    Driscoll is the type of guy that comes to mind when reading James 3:1 . Not many should desire to teach because in doing so you will be held to a much higher standard. Its obvious he loves the power, fame and wealth that comes from his position and in an effort to maintain what he has will water down, pervert and twist the Word of God – ass he sees fit. Ultimately , individuals like him, do more damage to the Kingdom of God than anyone outside of the Church. I would not want to be this man when he stands before God on Judgment Day

  134. Who says there are no negative consequences?

    I did, in my example. If I choose a church — not because I’m convinced it’s the One True Church, but because I like the pastor and the people and the atmosphere and so on — and then the pastor starts accusing me of something that I think is none of his business, so I move on down the road to a different church, there are no consequences.

  135. Dalrock says:

    @Miserman

    Also, there is the fact that Jesus Himself never spoke a harsh word toward women (as far as I can see), but He dropped the hammer on men, such as when He said to Peter, “Get the behind me, Satan.” This example of a lack of harshness toward women in the NT is something that preachers and women have picked up on.

    I guess it depends on your definition of harsh. Christ was somewhat harsh with the woman at the well, calling out the fact that she had hopped from man to man and therefore lacked a husband. He starts by instructing her to bring her husband, which of course He knows she doesn’t have. If you read that exchange even from a modern woman’s perspective, it had to sting. I would imagine much more so for a woman in the ancient world.

    His rebuke of Peter that you quote is in response to Peter not knowing his place (Matt 16:22-23).

    22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”

    23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

    Several times Christ challenged women who might be seen as grasping for what He did not offer. In Luke 8:43-48 He demands to know who touched His garment. Obviously, He already knew the answer. Only when the woman demonstrates that she is submissive to Him does He change His tone and commend her faith:

    43 Now a woman, having a flow of blood for twelve years, who had spent all her livelihood on physicians and could not be healed by any, 44 came from behind and touched the border of His garment. And immediately her flow of blood stopped.

    45 And Jesus said, “Who touched Me?”

    When all denied it, Peter and those with him[a] said, “Master, the multitudes throng and press You, and You say, ‘Who touched Me?’”[b]

    46 But Jesus said, “Somebody touched Me, for I perceived power going out from Me.” 47 Now when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling; and falling down before Him, she declared to Him in the presence of all the people the reason she had touched Him and how she was healed immediately.

    48 And He said to her, “Daughter, be of good cheer;[c] your faith has made you well. Go in peace.”

    Another example which comes to mind is Matt 15:21-28

    21 Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.”

    23 But He answered her not a word.

    And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.”

    24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

    25 Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”

    26 But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”

    27 And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”

    28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

  136. Jeremy says:

    Not sure if this was already covered over the weekend…

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/01/vatican-calls-plastic-surgery-a-burqa-made-of-flesh/

    Link title doesn’t do the content justice. The Pope is basically calling out men, and promoting the value of women in the church.

  137. Dalrock says:

    John 2:1-10 might be seen as a similar, but less harsh example.

  138. Boxer says:

    Dear Jeremy:

    Link title doesn’t do the content justice. The Pope is basically calling out men, and promoting the value of women in the church.

    Sad to see the ongoing destruction of the Catholic church.

    The Pope also said recently that it is chiefly women who pass on the faith, and urged men to listen to women more and not be so “macho.” He said that men often don’t allow enough room for women while “women are capable of seeing things with a different angle from us, with a different eye.”

    I wonder when the ordination of women to the priesthood will commence? I’m thinking that radfem crypto-dykes “Blue Eyed Lady” and “Xantippe” from Catholic Answers would be fitting additions to the new poz clergy.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  139. BradA says:

    Earl,

    A priest has no authority over a husband in a marriage with his wife. When it comes to church/spiritual matters of course a priest would have authority over a husband.

    Exactly how do you decide if something is spiritual and when it is not? We are spiritual beings and our whole life is spiritual. Your dividing line doesn’t exist. Or where you claim it is would make it irrelevant in this life.

  140. Scott says:

    Boxer-

    The myth that women are the more “spiritual” and disciplined in that regard is pretty prevelant. The recent country song “God made girls” of couse has the line:

    “Somebody’s got drag his butt to church”

    Which reinforces this idea. In my experience, I am the one “dragging” us to church when some of us don’t feel like it.

  141. Scott says:

    And to head off the cries that “church” and “spiritual” aren’t the same thing, it is also me who remembers to light the candles for our home altar, remembers to go before it and pray, remembers to cross holy water on our children when they are sick…

    It just comes more naturally to me to lead that way.

    I don’t mind being that. I mind being told the opposite it true.

  142. “Think about it.If you live your life by the Ten Commandments you are doing alright!”

    You obviously haven’t read the Sermon on the Mount.

    The only person whose life was in perfect alignment with the Law was Jesus Himself.

  143. Boxer says:

    In my experience, I am the one “dragging” us to church when some of us don’t feel like it.

    Yep. There’s been tons of sociology and history on this subject. Civilization (including religion) is passed on through the father. Look at church (or any other voluntary institution) membership in the ghetto and trailer park, among the single mom crowd, to get the idea.

  144. As Dalorck alluded to above, yet another reason that Driscoll fears to teach the Word of Jesus to his congregation is that Jesus warns of the dangers of riding the cock carousel:

    JOHN 4:
    16 Jesus said to her, ‘Go, call your husband, and come back.’ 17 The woman answered him, ‘I have no husband.’ Jesus said to her, ‘You are right in saying, “I have no husband”; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!’ 19 The woman said to him, ‘Sir, I see that you are a prophet.

    Today the translation would read:
    16 Jesus said to her, ‘Go, call your husband, and come back.’ 17 The woman answered him, ‘I have no husband.’ Jesus said to her, ‘You are right in saying, “I have no husband”; 18 for you have had five hundred lostasosococoakccoaslzozzllzzlzl, and the one you have now is not your husband’s. What you have said is true!’ 19 The woman said to him, ‘Sir, I see that you are a prophet, and I am calling the police, as Mark Driscoll told us to appeal to higher authority should we ever be abused!

  145. Scott says:

    I would like to get the first copy of da GBFM Bible.

    I’m ready to throw out my NASB

  146. 19 The woman said to him, ‘Sir, I see that you are a prophet, and I am calling the police, as Mark Driscoll told us to appeal to higher authority should we ever be abused!

    The only bit of consternation that I have with this is the woman who had five hundred lostasosococoakccoaslzozzllzzlzl would never listen to Mark Driscoll or ANYONE as there is no person in authority over their lives other than ‘gina tingles.

  147. Scott says:

    IBB–good point, but she who has ears to hear…

  148. Lemme try my hand at this….. lollllzzz. I love that the butthxors in Seattle got Beli-beaten and that all the whiny crybabies in the NFL are shown to be the effete butthurtern buttsexors that they are. Football is a waste of a real man’s time, now they can sit around and whine about saggy balls (at least they no longer have the Bernakified excuse of being interested in a “manly pastime”. Lollllz!

  149. Loollz! In all my zzzzz I forgot the Seattle/Mar’s Hill tie in…all the Bernakified butthurten guys that watched the Super Bowl probably felt like they had been to seen a Mark Driscoll sermon. Must have been familiar territory for them….

  150. Scott says:

    I hope that by the time I retire and start collecting my army pension that a loaf of bread doesn’t cost a bazzzzzzzzzzillion Bernankified dollarzzzzzzzzz.

  151. PokeSalad says:


    I would like to get the first copy of da GBFM Bible. I’m ready to throw out my NASB”

    Special this week! Only $25 bernankified dollaz!!!

  152. Bread? Half a can of cat food. The Bible says.

  153. BradA says:

    IBB, I could care less about who wins a football game per se, but seeing cheaters right at the top is bad in any situation, whether they are in the NFL or were a former church pastor.

  154. RichardP says:

    @BradA: “Exactly how do you decide if something is spiritual and when it is not?”

    Earl made reference to “spiritual matters” – those things that are discussed in the Bible and, by extension, in the church. Deciding on what to have for dinner on Thursday night is not something dealt with in the Bible. Therefore, it is not a “spiritual matter”. The church plays no role in this, and “rebukes” as discussed upthread are out of place. A spouse deciding to seek love outside of the boundaries of the marriage, or a parent mistreating their children, ARE things that are dealt with in the Bible. Therefore, these are “spiritual matters”. These are things the church can rightly issue “rebukes” for, as a call for the target of the rebukes to honor God’s claim on their life. As mentioned upthread, this is not an “authority” thing. This is a responsibility thing. All members of the body of Christ are to use their gifts to exhort other members of the body to stand firm in the faith that God has called them to. See Romans 12 for an example of this.

    Not to put words in Earl’s mouth, but I think what I presented here is an example of “spiritual matters” to which Earl was referring. I don’t think he meant that a Priest or pastor has the authority to decide “what is spiritual”. They have the authority and responsibility to remind the members of the body of Christ what God’s word says.

  155. Brad,

    IBB, I could care less about who wins a football game per se, but seeing cheaters right at the top is bad in any situation, whether they are in the NFL or were a former church pastor.

    Spygate, I’ll give you. Belicheck immediately admitted to doing what they accused him of doing by saying he understand the rules. He was fined by the league and his boss AND the Pats lost one or two high draft picks. And the Pats lost the Superbowl in Feb of 2008 to NY. They paid what they owed. They are square with the house.

    Deflategate I will NOT give you. No one in the organization has admitted to anything. There is no proof of cheating, none at all, no video evidence, no testimony, nothing. The Pats think the whole thing is ridiculous and if it were any other team than the Patriots, no one would have cared.

  156. Cheaters?

    Cheating at 5 trillion rule tiddlywinks. They took a sport with a ball a field and men and turned it into a rule filled “sport” of pink clad overpaid man babies.

    Cheating at that seems masculine to me.

  157. RichardP says:

    Re. the Law and/or the Ten Commandments discussed upthread:
    (I mean this to be a scriptural discussion, not a denominational discussion.)

    Consider that Jesus was a Jew, a Rabbi, bound by the Law of Moses, up until the moment he “gave up the ghost” (the Sermon on the Mount was spoken by a Jew, to other Jews). But Jesus was sent to be the final sacrifice, to satisfy forever the requirement of the Law of Moses, old covenant. His death ushered in the new covenant. So – rhetorical question: was Jesus still a Jew and/or a Rabbi in the most literal Jewish sense after his resurrection? That is, after his resurrection would Jesus have still taught in the Temple the need for sacrifice, animal or otherwise (since the poor were not required to present an animal sacrifice)?

    The Law of Moses (of which the Ten Commandments are a subset) was not given to the entire world. It was given only to the Children of Israel. Christians never have been bound by the Ten Commandments, much less the rest of the Law given to Moses at Mt. Sinai. Note that I said “bound”. As Scripture, the Law of Moses has been useful to Christians for instruction and reproof. But the Law of Moses was Old Covenant – given only to the Children of Israel. The Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant – given to everyone “grafted onto the branch”. The old law has been replaced by the new. (Hebrews 8:5-13)

    “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says [only?] to those who are under the law … (Romans 3:19-28) … Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. (Romans 2:14)

    The following was spoken at the Council in Jerusalem regarding what to do about the Gentiles who were becoming Christians, but who were not bound by the Law of Moses. The conclusion accepted by the Council was to impose basically a subset of the Noahide laws. This is the whole of the “Law” imposed on non-Jewish New Testament Christians:

    “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-20) Basically, a subset of the 7 Noahide Laws.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

    If the “gentiles” were meant to be bound by the Law of Moses, that Law of Moses would have been imposed on the Gentiles at this meeting.

    There is a good discussion of this meeting in Acts at this link:

    http://www.gci.org/bible/torah/exodus2a

  158. Don Quixote says:

    Minesweeper says:
    February 2, 2015 at 7:42 am

    @Don Quixote – and you think Jesus meant she would be sinning in perpetuity ?

    Yes. As in the remarriage of Herod and Herodius. But I don’t think it’s necessary to discuss it here, as it has been done many times before. If you’re interested in my views they are here: http://oncemarried.net/

  159. Dave says:

    freebird says:
    February 1, 2015 at 9:49 am


    Dave says:
    January 31, 2015 at 11:44 pm

    “Unfortunately, the Ten Commandments ended up bringing people into bondage, rather than freeing them to love God and man.”

    You have seriously wandered off the path brother.

    Maybe Apostle Paul wandered off as well, because he clearly stated that the law that was meant to bring freedom actually brought bondage:
    Romans 7:5
    For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death.

    True Christians are dead to the law (i.e. dead to all the rituals and commandments and every requirements of the Old Testament):
    Romans 7: 4
    So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

    When a person is dead, they are no longer obligated to obey any laws:
    Romans 7:1
    Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives?

    The law was a serious bondage to those who truly wanted to obey God:
    Romans 7:6
    But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

    Christ has made us free from the law, including the so-called Ten Commandments:
    Galatians 5
    1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

    Even attempting to keep some of the OT laws to appear righteous before God is considered dangerous:
    Galatians 5:
    2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
    3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
    4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
    5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.
    6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor circumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

    Does this mean that we can now live in sin and licentiousness?
    Romans 6:1
    What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?

    Not at all; those who live that way are slaves sin and passions:
    Romans 6:2
    By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

    The Christian lives far above the Ten Commandments, because he has a new heart and a new spirit within him.

  160. RichardP writes, “Christians never have been bound by the Ten Commandments, much less the rest of the Law given to Moses at Mt. Sinai.”

    It seems that RichardP has reached all the Churchian women of our generation with his most divine revelation, for none of them are following the Decalogue.

    Dalrock, could you please do a post on how Jesus came to abolish the Law of Moses?

    Thanks!🙂

  161. Miserman says:

    Thanks, Dalrock.

  162. donalgraeme says:

    @ Jeremy

    Thanks for that link. The working document it links to should make for a nice article to tear apart in a future post.

  163. BradA says:

    RichardP,

    That was not a clear implication of saying “pastors had no right to tell a husband what to do.” I would certainly agree that a pastor is not a place where a woman has a right to get an appeal of something her husband is doing, but he certainly can and should be in a role to confront sinful behavior, or even actions that are quite risky in that area. We have gone far from any accountability to a church, ultimately giving that over to the government. Extermeism in either area is not good.

    IBB,

    You may be correct, but reputation matters. It would be similar if Stanton or Driscol started speaking outside their past errors. Past actions can tarnish reputations. Cheating may be manly to some, but they may enjoy the WWE as well.

  164. Mark says:

    @Chris Dagostino

    “”The only person whose life was in perfect alignment with the Law was Jesus Himself.””

    Yes!…I agree!…”The Law”…The Ten Commandments!……you do realize that Jesus was a Jew?

  165. RichardP says:

    @BradA: “… he [Pastor] certainly can and should be in a role to confront sinful behavior, or even actions that are quite risky in that area.”

    I agree. Pastors are responsible for shepherding the congregation into an understanding of God’s claim on their lives by teaching them what the scriptures say. Confronting behavior that runs contrary to the scripture he is teaching would be part of that process. In addition, the entire “rebuke” issue and the “different members of the the same body, with different gifts” issue, speak to the fact that the “church” itself is called to speak to each other and exhort each other to stand fast in the faith and “walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye were called” (Ephesians 4:1) Church members confronting other church members regarding behavior that runs contrary to the scripture would be part of that process.

    @DBFM and others: I think we need to be careful to understand (and point out where necessary) that the words in the New Testament are addressed to two different audiences: the Jews, to whom the Law of Moses was given, and the Gentiles, to whom the Law of Moses was not given. We create unnecessary confusion when we think words that were spoken to the Jews of that day were actually spoken to us who are gentiles. And vice versa. And we need to be careful to distinguish when Jesus was speaking as a Jewish Rabbi, under the Law of Moses, pre-cross, and when he was speak as the final sacrifice that had fulfilled the Law of Moses, post cross. If we don’t make this distinction carefully and properly, we create confusion on why the Jews were referred to as “God’s chosen” and why Jesus is referred to as the “final sacrifice”. I invite you to carefully re-read the scriptures that I quoted above on this issue, plus more scriptures quoted at the link I gave there and repeated below (just because it is concise and has everything in one place.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3831286/

    DBFM, you asked Dalrock to write a post on how Jesus came to abolish the Law of Moses. I assume you are saying that tongue-in-cheek? Jesus says he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Words spoken to the Jews, not to the gentiles. I assume you know that? Likewise, Christians aren’t freed from the Law – they don’t need to be dead to the Law to escape it as some have stated upthread. Because the Christians / gentiles were never under the Law. They were never bound by the Law. They had to convert to Judaism to become bound by the Law. To say otherwise is say Paul was wrong in Romans 2:14 when he states that the Gentiles didn’t have the Law. To claim that gentiles / Christians were/are bound by the Law is to make the entire debate of Acts 15 meaningless. If you think anyone other than the Jews were given the Law of Moses, and bound by it, I seriously invite you to re-read the verses I quoted upthread and those quoted in the link provided at this post. Ignore any hints of denominationalism in that. Just focus on the scriptures.

  166. RichardP says:

    The copy function malfunctioned and I didn’t think to check it. This is the link I intended to provide in my previous post.

    https://www.gci.org/bible/torah/exodus2a

    The erroneous link posted above does have some value to this discussion as it shows that male and female have some biological differences beyond just the ability to have babies.

  167. Just Saying says:

    the husband is toNEVER give the wife what she wants:

    Here – I fixed it for you so that the “wife” will be happy and stop b*tching… Over the years I’ve come to the realization that to ever give in to a woman is the kiss of death for any relationship. The more she b*tches about something the more negative the response to the point of kicking her to the curb. THAT is the only way to deal with women and the only way to make them happy – they need to know that you will NOT cave, or change your mind EVER. Once something is decided that is how it will be – that is actually what women want. If you ever give in – you are showing that you lack in your convictions.

    Women want and need to be led – anything else makes them unhappy and miserable. And if a woman ever with-hold’s sex, just find another woman and make sure the one doing the with-holding understands that you will get what you need elsewhere. Usually, all it takes is for her to see you looking, and they will come around fast… If not, no big loss – after all you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain…

  168. BradA says:

    It should have said “Extremism” in my previous post, not what I had.

    My comment about cheating should have also been separating out as that was to someone else who said cheating in the NFL was (or almost was) manly, not to IBB.

  169. Oscar says:

    @Cail Corishev says:
    February 2, 2015 at 9:12 am

    “and then the pastor starts accusing me of something that I think is none of his business, so I move on down the road to a different church, there are no consequences.”

    And if it actually is a sin, are there negative consequences?

  170. Oscar says:

    @Dave says:
    February 2, 2015 at 12:45 am

    I asked a very specific question and you avoided answering it. Here is the question again. Please answer it directly this time.

    So, if a pastor sees a father exasperating his son, that pastor has no right or obligation to tell the father, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4)?

  171. Dave says:

    “I asked a very specific question and you avoided answering it. Here is the question again. Please answer it directly this time.

    So, if a pastor sees a father exasperating his son, that pastor has no right or obligation to tell the father, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4)?”

    I did answer it. Yes the pastor has a right to confront the man, but that does not necessarily mean he is exercising an authority over him. Even the wife has a right to discuss issues that concern her with her husband, and that does not necessarily mean she exercises an authority over her husband.

  172. And if it actually is a sin, are there negative consequences?

    Of course, but those consequences exist whether the pastor rebukes you or not. I was saying there’s no consequence to blowing off a pastor you disagree with, if you chose the pastor in the first place. He has no authority over you except what you gave him, which means you can take it away if you decide you were mistaken. Let me try again:

    1. You pick a church, from many which you would consider acceptable, but you like this one so far.
    2. The pastor approaches you one day and says, “You’re sinning by not spoiling your wife enough.”
    3. You tell the pastor to take a hike, and go find a new church.

    The pastor can’t enforce any consequences, other than to ban you from his church, which you wouldn’t want to attend anymore anyway. There are no sin consequences, because you know what you did wasn’t sinful. So the pastor has no authority over you — his authority stopped at the moment you decided not to listen to him anymore, because he never had any authority except what you granted him.

  173. Cane Caldo says:

    @Oscar

    You see, pastor doesn’t mean shepherd. And if it did, then a shepherd is not the sort of person to lead sheep. This is why it the Bible doesn’t say that women shouldn’t be pastors.

    Nor does presbyter/priest mean elder; as in an elder, or one with authority similar to a father. Those people–just like real fathers–don’t have authority. They just have advice called rebukes, which are like fortune cookies for Christians. But there’s no reason for anyone to be loyal or committed to a pastor. We’re just supposed to acknowledge the babbling and move along.

  174. Pingback: The Aperture and its Pretenders | v5k2c2

  175. Dave says:

    But there’s no reason for anyone to be loyal or committed to a pastor. We’re just supposed to acknowledge the babbling and move along.

    I think we are probably saying different things here.
    As I understand it, the ultimate ministry of church leadership, including that of a pastor, is to “present every man perfect in Christ” (Colossians 1:28). In other words, his job is to promote biblical living in his flock and in the community, and sometimes, he may have to “speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15). It does not matter what the status of his hearers might be, he still has this obligation. That explains why church leaders are have corrected kings and even country presidents in the past. If by this, some folks think that a pastor has authority over a country president, a king, or even a husband, I’d tend to agree.

    However, what I was alluding to all along is a situation where the church leadership has intruded so much into the running of homes of their members to the point that the respective husbands are but heads of households in names only. The pastor has become the de facto decision maker in many of these families. If the wife disagrees with her husband on any matter, she quickly runs to the pastor, who tells her what to do, and she sticks to it until her husband yields. In many cases, this has nothing to do with anything sinful at all. Maybe the man would love to have more/less kids? Or move to a different part of town? Or change profession, with resultant temporary fall in income for the family? A wife may disagree with the husband’s decision and, rather than trying to work with him, would run to the pastor “for counseling”. It is in those situations that the pastor needs not get involved. Rather than providing “counseling” to the wife, he should simply ask her to go submit to her husband, and be more supportive.
    Also, as has just recently been shown in recent posts on Pastor Driscoll, some church leaders actually inject themselves between the wives and their husbands, and that simply cannot be right.
    Unfortunately, some husbands are a party to this arrangement, in that they are too quick to invite the pastor into the intimate deliberations going on in their homes. This further erodes the little authority they are left with after the government has taken most of it.
    A husband has a mandate to teach his wife the Scriptures, and to answer her questions on spiritual matters. He is the high priest in the home (1 Corinthians 14:35 ). The pastor is not necessarily the final authority on all matters spiritual, particularly in today’s world. The word of God is.

  176. Miserman says:

    @Dalrock

    I guess it depends on your definition of harsh. Christ was somewhat harsh with the woman at the well, calling out the fact that she had hopped from man to man and therefore lacked a husband. He starts by instructing her to bring her husband, which of course He knows she doesn’t have. If you read that exchange even from a modern woman’s perspective, it had to sting. I would imagine much more so for a woman in the ancient world.

    I would also say it depends on the type of women one has been around. From my own experiences, much of the things Jesus said to women would not been seen as harsh and not even seen as important. A proud, boisterous woman in modern times would take Jesus’ words about several husbands and a lover and simply shrugged and said, “Well, sometimes things happen like that.”

    Now, if Jesus had said to the woman at the well, “Thou whore! Thou Jezebel! Thou hast defiled thine own household with Satan as a lover!”, it might be construed by tough, modern women as harsh, but then they would be ready to beat Jesus senseless to show a man that she is boss.

  177. I think most people nowadays would consider even Jesus’s words to his own mother at Cana to be harsh, when he addresses her as “Woman”:

    And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.
    And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.

  178. BradA says:

    Cail,

    Yet He still acted. Don’t leave that part off. Though perhaps that was your point.

    The pastor can’t enforce any consequences, other than to ban you from his church, which you wouldn’t want to attend anymore anyway. There are no sin consequences, because you know what you did wasn’t sinful. So the pastor has no authority over you — his authority stopped at the moment you decided not to listen to him anymore, because he never had any authority except what you granted him.

    That leaves out the idea of a manner of “spiritual covering” a body of believers can provide and leaves it all in the purely natural realm. Is this really just a plug for the RCC? Could a member not shop for a more agreeable RC church in town? (I am not trying to debate the RCC issues, just note that even having a fixed authority doesn’t solve the problem.)

    That is why I am always pointing out the need to account for modern society in our analysis. This is a problem of our times, not just one specific kind or even category of church.

    Churches should be more of connection points than just places we go to for an hour or so on Sundays. Losing the connection can become important. Just being a place to go makes it quite disposable.

  179. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail, BradA, others: you may be missing Oscar’s point, because he may be involved in a different subculture than you are. I could be wrong, but it is possible Oscar is pointing to a subgroup of Protestant churches where the pastor is like a paterfamilias to the membership. This can be seen in some Spanish speaking churches where the interpretation of the Bible by the preacher is the final word, where his advice on all things is considered to be final. Job change? House move? Where to send kids to school? Ask the preacher for his opinion, and you’ll get it. The upside of this is any member of such a church can count on a lot of support from other members, the church becomes the family. These types of churches can go much further than Mars Hill in intrusiveness. And bucking the pastor in this case can mean getting kicked out of that church, which brings a lot of shunning in its wake. I am aware of this because of former neighbors, and some friends.

    Oscar, if I’m wrong and you are referring to something else, just say so.

  180. That leaves out the idea of a manner of “spiritual covering” a body of believers can provide and leaves it all in the purely natural realm. Is this really just a plug for the RCC?

    No, I think my response has gotten kinda detached from what I was responding to. Someone, maybe RichardP, was saying that a pastor like Driscoll has the authority to correct husbands, so the husband’s authority in the family isn’t paramount. It’s not God->husband->wife, it’s God->pastor->husband->wife. (Obviously, from a female imperative point of view, if the wife can’t be in charge, then it’s better to have a third party in charge than the husband.) My point was, where does that authority come from? In the RCC, we believe our pastors get their authority* in a line of succession back to the Apostles. We believe that they have that authority whether we concede it or not.

    But the man who chooses a pastor gives that pastor authority over himself. I assume he does that because he thinks that pastor is teaching the scriptures correctly. So if the pastor stops teaching the scriptures correctly — by, for instance, telling the man to submit to his wife — I don’t see why the man would continue to give the pastor any authority over himself. He picked him, he can unpick him and find a different body of believers, can’t he? I don’t see why he would submit to rebuke if he truly, honestly, examining his own conscience and his own understanding of scripture, thinks that rebuke is anti-scriptural.

    And none of this addresses the man who truly believes, guided by the Spirit in his own understanding of scripture, that he doesn’t need a regular church and pastor. To whom is his wife supposed to resort, in this framework where a husband’s authority needs some human third-party oversight?

    (* To be clear: the apostolic authority I’m talking about in the RCC applies to things like giving absolution in Confession and performing exorcisms. It doesn’t extend to ordering a man how to run his household.)

  181. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dave

    You are right that there have been wrongs committed by pastors.

    My suggestion is that you reconsider what you mean by authority. As you say: A pastor is not general to the husband’s captain, and the the wife’s lieutenant; yet that is the way you and some others have presented the idea of a pastor as having authority over those in his flock. It’s something different.

    In some ways it is similar to the way a court has authority. It is not allowed to write the laws; nor does it go out looking for cases to be brought before it. In fact part of a court’s job is to refuse to hear baseless cases. It remains that a court’s job is to make rulings on legitimate cases; which is to say they have authority over anyone legitimately brought before it.

    This makes men uncomfortable because they fear to deal with a Mark Driscoll; which is understandable. Unfortunately, their response to that fear is often rebellion and flight; which is wrong.

    I trust the parallels to wives and divorce are not lost on anyone.

  182. Dalrock: I think Paul Washer put it best in a 2002 sermon that shocked his audience silent: Preaching is a very dangerous thing to do – for the preacher, not because their audience might react in anger, but because they might misinterpret Scripture and preach heresy if they allow culture, rather than absolute truth, to determine their interpretation. Preachers should take greater care of their words when they speak, because if they are in error they face greater judgment for their folly.

  183. Dave says:

    “And he is inviting you to laugh your laughs and to commit your sins and to make your mistakes, and to learn from them, to repent of them, to grow through them, to increasingly become more godly.”

    Carefully hidden here is that all too common excuse to remain an eternal spiritual infant: “God is not finished with me yet!

  184. Dave says:

    “Preachers should take greater care of their words when they speak, because if they are in error they face greater judgment for their folly.”

    One of the reasons that preachers are often excessively careful not to offend their congregation is because they are financially dependent on them. Before we can consistently hear bold preaching, untainted by the ungodly culture within which live, preachers must become financially independent of those who hear them. Jesus was a carpenter. Paul a tent maker. Peter, James and John were fishermen. Matthew collected taxes. Luke was a physician. It looks like no one was called into the ministry in the New Testament except they had some form of secular training.

    Many preachers of today have no other marketable skills except preaching. Incidentally, Christ urged his followers to proclaim the gospel freely. Paul boasted that he preached the gospel “without charge”.
    So, to curb this epidemic of spineless preachers who can’t bear to offend the sensibilities of the godless masses in their churches, I say, let no one go into the Christian ministry unless they have a side business that can pay their way. They can author books, learn a trade, or get a real estate license. Whatever. That is the only time they can boldly declare the word, and not fear whose ox is gored.

  185. Oscar says:

    @Cail Corishev says:
    February 2, 2015 at 11:24 pm

    And if it actually is a sin, are there negative consequences?

    “Of course, but those consequences exist whether the pastor rebukes you or not.”

    You’re missing a very important point. He who “blows off” righteous rebuke adds rebellion and unrepentance to the sin for which he was rebuked. “Blowing off” a righteous rebuke invites destruction…

    Proverbs 29:1 Whoever remains stiff-necked after many rebukes
    will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy.

    …and proves you a fool.

    Proverbs 17:10 A rebuke impresses a discerning person
    more than a hundred lashes a fool.

    Every man here rightly despises women’s rebelliousness, but obviously, many men here are perfectly comfortable with men’s rebelliousness.

    God isn’t.

  186. Oscar says:

    @Cane Caldo says:
    February 2, 2015 at 11:59 pm
    @Oscar

    “This is why it the Bible doesn’t say that women shouldn’t be pastors.”

    Funny how some men here acknowledges that women shouldn’t be pastors because women shouldn’t exercise authority over men in the church, then turn around and deny that pastors have authority.

    “They just have advice called rebukes, which are like fortune cookies for Christians.”

    Ha! That cracked me up!

  187. Oscar says:

    @Dave says:
    February 2, 2015 at 10:05 pm

    “Yes the pastor has a right to confront the man, but that does not necessarily mean he is exercising an authority over him.”

    See my response to Cail for one explanation why that very much IS a form of authority.

  188. Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston says:

    Hmm… @Oscar, it’s a little bit of both, that is, how a man submits to his Pastor.

    It’s more like submitting to the Mission of Christ as delegated to those of the Five Fold ministry for those reasons outlined in Scripture.

    Ephesians 4

    11. And He gave some [GIFTS, THAT IS]
    as apostles,
    and some as prophets,
    and some as evangelists,
    and some as
    pastors (the first ELDER among EQUALS, which is important)
    and teachers,

    12. for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

    13. until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

    My Pastor’s authority lies in the realm of…

    a. Equipping me to serve
    b. Building me up as a member in the body of Christ
    c. Promoting that attainment of unity of the faith
    d. Promoting the attainment of the knowledge of the Son
    e. Promoting the attainment of maturity
    f. Promoting the measure of Christs full stature.

    Done in all earnestness on his part – and mine, will result in him INDIRECTLY having an INFLUENCE over my household..ie…marriage, though his rightly dividing the Word of Truth as it CONCERNS husbandry will go far.

    It’s when these Pastors start going left that the problems start…

  189. You’re missing a very important point. He who “blows off” righteous rebuke adds rebellion and unrepentance to the sin for which he was rebuked.

    We seem to be talking past each other, but I’ll give it one more try: I’m not talking about “righteous rebuke.” I’m talking when the guy honestly decides that the rebuke is NOT righteous (let’s say it’s something obvious: the guy tells his wife he expects supper on the table when he comes home, and the pastor says he’s being abusive), and that this pastor that he chose is therefore not teaching from a scriptural Christian viewpoint, so his choice of pastor was an error.

    Does that pastor still have authority over him? If so, from whence does it come?

  190. David J. says:

    @Cail: At least among fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants, if the husband is a member of the church (not merely an attender), he has by becoming a member explicitly submitted himself to the church’s discipline process. Usually, the problem with church discipline is not that it’s exercised for petty non-sins, but that it is not exercised enough or at all. So the member husband has actually submitted himself to the church, not merely the pastor, when it comes to a disciplinary issue. The pastor would certainly be involved in the process, but so would elders/deacons and, eventually if necessary, all the members. That said, you’re right that if a husband disagrees that he’s done something that merits church discipline, he can simply go elsewhere. Happens all the time. A very few churches will inquire of previous churches when someone moves, but most don’t.

  191. Oscar says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    February 4, 2015 at 6:57 pm

    “We seem to be talking past each other, but I’ll give it one more try: I’m not talking about ‘righteous rebuke’.”

    Then you’re talking a red herring, because that’s been the subject from the beginning of this particular discussion.

  192. Oscar,

    We may have been talking about two different things. I was chiming in on the people who were asking why these men sit and listen to someone like Driscoll, when it should be obvious to them that his rebuke of them was NOT righteous. Some said that, as the pastor, he has the authority to rebuke them, and they have to accept his rebuke whether they like it or not. My point was, if they gave him that authority, and they determine at some point that his rebuke is not righteous (Dalrock has established quite well that it’s not only not scriptural, but anti-scriptural), then they can take that authority away, at which point he has no more right to rebuke them than some random guy on the street with faulty theories about how marriage should work.

    Naturally, in the case of righteous rebuke, it would be a very different story — and that would still be true if the person doing it were just a fellow Christian, not their pastor.

  193. Jim says:

    This Driscoll character is just a conman. Fit for the dumpster.

  194. Pingback: Ménagier de Paris: bureaucratic reality in medieval marriage

  195. Spike says:

    Driscoll said, “And he is inviting you to laugh your laughs and to commit your sins and to make your mistakes, and to learn from them, to repent of them, to grow through them, to increasingly become more godly”
    -Correct me if I am wrong, but is he tacitly approving carousel riding in this word of advice?
    This is how I read his advice: “God is letting you laugh at Him, letting you screw around, so that you can become ore spiritual because when you come to your senses ( wall- induced), you will find Him (and a husband as well).” This makes Driscoll one hell if a scumbag, literally.

  196. Pingback: The sound of a rebellious woman | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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