Real men don’t hold purses–unless their wife tells them to.

Barnabas pointed out a sermon by Pastor Jason Meyer titled Fooled by False Leadership.  In the sermon Paster Meyer offers an example of “Servant Leadership”, a modern Christian term numerous readers have asked for a definition of.  I would say this example pretty much sums it up:

Showing his embarrassment is a way to show that this is not what he is comfortable doing. It is a little bit like when your wife asks you to carry her purse. There is no manly way to carry a purse. If you sling it on your shoulder, you show that you are a little too comfortable with it. But you can’t refuse because you really want to serve your wife and help her out. So you carry the purse in a way that shows your discomfort. You hold it by scrunching the handle and holding it out several inches from your body—just far enough away to show you are not about to sling it over your shoulder.

Real men don’t carry purses, unless their wife tells them to, and in that case they must make sure they show they are embarrassed to do so.

I have shared more of my observations on the sermon here, and others have done so in the same thread.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Chivalry, Foolishness, Servant Leader. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Real men don’t hold purses–unless their wife tells them to.

  1. Scott says:

    When skimming the original sermon link I missed the purse carrying part.

    It’s incredible what passes for serious discussion among “Christian” men and their pastor.

    I am now ready to flush the whole friggin world down the toilet.

  2. empathologism says:

    flicking is the new friggin

  3. Scott says:

    Indeed

  4. empathologism says:

    Interesting , those wives have no issue whatsoever with holding hubby’s wallet.

    So confusing

  5. lol. In the interest of explaining both Biblical roles and responsibilities it will be interesting to see if they follow it up with a sermon on wifely submission.

    I’m not holding my breath though.

  6. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    I have been following the related convo on Dalrock’s previous post (which inspired this one) with interest, since the Gospel Coalition who are promoting this post are mostly Reformed and Reformed Baptists, many of them prominent in the North American scene. I’m dismayed to see them getting behind this, but I’m not surprised, given what Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll and their ilk have been like, in promoting Blue Pill churchianity… All too typical these days, alas…

  7. Pingback: Real men don’t hold purses–unless their wife tells them to. | Neoreactive

  8. Hey Dalorckaksks!!

    Good NEWS FRIDy!!!

    da gbfm is getting marriedS!!!!!

    during Pastor Jason Meyer’s sermonz
    I FINALLY FOUND DA VIRGIN I WAS LOOKINGSZ FORZ!!

    she is a beuaty both insider and outz!!

    zlzozozoozozoz

  9. Will S. says:

    She was in a missionary position…

    She was good at feeding her kitty, alright…

    146? Multiply by 2, at least; so that’s 292…

  10. Regular Guy says:

    @ da GBFM lolzoozozzzlllzzozlz….

    …I am a born again virgin…

    “I’m really good at
    -Keeping my legs closed… …146 men…”

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. It reads like it’s something from The Onion.

  11. Reluctant Neo says:

    One of the craziest things for me to see is how people and ministries I thought were doing good for marriage get knocked down here over and over again. You have some points, but… I don’t even know what to think anymore. I’m Neo falling over and vomiting on the floor.

  12. Dalrock says:

    GBFM, I think she is the perfect wife for you. She even has a slang term for a sex act in her screen name, so you know she’s put those 146 lotsa cockas behind her.

  13. Will S. says:

    Neo, the Red Pill is a bitter pill to swallow. But it’s good medicine.

  14. Regular Guy says:

    @ Will S. & da GBFM

    ROFLMAO! Please… stop. I followed the link and now I feel convicted by the Holy Spirit for LAUGHING OUT LOUD at this damaged woman’s profile. Oh man, she needs prayer… and cold showers! LOLOlolololzzolz… oh man… It’s very unChristlike but… wow… just… wow. *shaking my head*

  15. Reluctant Neo says:

    The profile is a clear fake/parody, in case anyone was taking it seriously. Among other things, she says she is a Catholic who always carries a KJV bible.

  16. Opus says:

    Oh, you mean a handbag (a purse is what you keep your coins in): there is an entire play about what not to put in a handbag, a baby or a three volume novel and where not to leave it (the cloakroom at Victoria Station – the line is immaterial, Mr Worthing).

  17. Will S. says:

    Of course, shoulda known GBFM’s great sense of humour.🙂

  18. earl says:

    Lays your grubby mitts off her GBFM! That’s the unicorn I’ve been waiting for! She’s mine!

  19. earl says:

    ‘Real men don’t carry purses, unless their wife tells them to, and in that case they must make sure they show they are embarrassed to do so.’

    It’s all the best displays of masculinity in one sentence. They are either an insecure jerk, an insecure whipped boy, or an insecure nice guy.

  20. The wife used to ask me to hold her purse. Not a big deal, didn’t make me uncomfortable, but at some point it dawned on me that she was really doing it as a power play… to make me uncomfortable. Well, that knife cuts both ways.

    I prefer to carry small of the back and since I’m not a really big guy my go-to popgun for concealed carry is a Glock 22. Wasn’t my first choice- I preferred my 1911 (which was really sweet) but she had serious difficulty with the .45, whereas she did pretty well with the Glock. I’m also a packrat when it comes to my wallet (which is about 4 inches thick), so if I’m going to be sitting for a while I prefer to remove both the wallet and pistol. Problem is, sometimes it isn’t real kosher to put them on the table at the restaurant. My solution? Hand them to the wife.

    (no comments about handing her my wallet *and* my weapon, please. I was naive at the time but I usually had a back-up.)

    Being asked to hold her purse wasn’t quite comparable, but it was close. She didn’t have a CCW so if we were in public she couldn’t legally put the weapon in her purse, and holding it on her lap made her really uncomfortable. A few episodes of that and we had to discuss things and the upshot was that the whole “hold the purse” thing practically went away. Try it guys, it works.

  21. Viking says:

    I am impressed that she is doing this at 18 and not 31 when she has little choice. And I have no doubt that God forgives her but there is no such thing as born again virgin. Enduring the consequence of our mistakes even after reconciling with God is a part of growing in holiness. I wish people would stop trying to rewrite the past. What is done is done. Now we can only do what Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.” And offer each day of purity to Him.

  22. Regular Guy says:

    @ DS

    “lol. In the interest of explaining both Biblical roles and responsibilities it will be interesting to see if they follow it up with a sermon on wifely submission.

    I’m not holding my breath though.”

    Well DS here’s your answer. At the bottom of the article, there is the “Application Section”.

    Application Questions
    1. Married men: What kind of leader are you at home as a husband or father? What about in the way you interact more broadly with others? Single men: Ask yourself the same questions: How do you interact with those closest around you? How about with those in the next sphere out in your relationships? Both married men and single men: Are you prone to be overactive or too passive? What steps can you take to counteract these tendencies? Answer these questions yourself and then ask your wife (or a close friend) and compare answers.”

    All good, pertinent questions! Let’s read on, shall we?

    “2. Women, how do you respond to the idea of male headship? What has your experience been in the home? What has your experience been at church?”

    How do women respond to the “idea” of male headship? Talk about your experiences? Notice how this sermon/article allegedly was addressing “Hyper-Headship” in Christian families with lip service paid to men abused by their wives for the appearance of even-handedness, but when it came time for the application, he drops his guard and reveals his true intention that it was about destroying male headship.

    He couldn’t outright say “ignore the bible’s headship versus” or “those versus are wrong” like Cane Caldo mentioned in the previous OP comments, but instead in the practical application he just let women of the hook.

  23. bradford says:

    @AT
    Or you could just say no…..

  24. Oscar says:

    @ Artisanal Toad says:
    May 1, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    “Try it guys, it works.”

    Wouldn’t work on my wife. She has a 1911.

  25. thehaproject says:

    I was once handed the ultimate fitness test – while helping a family pack up to leave a party, I was asked to carry some stuff – she asked if I would carry those bags over there, about half a dozen purses. “You want me to carry your purses? Yeah, I don’t think so.” Her outrage was priceless.

  26. earl says:

    ‘Not a big deal, didn’t make me uncomfortable, but at some point it dawned on me that she was really doing it as a power play… to make me uncomfortable.’

    Wait, if it didn’t make you uncomfortable…then her power play wasn’t working.

  27. Neguy says:

    Dalrock, one thing I’ve learned from your analysis of these sermons is how skillfully rhetorically crafted they are. Meyer talks about actual physical abuse, which then helps him to pile on all sorts of other things such that the entire package becomes difficult to criticize without seeming to be an apologist for abusers. It’s tapping into the zeitgeist bigtime here. He’s using genuine sin to help him gain currency for his attacks on Biblical headship.

  28. Dalrock says:

    @Negyy

    Dalrock, one thing I’ve learned from your analysis of these sermons is how skillfully rhetorically crafted they are. Meyer talks about actual physical abuse, which then helps him to pile on all sorts of other things such that the entire package becomes difficult to criticize without seeming to be an apologist for abusers. It’s tapping into the zeitgeist bigtime here. He’s using genuine sin to help him gain currency for his attacks on Biblical headship.

    Yes. He is also weaving this with a feminist frame and a whole host of feminist talking points, not just DV. He thinks he is better than you. He thinks he is God. If he makes you feel bad, he is sinning. If you nag him, he made you do it by not being a good enough leader. It is perfectly tuned to make every wife in the room angry at her husband, while encouraging feminist rebellion and putting the husbands all on the defensive.

    I didn’t read through the whole sermon so maybe he included this, but to be thorough he should have complained about men leaving the toilet seat up, the pay gap, and women being “forced” to wear high heels, etc.

  29. @Oscar
    Wouldn’t work on my wife. She has a 1911.

    No problem. Carry a Desert Eagle in .50 AE. Loaded, that’s pushing 5 pounds of dead weight.

    @Bradford

    You could just say no.

    Big difference between a polite request and a demand. When it’s a polite request, there’s a political dynamic involved and there’s no need to be a jerk unless she’s due for a dose of jerk-boy behavior. The game will get played, one way or another. Better to win the game than to create unnecessary problems.

    In theory it’s all about comfort. She doesn’t want to walk around with the purse. You don’t want to sit on your pistol. Same-same. She knows you won’t walk off and leave her purse and you (should) know she won’t walk away from a loaded weapon.

  30. Malcolm says:

    Carrying luggage is a servile task. It’s fine if one is paid to do so, but I am no one’s unpaid porter.

  31. Malcolm says:

    This is as bad as a woman standing before a door and saying to a man “Open the door for your (mother/wife/girlfriend/whatever)” in a demanding fashion.

  32. Dalrock says:

    @AT

    You could just say no.

    Big difference between a polite request and a demand. When it’s a polite request, there’s a political dynamic involved and there’s no need to be a jerk unless she’s due for a dose of jerk-boy behavior. The game will get played, one way or another. Better to win the game than to create unnecessary problems.

    It isn’t a polite request though, as the pastor points out. She shouldn’t be comfortable asking you to hold something which will make you look foolish.

  33. I’ve held my wife’s purse many times when it was inconvenient at a store, or other places. It wasn’t a power play on her part, nor did I feel uncomfortable about it. She always took it back when she was finished with whatever caused her to hand it to me in the first place. I didn’t see anything unmanly about, and couldn’t have cared less if some character thought it was.

  34. Sarah's Daughter says:

    I’ve been informed: “the flicking will continue until morale improves” – we’re really having too much fun with this flicking deal.

    On a more serious note:
    2. Women, how do you respond to the idea of male headship?

    The idea? A quick search reveals seven declarations of this “idea” by God.

    The word “is” does not, at all, equal “an idea”.

    How I respond to it is very much the same as how I respond to John 3:16.

    Genesis 2:18 reveals my purpose. This fool of a pastor implies that part of that purpose is to ensure my husband walks some arbitrary and completely subjective path between his two ditches and encourages me to tattle on him to the church should he meander into one or the other ditch. So to whom then would I be submitting? He who I was created for or this false leader who, without shame, is telling women to not obey God; 1 Peter 3:1-6.

  35. But SD, how to you feel about it? See if you wont answer that the predictable emotional manipulation scheme gets all flicked up

  36. pukeko60 says:

    Right.
    1. There are two grounds for annulment, make that one: your marriage could not be legitimate. You have broken the consanguity regulations. You have married under the age of consent. You have married man to man or woman to woman. These things are non marriages, and the situation has to be annulled and cannot be reconstructed. This stuff should have been stopped before the vows were said.
    2 There are two grounds for divorce, no make that one: wilful walking away from the spouse despite the clear cousel of the eldership to reconcile. Yes, adultery is a ground, but one does not heed to push that trigger (consider most Italian or French Politicians) . Note that have an unbelieving spouse or an abusive spouse are not grounds for divorce: there is no domestic violence (DV) clause in scripture. One may have to separate to protect the kids, but that is for a time: as it is if the husband is deployed to the front or to a work camp.

    Why did I say walking away? Because it is a rebellion against the discipline of the church. Such people should be excommunicated, and then the spouse is free. Here Jenny Erikson is an example of how the church should have handled it.

    Is this hard? Absolutely.

    But we need to be clear here. Many of us ended up in difficult marriages and hung in there (and yes, I can claim mine fell apart on these criteria). But… if a woman or man pulls the trigger and will not reconcile, excommunicate them. That will not stop them joining the blue pill megachurch John N left… but heresy and idolatry live there.

    And for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
    .

  37. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ opus

    Oh, you mean a handbag (a purse is what you keep your coins in)

    A purse is also another name for a handbag, or a pocketbook… all the same. You’ll hear different ones being used depending on what part of the country you’re in (like how some people say soda, while others say pop). A “change purse” is for coins.

    @ pukeko60

    Note that have an unbelieving spouse or an abusive spouse are not grounds for divorce: there is no domestic violence (DV) clause in scripture. One may have to separate to protect the kids, but that is for a time: as it is if the husband is deployed to the front or to a work camp.

    Only to protect the kids? What if the kids are all grown and gone, or there aren’t any kids yet? Shouldn’t a wife that’s being beaten to a pulp separate (but not divorce) for her own safety as well?

  38. “there is no domestic violence (DV) clause in scripture.”

    Absence of evidence in scripture is not evidence of absent doctrine. The earliest Ecclesiastical bodies recognized the exception where a man was cruel or abusive. It is one thing to read Scripture literally as infallible but it is quite another to read into Scripture ungodly, ridiculous, and heartless doctrines where Scripture is silent.

  39. feeriker says:

    My ex once asked me to hold her purse. I responded by grabbing it, then dumping its contents on the ground right where I was standing.

    “You only asked me to hold the purse, not the half ton of crap you have in it.”

    Yes, the shreiks of rage were audible in the next hemisphere, but she never again requested that I hold her purse.

  40. John Nesteutes says:

    If a husband is beating someone to a pulp (anyone whether it’s his wife or not) the magistrate is supposed to be doing something about it.

    If it’s a wife she should have a father / brothers who will intervene. (Or the man’s own family)

    Regarding that hyper-headship thing Gospel Coalition is pushing, yes, it’s a problem in 0.01% of marriages. Their concern trolling about it is analogous to complaining the servants are being treated unfairly on the Titanic when it’s already half sunk.

    I’m having to deal with a hyper-headship issue right now personally, and it’s not fun, but the cure is to get the husband to submit to the church. Not to get the wife to usurp her husband. Men deal with problems from other men.

    @Will S.: I’m very sorry to see the poz has infected my Reformed friends. They really need to get a grip on this rot before they turn into the P.C.U.S.A.

  41. Hold my wife’s purse at the mall? Been there, done it. Didn’t know the game and I did not think she did either. One day after I Red Pilled she started to hand me her purse and then pulled it back saying, “Oh, you probably won’t do that now.” Proving: It was a test AND a CONSCIOUS test that she threw before. She wanted to know if I was her bitch. I was. No longer.

  42. John Nesteutes says:

    @pukeko60

    Thank you for your kind words.

    We need to be clear that the blue-pill megachurch is a modern day heresy to the level of keeping its adherents from finding salvation.

    The conversation of the past few days made this clear. The term “born again” has been perverted to the point it means “single mom excused of consequences of bad behaviour”. “Christian woman” doesn’t mean “chaste virtuous woman”. “Marriage” doesn’t mean “man and woman together for life”.

    “If you are not one of us, you are one of them”. It grieves me that most the posters here haven’t been in any true church or met many true Christians. Instead they’re hearing sermons on how to hold their wife’s purse.

  43. John Nesteutes says:

    I can’t stop laughing at thehaproject’s story of being asked to hold an entire box of purses.

  44. John Nesteutes says:

    @Bluepillprofessor

    What’s the deal with you shilling for DV exceptions? Nobody said violence is okay; we just don’t think crimes of violence should get extra special treatment just because it’s from a husband to a wife.

  45. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    Nobody said violence is okay; we just don’t think crimes of violence should get extra special treatment just because it’s from a husband to a wife.

    Should it be the same as if she were beaten to a pulp by some random stranger on the street? In a case like that, the woman would be expected (by any reasonable person) to call the cops and press charges. I’d say in the case of a husband doing the same, the wife seeking separation (but not a divorce) for her safety is letting him off easy… VERY easy.

  46. Looking Glass says:

    We should also point out, it’s statistically likely it is the Wife that’s physically abusive, if only one party in the family is abusive.

    So where’s the sermons about Women abusing their Husbands & Children? Definitely don’t hold your breath on that one.🙂

  47. Boxer says:

    Dear John N.:

    If a husband is beating someone to a pulp (anyone whether it’s his wife or not) the magistrate is supposed to be doing something about it.

    If it’s a wife she should have a father / brothers who will intervene. (Or the man’s own family)

    Absolutely right. A good literary example is in the Mario Puzo novel (not the film) “The Godfather”. When a female family member is slapped around, the husband of the victim is warned to restrain himself, and come to complain to the wife’s father if she misbehaves. The husband is a hothead and tells his brother-in-law to go to hell, and the brother-in-law is forced to respect this. After several such incidents, the violence escalates to the point that the wife is hospitalized with broken bones. At this point, the husband conveniently “disappears”.

    Anyway, this historical trend (laws and police, rather than family, as the mediators) is an example of the most successful psychological tactic of the feminists. They take a legitimate problem and universalize it.

    Of course violent abuse happened in marriage, but it was present in a very tiny minority of especially dysfunctional kooks (who, in a healthier society, would probably be precluded from marrying each other to begin with).

    In my casual reading, I found a book published in the late 1960s called “Sisterhood Is Powerful” (ed. Robin “Crazy Bulldyke” Morgan) which is a good example. By putting a few horror stories in print, these lunatics effectively brainwashed several state legislatures that there was an epidemic of horrific violence going on in nearly every home in the USA.

    It is interesting how effective this tactic is. Any dissent is shut up quickly with accusations. “What? You don’t want to pass our draconian new law? What are you, an insane wife beater?” etc. Very poor logic, but very historically successful.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  48. Opus says:

    F but not F

    I am not in your country. Where I am, the distinction is as I say, but the term pocket-book is unknown. Soda, except in the laboratory, is unused; Pop has gone out of use; personally, I prefer Pepsi to Coke, enjoy Lucozade but otherwise avoid ‘fizzy-drinks’ and drink warm beer. Two countries separated by a common…

  49. Dranosh says:

    Do you guys get asked to hold your wives purses that often? I mean I’ve held my wife’s purse a couple of times while she’s trying to look through something, but that’s about it.

  50. Will S. says:

    @ John N.: Indeed; it is dismaying.

  51. @John: “What’s the deal shilling for DV exceptions.”

    I worked for a lawyer for more than 10 years as a legal investigator and interviewed more than 100 DV victims (3 of them were actual victims vs. the 100+ who lied like women to the po-po and then changed their story without a single shred of consequence).

    Women always bring up the extreme, rare examples to refute the underlying points and I wanted to point out the fallacy. The claims are false! Even under the strictest (reasonable) interpretation of Scripture, divorce is NOT limited to men- even though Scripture does not explicitly say women can file for divorce. Similarly, divorce is NOT limited to the specific example Jesus gave (i.e. adultery). There are obviously more examples- drunk, abusive, violent men. Men who abandon their wives. All these are ground for Divorce and have been grounds since the first religious courts examined the issue.

    I am consistent and am also on record claiming that sexual abandonment and extreme mental cruelty by a wife is grounds for a husband to divorce her.

    Of course since Biblical Marriage no longer exists in this society I don’t think there are any consequences either way so let me try this argument again:

    Consider the Jews, instructed to worship in their temple in Jerusalem. When the Temple was destroyed for thousands of years and the Jews could not worship on the Holy Mountain…riddle me this all you literalists:

    Did God punish the Jews for those thousands of years for failing to offer sacrifices in the Temple when the Temple no longer existed?

  52. feeriker says:

    So where’s the sermons about Women abusing their Husbands & Children? Definitely don’t hold your breath on that one.

    Oh, didn’t you get the memo? It’s part of a “twofer,” double-billed with a sermon on the biblical imperative of male headship.

    Mark your calender for Sunday, the 41st of Neveruary.

  53. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ opus

    I am not in your country. Where I am, the distinction is as I say, but the term pocket-book is unknown. Soda, except in the laboratory, is unused; Pop has gone out of use; personally, I prefer Pepsi to Coke, enjoy Lucozade but otherwise avoid ‘fizzy-drinks’ and drink warm beer. Two countries separated by a common…

    Ah, I’m sorry then: I didn’t realize you weren’t American. I take back part of my previous comment…. Here, soda and pop are words used to describe carbonated drinks in general. I can’t tell the difference between Pepsi and Coke, they taste exactly the same to me (I know, I’m weird). I’ve never heard of Lucozade before. Love the term “fizzy drinks” hehe. The smell of beer makes me nauseous but I think people here drink it cold. Funny how little things are so different in different places.🙂

  54. D says:

    Holding a woman’s purse is a massive preselction (do you think the born-again virgin let many of those guys hold her purse?). I consider it permission to flirt with other women.

  55. thedeti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    “you know she’s put those 146 lotsa cockas behind her”

    Heh. I see what you did there.

    Da GBFM would be butthexting proud.

  56. Dale says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter at May 1, 7:37
    >So to whom then would I be submitting? He who I was created for or this false leader who, without shame, is telling women to not obey God; 1 Peter 3:1-6.

    That is a great attitude. God’s ways are best for us, although our sinful nature rebels against it (Gal 5:16-18).

    @Feminine But Not Feminist
    >I’d say in the case of a husband doing the same, the wife seeking separation (but not a divorce) for her safety is letting him off easy… VERY easy.

    One problem is the religious, not Biblical, idea that forgiveness means no further consequences for past sin. 1 Cor 3:12-15 shows bad choices will have continuing consequences, even into eternity (loss of rewards).
    We are to have a just society, where the wrong-doer is punished (Romans 13:1-7). So in the case of the husband actually being physically abusive to his wife, or any other person, the authorities are to be “agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer”.
    No need to break up the marriage, just train the wrongdoer to restrain his thoughts and actions for a more righteous future life (Heb 12:11). And yes, I am aware of the risk of exposing yourself to a person who has in the past demonstrated a willingness to be evil. The abuser may need to earn trust before receiving it again. Perhaps live with another couple, to allow some measure of “feeling” safe? Maybe others have ideas. It is critical to start however by not sinning, by divorce and remarriage (Matt 5:31-32).

    As Looking Glass mentioned, women are just as likely to be violent in the marriage as a man, so making this about men only is rather unwise. Also unwise, as few men (on a percentage basis) go around beating their wives.

    @Bluepillprofessor
    >Similarly, divorce is NOT limited to the specific example Jesus gave (i.e. adultery).

    If adultery is not there, then divorce and remarriage is the sin of adultery.

    Matt 5:31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

    So yes, it is limited. Paul gives one possible exception in 1 Cor 7:15 re the unbeliever who leaves, BUT he does not also write that the abandoned wife should go “marry” a second husband. This may be the correct interpretation, but it is not clear or guaranteed that it is correct.

    Has anyone else noticed how immoral and blue pill is the current version of the NIV? The words above are from the 1984 version. These are the “new and improved” words of the current version:
    “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+5%3A31-32&version=NIV)
    “Makes her the victim…” gee, where have I heard that before? Are they incapable of understanding that in the vast majority of cases of divorce, the wife was not WILLING to do what was necessary to keep the marriage strong? I refused marriage with two women, both because they refused to be responsible in a key area. And no, they did not think it should have been a big deal.
    If a man has the kind of woman described in Scripture, I really do not see more than a very small portion being dumb enough to throw her away.

    >Biblical Marriage no longer exists in this society

    agreed

    >riddle me this … Did God punish the Jews for those thousands of years for failing to offer sacrifices in the Temple when the Temple no longer existed?

    Your question shows you fail to understand that the sacrifices were no longer required at all. See Hebrews chapters 5 to 10. Sorry, I know that is a bit long; may take you 20 minutes to read. But reading this will allow you to see the answer to your question. If you are feeling lazy, then here are a few individual verses from that section that give the idea:
    7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
    9:26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
    9:28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
    10:10 to 18 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God… And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

    Especially the last part: “sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.”

  57. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    One problem is the religious, not Biblical, idea that forgiveness means no further consequences for past sin. 1 Cor 3:12-15 shows bad choices will have continuing consequences, even into eternity (loss of rewards).
    We are to have a just society, where the wrong-doer is punished (Romans 13:1-7). So in the case of the husband actually being physically abusive to his wife, or any other person, the authorities are to be “agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer”.
    No need to break up the marriage, just train the wrongdoer to restrain his thoughts and actions for a more righteous future life (Heb 12:11). And yes, I am aware of the risk of exposing yourself to a person who has in the past demonstrated a willingness to be evil. The abuser may need to earn trust before receiving it again. Perhaps live with another couple, to allow some measure of “feeling” safe? Maybe others have ideas. It is critical to start however by not sinning, by divorce and remarriage (Matt 5:31-32).

    As Looking Glass mentioned, women are just as likely to be violent in the marriage as a man, so making this about men only is rather unwise. Also unwise, as few men (on a percentage basis) go around beating their wives.

    I wasn’t “making this about men only.” I was pointing out the part of the above comment that said that if a husband is truly being violent that the wife could separate from him to keep the kids safe, but implied by omission that she couldn’t separate (but again, not divorce) for her own safety. I wanted to point it out because, quite frankly, most of the men in these parts seem to not care about a woman’s safety because of anger and bitterness towards women in general, and would expect a woman married to a violent man to just stay right there and not have him arrested or anything. I realize that the vast majority of men aren’t going to be violent with their wives (and I actually wrote about that a while ago: https://befemininenotfeminist.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/we-need-not-fear-submission/ ), so I wasn’t going on a “men are abusive” rant by any means. I also don’t think that having the authorities imprison a violent husband will cause him to restrain himself in the future (having a brother that has been to prison multiple times for the same old things and still hasn’t learned his lesson, I know what I’m talking about there. Prison makes a person worse, not better; it’s a very imperfect system), so if it’s unsafe (not “feels” unsafe, but “is” unsafe, if he is still violent towards her) then why should she not get out of harm’s way? If she can’t physically defend herself (which we all know she can’t) and is completely dependent on his mercy to live, and he shows that he has none, then tell me: why should she not go to a safer place? If it’s advisable for her to get the kids away from a father that is violent towards them, why is it not advisable for a wife to get away from a husband that is violent towards her? Notice again, I didn’t say “divorce him,” I said “get away from him / get out of harm’s way.” If a wife seeking separation from a violent husband is breaking up the family, then how is it not breaking up the family to get the kids to safety? You people are so bitter that you can’t see the hypocrisy in your own words. And to everyone that says to sick her father, brothers, etc on him: not everyone has those around. So then what? Call the police? Don’t you have a problem with women calling the police on their husbands? And if a wife is the one being physically violent, then by all means, take the kids and go elsewhere. There’s no double standard there.

  58. Sarah's Daughter says:

    but implied by omission that she couldn’t separate (but again, not divorce) for her own safety.

    This was not implied.

    It doesn’t appear pukeko60 has been back to the blog to answer your question. Settle down in the mean time?

    Can you read the rest of your comment and possibly understand why men hate having women comment on blogs where they are having discussions?

    And to everyone that says to sick her father, brothers, etc on him: not everyone has those around.

    Yes, most advice is given that would pertain to most individuals and doesn’t cater to the lowest common denominator. In this case a woman who has not one father, grandfather, brother, uncle, or brother-in-law around her is an unfortunate and very rare case.

  59. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ sarahs daughter

    This was not implied.

    It’s implied, and even outright said, quite often around here. That’s one reason why I rarely read the threads on this blog, and regret doing so oftentimes when I do.

    It doesn’t appear pukeko60 has been back to the blog to answer your question. Settle down in the mean time?

    My latest comment wasn’t addressed to him, it was addressed to the people here in general.

    Can you read the rest of your comment and possibly understand why men hate having women comment on blogs where they are having discussions?

    Yes I can, and I understand that. Except of course, when the men’s discussion is every bit as irrational and off the rails as they say we women make the discussion. And you can’t deny that it happens here.

    I realize now that I’ve overstayed my welcome. I’ll go now.

  60. Sarah's Daughter says:

    most of the men in these parts seem to not care about a woman’s safety because of anger and bitterness towards women in general, and would expect a woman married to a violent man to just stay right there and not have him arrested or anything.

    You people are so bitter that you can’t see the hypocrisy in your own words.

    It is comments like this, said frequently by women, that are the reason men are done believing women about domestic violence. When they will not limit their exaggerations and overstatements in everyday conversation, they surely will not effectively differentiate between having been flicked and having been abused.

  61. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Sarah’s daughter

    It is comments like this, said frequently by women, that are the reason men are done believing women about domestic violence. When they will not limit their exaggerations and overstatements in everyday conversation, they surely will not effectively differentiate between having been flicked and having been abused.

    Oh good grief, I’m not trying to get men to “believe women about domestic violence” and you darn well know it. I’m saying that there is no empathy demonstrated by many of those that comment here for the rare cases of violence where there is actual physical harm done by the man in question (black eyes, other bruises, broken bones, blood, pierced skin, that sort of verifiable thing) which is evidenced when they say she should stay with him anyway. I’m not saying that a woman claiming “abuse!” should be believed just because she says it. And besides, I know the difference between being flicked and being abused: its called “verifiable bodily harm.” If you don’t want to be lumped in with us annoying woman commenters, then maybe you shouldn’t be using sweeping exaggerations of your own, which your last comment certainly was.

  62. JDG says:

    I’m saying that there is no empathy demonstrated by many of those that comment here

    That’s because it is not needed. We already know that REAL abuse is bad. We also know that it is rare among married couples. It’s women that most often need reassurance about the obvious, not men. Perhaps you would be more comfortable sticking to your policy of rarely reading on these types of sites.

  63. Oscar says:

    Bluepillprofessor says:
    May 2, 2015 at 9:35 am

    “Biblical Marriage no longer exists in this society”

    Biblical marriage is not supported by the laws of this (or any other) society. It does, however, exist. Remember, Roman law did not support Biblical marriage either.

    “Consider the Jews, instructed to worship in their temple in Jerusalem. When the Temple was destroyed for thousands of years and the Jews could not worship on the Holy Mountain…riddle me this all you literalists:

    Did God punish the Jews for those thousands of years for failing to offer sacrifices in the Temple when the Temple no longer existed?”

    Christ’s death, burial and resurrection made temple worship and sacrifice unnecessary.

    John 4:21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

  64. @FnotF, primarily because she gave the best argument:

    I’m saying that there is no empathy demonstrated by many of those that comment here for the rare cases of violence where there is actual physical harm done by the man in question (black eyes, other bruises, broken bones, blood, pierced skin, that sort of verifiable thing) which is evidenced when they say she should stay with him anyway. I’m not saying that a woman claiming “abuse!” should be believed just because she says it. And besides, I know the difference between being flicked and being abused: its called “verifiable bodily harm.”

    Well, that is goalpost shift. So to reassure you: yes I have empathy. I have more. I have colleagues who know where the women’s refuge, and a canned speech about keeping yourself and the kids safe. That if we think you are at risk we will invoke the violence protocols. (And the only difference when I’m dealing with male abuse victims is that we don’t have a men’s refuge: I have never had a complaint from the female version of the speech, but I have from giving a man basically the same talk).

    But that is secular. That is work. In the bad old days, the abusing man had the living shite beaten out of him (on the rugby field or off it). But that is no longer acceptable, and instead the police use the Duluth model, telling (generally men) that they must leave the home forthwith for five days and not return, or fines and/or jail time. We have just had a couple of murder suicides where I live, so we are all asking these questions at work.

    But work is not the church. In the church, there is a clear teaching from Christ: not to divorce. You cannot argue into silence on this. We do have some apostolic advice around this, and it is to hang in the marriage. Indeed the command to women is to submit — even though he is a pagan and a bully, and for men to love her — even though she is a termagent. The exceptions are adultery and abandonment — go read the Westminster confession on divorce — but these fold into abandonment as there have been couples who have dealt, with tears and pain, with adultery and have become stronger.

    So what do I say to couples? Hang in there. Get close to God. Do what he tells you to do. And avoid divorce: listen to those of us with one: you hurt a lot in a difficult marriage but it hurts a lot more going through a divorce, and it will damage your kids.

    So I do not see violence as grounds. I see it as a time for separation: I take it very seriously. (I work in Mental Health: I have to). Among the pagans, it will probably lead to divorce. But among those of Christ, it should lead to prayer, confrontation, tears, counsel, repentance and reconciliation. If the pagan partner then leaves, let the spouse be free, sure, but that should be a cause of churchwide tears, and Congregational failure.

  65. Pingback: The heterosexual apostate. | Dark Brightness

  66. Spike says:

    Dale says :(May 2, 2015 at 1:37 pm)

    “Has anyone noticed about how corrupted the new version of the NIV is”?

    Yes. The Lutheran Church of the USA and the Southern Baptists have rejected it. My church uses it although I refuse to and publicly call it an abomination.

    Dalrock: It’s Sunday in Australia. I just got a sermon about “servant leadership”, plus how there is an obligation for men to be faithful and be “The husband of only one wife”, which is fine. My problem is that no church I know makes it clear what the wife’s obligation to her husband is.
    It’s going to take a lot of effort to cleanse Blue Pill stain from the church. A lot.

  67. Don Quixote says:

    Spike says:
    May 3, 2015 at 1:38 am
    Dale says :(May 2, 2015 at 1:37 pm)

    It’s Sunday in Australia. I just got a sermon about “servant leadership”, plus how there is an obligation for men to be faithful and be “The husband of only one wife”, which is fine. My problem is that no church I know makes it clear what the wife’s obligation to her husband is.
    It’s going to take a lot of effort to cleanse Blue Pill stain from the church. A lot.

    Hi Spike, I also live in Australia [Melbourne], and I am not aware of any local churches that teach male headship. The stench of feminism and political correctness hangs heavy in the air in most ozzie churches.

  68. Longtorso says:

    The progs think you’re all wife beaters, and I don’t mean the shirts:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2015/04/bible-believing-pastors-and-the-enabling-of-domestic-violence/

  69. If men actually stood up in their Churches and demanded a reciprocal duty given to their wives from the pastors and priests. They may well be surprised by the answer they’re given. That being that there isn’t any expected duties from wives. Men need to learn the truth that marriage is a sham.

    Fine, if being a Christian husband is abuse, I won’t be one. Case closed.

  70. Opus says:

    I avoided the subject until late in the evening (yesterday) for when we had spoken by phone a week ago my friend said that his wife was off to the lawyers on the Monday. As he had not mentioned the subject I assumed that the problem had been resolved. I raised the subject and he explained that was indeed the case and that it had been resolved by his agreeing to place his valuable freehold property in their joint names. He could see from the look on my face and tone of my voice that I did not think this a good idea. He rationalised his decision. He had to leave; I stayed on. At an adjoining table were five youngish average-looking middle-class women out on what I took to be some sort of pre-marriage party and the one with the Engagement Ring was saying that she had inherited a lot of money but her fiancee understood it was her money and that he had no entitlement to any of it.

    I had tried warning my friend before he married, that marrying the hawt divorcee from afar away land and taking on her two children was not the best of idea he ever had. I could tell however that he had not wanted to hear my Cassandra-like prophecies, so I desisted. He now thinks they will still be together in ten years. Perhaps; but as there is nothing left for him to relinquish control of, I don’t give it much more than a year tops before she Divorce-Rapes him.

    I asked him whether he was going to be making a bid for an item on E-bay that he rather fancied. He explained that money was a bit tight at the moment, so, no, he would not. Not tight enough however not to give-away a six-figure-sum and control of the assist representing it and just because his wife had fabricated some alleged unhappiness, he caving-in within a day or so of her latest ultimatum – and he says that he no longer gets much sex, which seems to have been the only thing he has got out of the marriage, as she has not even provided him with a child.

  71. KP says:

    Toad,

    “Small of back”? Are/were you carrying w/o a proper holster? Get something reasonable, please.

  72. Bee says:

    @Longtorso,

    Patheos is pathetic.

    John Shore is endorsed by both Dan Savage and Rob Bell.

    Did that phone call really happen or is John Shore telling a parable?

  73. JDG says:

    The progs think you’re all wife beaters, and I don’t mean the shirts…

    Am I to understand that the progressive’s definition of a Bible believing Christian has been modified to: a person who is a bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, whore-o-phobic, slutterist, AND wife beater?

  74. JDG says:

    Oh the shame!!!

  75. feeriker says:

    The stench of feminism and political correctness hangs heavy in the air in most ozzie churches.

    That’s true of the entire Anglosphere.

  76. pukeko60 says:

    Am I to understand that the progressive’s definition of a Bible believing Christian has been modified to: a person who is a bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, whore-o-phobic, slutterist, AND wife beater?

    You forgot abuser of children. Because you keep them from being defiled by the progressive cant.

  77. feeriker says:

    am

    If men actually stood up in their Churches and demanded a reciprocal duty given to their wives from the pastors and priests. They may well be surprised by the answer they’re given. That being that there isn’t any expected duties from wives.

    Am I the only one here in the USA who for the last several years has avoided going to church on Mother’s Day, being unable to stomach the vagipedestalization and man-shaming (and avoided Father’s Day services for reverse reasons)?

    The church I now attend is an almost entirely Hispanic one and seems devoid of most of the pedestalization and estrocentrism of “gringo” churches, so I’ll probably give them a chance next Sunday. I’ll be deeply disappointed (but alas, not surprised) if they follow the same script as most other churches.

  78. DrTorch says:

    If men actually stood up in their Churches and demanded a reciprocal duty given to their wives from the pastors and priests. They may well be surprised by the answer they’re given. That being that there isn’t any expected duties from wives.

    Then those men should stand up and leave, and take their wives with them.

    Once the support (both in money and time) goes away for these AMOG “leaders,” they’ll change their tune. Right now they pander to women b/c they get support from them, and it’s easier to “lead” doting women who convince themselves they’re serving Jesus by helping the pastor instead of their husbands. It’s a whole lot harder to lead men, who are naturally inclined only to follow a leader who can actually lead. It’s at least one of the things Hughes was whining about in this book:
    http://www.amazon.com/Set-Apart-Calling-Worldly-Church/dp/1581344910

    IMO there is a lot to learn at what gets put in pop culture w/o too much thought. Check out this notion from 1948 as to whom churches target (c 0:44)

    And the next scene is what the culture concludes men really want. This decline started well before the 1960s or 70s.

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