They aren’t talking about headship.

Spike writes:

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.

The problem unfortunately is much worse than Spike states.  When modern Christians refer to servant leadership they aren’t talking about headship.  Servant leader is a term one uses when one wishes to obliterate and deny headship.  Individually the words are right, but the term servant leader has no more to do with biblical headship than the term free love has to do with 1 Cor 13.  Yes, the Apostle Paul is writing about love, and no, this isn’t something we should be stingy with or charge for.  So free is right, and love is right, but free love means something entirely different.  Likewise servant is right, and leader is right, but servant leader in our culture means something entirely different than headship.

For those who disagree, show an example of a modern Christian using the term servant leader who isn’t using it in the context of denying or explaining away headship.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Denial, Headship, Servant Leader. Bookmark the permalink.

308 Responses to They aren’t talking about headship.

  1. Scott says:

    Nope. In its present form, It means “leading by serving.

    In other words, a true leader is leading because he is doing housework, buying flowers, changing diapers, helping with homework, etc., and he is by definition not making decisions unilaterally.

  2. Pingback: They aren’t talking about headship. | Neoreactive

  3. Renee Harris says:

    So is spikes church looking for bishops? As full thought to is about requirements for being a bishop

    This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. (‭1 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭1-6‬ KJV)

  4. I would like to obliterate the term “servant leader” by flipping it around.

    “In this household, we will serve the Lord. You will learn how this is done by following my lead.”

    Call it “The Leading Servant”.

  5. lzozozozozo

    lzozozolzozozo

  6. feeriker says:

    “In this household, we will serve the Lord. You will learn how this is done by following my lead.”

    And in at least 90 percent of “Christian” households in the western world, her response will be something to the effect of “and just who do think YOU are to believe you know how to serve the Lord?”

  7. Fee,

    “Anyone who would ask such a question knows far less about it than I do.”

    It’s called frame.

  8. Besides, I was describing an attitude not something you necessarily have to say in words.

  9. It also helps if you live in such a way that leaves no room for doubt, or rebellion. But if they come, your frame takes on the shape of the Cross.

    Not sure, though, fee, if you are a believer. Don’t recall. If not, this isn’t a conversation with much potential for a fruitful outcome.

  10. I always thought of “servant leadership” as being related to “leading by example”.

  11. desiderian says:

    Well you’ve got the suffering servant imagery in Isaiah that the gospels treat as pre-figuring Christ, as well as the foot-washing of the disciples.

    Servant-leadership in that sense was meant to to refer to the humility/righteousness of the Good King, who in faith to/serving the will of the Father did not place himself or his own will above the welfare of God’s people. So, in a sense he was serving them, but not in a vacuum – only in the context of serving the will of the Father and in the expectation that those whom he served would do likewise and take up leadership roles of their own in also serving the welfare of the people.

    I.e. taking their place in the hierarchy toward which good men are naturally drawn.

    In game terms, it is akin the the comfort stage after attraction has already been established. It is one aspect of effective Christian headship (among many) once that headship is affirmed and unchallenged. Before that it is presumptuous and counter-productive, and in practice often manipulative and understood to be so (i.e. creepy).

  12. I always thought of “servant leadership” as being related to “leading by example”.

    That’s how the bait and switch works. Decent people will assume that’s what it means, and the preacher pushing it may even start out with that kind of meaning, but before long it’s turned into: “Serving your wife so perfectly (on her terms, of course) that she wants to follow you as long as you keep her satisfied.”

    If they meant “lead by example” or “headship,” they’d just use those terms instead of inventing a new one. When people replace perfectly good terms with new ones, there’s usually an ulterior motive.

  13. Phillyastro says:

    Once again, maybe the Mohammedans have it right after all.

  14. ““The husband of only one wife” – Actually that is a command for Eldars, not the general laity. The Bible actually supports polygamy. You might check out this link: https://bible.org/article/morality-biblical-polygyny

  15. Robert What? says:

    I think if you ask any modern woman what the she is supposed to bring to the marriage, you will get blank stares. I think most of them naturally believe that their vagina is all they need to bring to the table. Funny thing is that after a number of years of marriage, even that gets taken off the table.

  16. theasdgamer says:

    Maybe Dalrock will do a post comparing equalitarian “Christian” marriages with biblical marriages where the wife is submitted?

  17. @ Cail Corishev
    Yes, it would be better to just use the term “headship” and talk about how serving fits in under that.

    If you think about how often men are instructed to “serve” their wives, compared with how often women are instructed to “serve” their husbands, I imagine the difference would be quite stark.
    Why are we so uncomfortable with the idea of a woman serving?
    As a note to any women reading, we have got to get away from the idea of serving being a negative thing!

  18. mmaier2112 says:

    I just today had a person on FB trying to tell me about “Mutual submission” and how I don’t understand Greek. Guess what? I. Don’t. Care.

    There is not any man alive that would dare to tell our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ what to do. But I am supposed to think the head of a marriage is supposed to “serve” his wife in a manner SHE sees fit? And if he doesn’t bend over backwards for her, he doesn’t love her in a “properly Biblical manner”?

    I don’t know if obcenities are allowed on this page, so I’ll refrain from stating my true thoughts on the matter.

  19. mmaier2112 says:

    Besides, females are happier when they’re serving others anyway. So basically, we’re doing them a favour by making them slaves to our will. And, no, I am not joking.

  20. zdr01dz says:

    “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.”

    In other words a functionary in a vast organization.

  21. embracing reality says:

    So presumably the promoters of this system support ‘servant submission’ for wives? Oh wait, ‘servant obedience’ sounds better still.

  22. Spike says:

    Renee Harris says:

    May 3, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    So is spikes church looking for bishops? As full thought to is about requirements for being a bishop”

    Renee: The bishops are in place at my church. The pastor “was preaching about Titus 1:6 and made it clear from his sermon that we are all leaders in our own distinctive ministries, so the rule tends to apply broadly for all Christian men. That’s okay, I have been involved in active Christian lay ministry for my entire adult life so I know what the obligations are. However, the question is,

    What do women bring? What is their obligation?

    This is NEVER answered, neither in the Baptist or Anglican churches – and these form the bulk of evangelical churches in Australia.
    Further, there is a strong streak of feminism in my church: one woman knits during the sermon, and continues knitting even after she has asked the pastor a question and he is addressing her directly. Other women spend their time at the back talking during the sermon, criticising the sermon as it is being presented. It’s disrespectful.
    Combine that with the latest New International Version of the Bible, with it’s egalitarian writing – read, “It will bend over backwards to NOT say the word “man” or “brother.’
    Do I want to leave this church? No I don’t. I want to be a part in turning it into an instrument that will take the Word of God to Islam, to broken inner-city single-parent “families” and to a generation of young men who think that becoming á baller is better than becoming a scientist, tradesman, engineer or a teacher. None of that is going to happen without a sharp weapon in the form of a good Bible and without a united rather than divided church.

  23. JDG says:

    I always thought of “servant leadership” as being related to “leading by example”.

    Nope! It’s a twist on the passage below and a few others like John 13:12-15 and Mark 10:45:

    And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” – Mark 10:42-45

    These scriptures are taken out of context to teach the “If she ain’t happy your ain’t leading her right” doctrine. So sad that this false teaching is so prevalent among church goers in western society.

  24. JDG says:

    Luke 22:26 should be mentioned above as another servant leader scripture example.

  25. JDG says:

    Once again, maybe the Mohammedans have it right after all.

    Depends on what you mean by it.

  26. JDG says:

    I just today had a person on FB trying to tell me about “Mutual submission” and how I don’t understand Greek. Guess what? I. Don’t. Care.

    If they are trying to teach mutual submission using Koine Greek, then THEY don’t understand the language, or that words DO actually mean what they mean.

  27. JDG says:

    Besides, females are happier when they’re serving others anyway

    Completely Irrelevant except as confirmation that God knows what He is talking about.

  28. Varenius says:

    Actually that is a command for Eldars…

    These Eldar? Or do you mean these? Or maybe these??

  29. Sarah's Daughter says:

    And in at least 90 percent of “Christian” households in the western world, her response will be something to the effect of “and just who do think YOU are to believe you know how to serve the Lord?”

    Yep. At least it was true in my case. I used to say to him in the most disgusting of ways: “Oh, so we belong to the Church of RLB, huh?” – What a backhanded, disgusting way of saying “who do you think YOU are that you think you know what God wants?” In my rebellious, treacherous mind we needed some 36 year old pastor with two trophy Ethiopian children to tell us what my husband needed to do in our marriage!

  30. John Nesteutes says:

    1 Corinthians 11 describes headship.

    It is how Jesus relates to God.

    I can’t think of God ever “leading by serving” to Jesus. Instead, God sent him to the cross.

  31. Once again, maybe the Mohammedans have it right after all.

    Depends on what you mean by it

    Probably not this….

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/us/garland-mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/index.html

  32. MarcusD says:

    Goodbye CAF! (“ultra-conservative morality”)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=958823

    Online Dating: The String-Along Song
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=958818

  33. Cane Caldo says:

    Servant leader is a term one uses when one wishes to obliterate and deny headship.

    I agree with this 100%. They are using it to deny headship…

    Individually the words are right, but the term servant leader has no more to do with biblical headship than the term free love has to do with 1 Cor 13.

    …but I’m going to push back a little on this. There is a single word which means servant leader: Steward. There is one king, Jesus, but He has appointed a steward over every marriage until His return (or our deaths), and that steward is the husband. He has headship in the king’s name. In Heaven there is no marriage, and no one is given in marriage. Our rule is legit not because of our worth, but by His name and decree. We are first of servants, and so are likewise served by others who are to serve us in His name.

    Because our rule is not based on our worth, this makes sense of why Peter instructs servants and wives to serve masters and husbands whether worthy or not. The sin of those who use servant leader to deny headship is not their use of the term, but of their pollution of marriage with works. Under their false teachings marriage becomes a sorcery of man’s making: If he says the right words, makes the right motions, and prepares the right material ingredients, then he successfully casts the spell of Husband. As Baucham says: “That’s not the Gospel!” I see no problem with the words used in conjunction. I see a problem in saying that the Jesus-appointed servant leader (steward) does not rule in the name of Jesus unless the underlings approve of the servant leader.

    Funny thing: Servant Leader, ah, dispellings, of headship are cast mostly by post-modern Protestants, but the concept of proper results based on proper formation of rituals has the distinct sense of Roman Catholicism.

  34. Don Quixote says:

    If a lengthy sermon on ~servant-leadership~ sucks, and it does. Then strap yourselves in because next Sunday is ==> MOTHERS DAY!
    I love my mom, but I think I will stay home and drink beer to the Glory of God instead of suffering another bs sermon about women.

  35. Don Quixote says:

    You have been warned.

  36. Looking Glass says:

    @Cane:

    The Devil is pretty clever in how he ties us all in knots. Something most pastors & priests are going to find out with severe consequences.

  37. BradA says:

    Chris,

    Many things are allowed that are not profitable. Keep in mind that allowing some men to have multiple wives would mean many more would have no wife at all. That is definitely not a way for a stable society, whether in today’s guise or some polygamy utopia you envision.

    God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Glenda.

  38. pukeko60 says:

    @Chris. I think using pukeko as a handle is working better than people saying “Chris from NZ” — but Chris the other, the idea of having two wives gives me hives. I spend too much time working with an all female group of psychologists, and they drive me, the (female) admins and many other people — batty. With their continuing schoolgirl antics — trying to work out who is better according to rules that they used at highschool, taken to a lower level by advanced training during their PhD and Postdoc. No. One woman is enough. Because life is not a twilight or the dark movies called Grey.

    To the non Australasians, the Australian Anglican Church Rocks. It is low church, evangelical, with a spine and preaches the gospel. It did not join the “Uniting Church of Australia” — a group that has died on the vine. Interestingly, the Presbyterian Churches who did not join that syagogue of satanic liberalism remain vibrant and give a good witness.

    So I want to co sign what Freeriker said: I’m on the other side of the Tasman, and I’d like his Anglican Church, thank you very much. The Kiwi version has had its spine removed.

    Do I want to leave this church? No I don’t. I want to be a part in turning it into an instrument that will take the Word of God to Islam, to broken inner-city single-parent “families” and to a generation of young men who think that becoming á baller is better than becoming a scientist, tradesman, engineer or a teacher. None of that is going to happen without a sharp weapon in the form of a good Bible and without a united rather than divided church.

    @Cane: you are correct about the use of Steward: I would add deacon. But those words can not subvert the sense of authority that is delegated to the Steward, so are hated. A better example is the better kind of British Officer: he will not ask his men to do what he will not, will not eat until they are fed, and not ask them to go where he has not trod. But, again, that is called leadership. A type Stewards have always shown.

  39. We could add the word “husband,” which once carried the meaning of steward (see the meaning of “husbandry”). But neither “husband” nor “steward” is open to the verbal shenanigans that “servant leader” is.

    “Servant leader” is fine as a thought experiment for people with the right attitude about headship. There is a sense in which every good leader is a servant, because good leadership is often a thankless task that involves more caring for people and cleaning up after them than it does standing up front and receiving accolades. For the husband or leader who has authority, it’s a way to ask himself, “Am I being the right kind of leader? Do I use my authority to lord over my subjects, or do I put their needs (and in the Christian sense, their sanctification) ahead of my own desires?”

    But as we’ve seen, it can also be twisted and used to teach men that the only true leadership is no leadership at all. They couldn’t do that with terms like “steward” or “husband,” so here we are.

  40. Opus says:

    The awkwardness of the term servant leader (looking in opposite directions at the same time) strikes me as oxymoronic; like married bachelor or date rape, it is a centaur of a word.

  41. Scott says:

    There is pretty close to zero chance we will here a “Mothers day” sermon at the Serbian Orthodox Church we attend. It will be a homily about whatever scripture the liturgical calendar has us reading from.🙂

  42. Scott says:

    Or it will be about St George. His day is this week on the Julian calendar.

  43. @ Cail Corishev
    ““Servant leader” is fine as a thought experiment for people with the right attitude about headship. There is a sense in which every good leader is a servant, because good leadership is often a thankless task that involves more caring for people and cleaning up after them than it does standing up front and receiving accolades. For the husband or leader who has authority, it’s a way to ask himself, “Am I being the right kind of leader? Do I use my authority to lord over my subjects, or do I put their needs (and in the Christian sense, their sanctification) ahead of my own desires?””

    This is a great explanation of how serving fits into the headship concept.
    I am becoming more and more convinced that these things should not be addressed with men in front of their wives, as I think Dalrock has said before. It just really grates on me now when I hear people chastising husbands, particularly my husband, in front of their wives.

    Over the summer, we visited a different church, that we were somewhat familiar with. As we came into the church, I moved my chair to sit up the back with the kids, in a makeshift creche area. The minister (who we knew) was walking past, and he said to my husband, “Are you going to sit up the back too?” He said, “No, my wife is.” Then the minister muttered something like, “Oh, right your WIFE is going to do it…”, dripping with sarcasm. And it was obviously an attempt to shame my husband into doing what this guy thought was more “servant-hearted”.
    Never mind that my husband and I had already decided who would sit up the back before arriving to church.
    I lost a lot of respect for that minister that day.

  44. desiderian says:

    “It is how Jesus relates to God.”

    Jesus is God. As for how He relates to His Father, yes, the Father’s leadership is not servant leadership.

  45. desiderian says:

    “Now therefore, what have I here, saith the Lord, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the Lord; and my name continually every day is blasphemed.

    Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.

    How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

    Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion.

    Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.

    The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.

    Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord.

    For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the Lord will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your reward.

    Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.

    As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

    So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

    Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

    For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

    He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

    Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

    But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

    All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

    He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

    He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

    And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

    Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

    He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

    Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

    – Isaiah 52-53

  46. Hank Flanders says:

    This is a great discussion. Interestingly, the pastor at the church I visited yesterday was pushing the idea of a “servant leader” during his sermon and how fathers need to focus on and listen to their wives and kids more, etc and naturally, he was receiving the requisite applause at various points during his message, including about that part I believe. Of course, he included no reciprocal message specifically aimed at wives and mothers.

    If I hadn’t found this blog (not this particular blog post, though, as I hadn’t read it yet), I’m not sure I would have thought much of what I was witnessing yesterday, but my experience with the concepts discussed in the Christian manosphere has been kind of like hearing a new word for the first time and then suddenly noticing it all over the place. I wouldn’t have though anything of “servant leader” as a concept and would agree with its usage. I guess I still agree with it, actually, but I also agree that people use it as a means to destroy the idea of headship altogether, because they emphasize “servant” and not “leader,” but “leader” implies one who makes decisions affecting others, not one who merely advises others and takes them where they want to go.

    Just once, I’d like to hear a pastor push the idea of a gentle, quiet, submissive, obedient wife (1 Peter 3:4-6) and receive applause for that message. Heck, I’d even take that message without any applause, but the applause (or lack thereof) would be telling.

  47. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    I see no problem with the words used in conjunction.

    Neither do I. If this wasn’t already a term Christians used to mean “anything but headship!”, I wouldn’t object to it. Likewise, free love, if it didn’t mean sexual immorality, would be a fine term just based on the two words in conjunction. This isn’t simply about language, but about deception and calling it out. If your pastor starts talking about how the Bible endorses free love, alarms should go off. He might be a new English speaker, and new to our western culture. In which case it would only be kind to take him aside and explain that in English (today) this term doesn’t refer to the Good Samaritan, but to harlotry.

  48. Phillyastro says:

    It isn’t only our church leaders who castrated men down to the level of “servant leaders.” The rulers of the Gentiles believe that the more elevated women are in a society, the more prosperous it will become. In fact, there are radio PSAs that mention this over and over again. “Countries with more female empowerment have lower poverty, etc., etc., etc.”

    Therefore by implementing this gnostic fundamental rule, we can “immanentize the eschaton” and bring forth salvation upon the world without the need of any otherworldly savior.

  49. Dalrock says:

    Because our rule is not based on our worth, this makes sense of why Peter instructs servants and wives to serve masters and husbands whether worthy or not. The sin of those who use servant leader to deny headship is not their use of the term, but of their pollution of marriage with works. Under their false teachings marriage becomes a sorcery of man’s making: If he says the right words, makes the right motions, and prepares the right material ingredients, then he successfully casts the spell of Husband. As Baucham says: “That’s not the Gospel!”

    The sin isn’t in the use of the term, but in their rebellion. They use the term to hide their rebellion; the deception is an add on sin.

    I agree that headship isn’t about our worth, but I don’t see the objection of headship as a focus on works. Our feminist culture despises headship, and this is what modern Christian culture has fully imbibed. When they say or imply that they would be for headship if the husband were worthy, this too is a lie. They despise headship, at least as the roles are given to us (they love female headship). Turning the discussion towards the unworthiness of the husband (and all husbands), is misdirection. Christ Himself wouldn’t be good enough for these folks, because it isn’t about worthiness to them either.

    For proof of all of these points, see the movie which so delights modern Christians. Fireproof is about reversing the roles of biblical marriage. Caleb learns to submit to his wife even when she is not worthy, and by doing so he eventually wins her over without a word. The submission Caleb models to his wife in Fireproof is precisely what modern Christians mean when they say servant leader. The Love Dare is exactly what they have in mind. Moreover, Katherine’s headship comes not from her being worthy, but by virtue of her position as wife.

  50. Major Styles says:

    And that is why there is a need for “game.” Society has eroded men’s importance. The only way he can reclaim it is via a shrewd understanding of female psychology. That then leads to the skill set that game provides: negs, dread game, increasing one’s SMV, etc.

    Until something radically changes, it is imperative that every man know the attributes of successful game.

  51. crowhill says:

    Dalrock says, “Servant leader is a term one uses when one wishes to obliterate and deny headship.”

    You may be right about that in the contemporary church, but when I was going to marriage seminars and such in my radical Evangelical church in college (mid 80s) they most definitely affirmed both servant leadership and headship. It can be done.

  52. “Major Styles says:
    May 4, 2015 at 9:15 am
    And that is why there is a need for “game.” Society has eroded men’s importance. The only way he can reclaim it is via a shrewd understanding of female psychology. That then leads to the skill set that game provides: negs, dread game, increasing one’s SMV, etc.”

    Game is for losers who want to live their life serving butt and gina tingzzlzlozozoozooz. Game is *exactly* what the feminists want you to do.

    On the other hand, Christ is for those who wish to live their life serving God and the Greats.

    One of the reasons why Dalrockian’s flock has lost the greater culture and marriage is that too many are too focused on serving butt and gina tinsgslslsoso via Game, rather than serving God.

  53. Dalrock says:

    @Crowhill

    Dalrock says, “Servant leader is a term one uses when one wishes to obliterate and deny headship.”

    You may be right about that in the contemporary church, but when I was going to marriage seminars and such in my radical Evangelical church in college (mid 80s) they most definitely affirmed both servant leadership and headship. It can be done.

    I would say we are in agreement then. If “servant leader” didn’t mean reversing the biblical order of headship and submission, then it would be a perfectly fine term. Likewise, Christians should love freely, yet I am not an advocate of “free love”.

  54. Looking Glass says:

    It should should be pointed out that “servant leader” is a concept pushed by people with little conception of the proper use & utility of Power & Authority. Which is not surprising that it cropped up with the Feminist take-over of much Church leadership.

  55. Scott says:

    Dalrockian’s flock

    Did you know you had one of these?

    Lolzlozozoozooz!

  56. The sin of those who use servant leader to deny headship is not their use of the term

    It isn’t THE sin, but is is A sin of those who use the term. The term is a lie. The term is Lift Chasing. The term is an expression of fear, and a lack of trust in what God has for men…as you stated not because men are uniquely suited and gifted, but very simply because men have been appointed and given the King’s seal.

    Yesterday I blew $30.00 to buy the most recent video series to come from the group Authentic Manhood. Its part of the 33 The Series teaching, part 5 is “A Man and His Marriage”. There are six 35 minute videos. I watched the first last evening. I took notes but I was tired and ill focused so need to go through it again. .

    Some quotes:

    “Headship is a divinely appointed role to provide responsible servant leadership in his home”
    followed by
    “Doesn’t mean you micromanage her schedule, her friends, or her dreams and aspirations”

    They emphasize again the key term servant leader and the word servant is underlined. They then claim that “wives who have servant leader husbands absolutely thrive”.

    If I can carve out the time I’m going to unpack each video in a post.

    My point in response to you Cane is there really is no place for splitting hairs about the wrongness of the term. Surely, words themselves in a vacuum have no agenda, they are not sentient. But this term servant leader was conceived and is used expressly for pandering to women to make the words of Ephesians 5 and others go down better, a spoon of sugar.

    If we fixate on the words sans speaker, it is the word servant that is imperfect in Engish.
    ServING leader is marginally better, or -a leader who serves- even better. But servANT is not specific enough. It offers no boundaries. It in no way expresses that serving wives , washing in the word, etc. might very well mean micromanaging the schedule some time, managing the friends, and clearly they are well off the rails suggesting her dreams and aspirations are off limits to having the light of scriptural truth shined on them. That IS serving and leading. The goal of the serving , even using their favorite thing….washing feet…was not about podiatry or clean feet or a relaxing foot massage. Its a show of humility, it is not for washing feet for feet washing sake, it is to LEAD to humility, it may be a corrective to haughtiness. It may show the turning of the cheek in conflict. It shows going first in reconciliations. Its killing with kindness. But it is expressly not metaphorically limited to a relaxing service for the wife that the man lowers himself to do full stop which eliminates all the extrapolations they take from it.

    Of course the speakers spread the panic about the legions of men running rough shod over women using the Bible and how prone that makes those men to being abusers, so we have the requisite litany of what-headship-is-not’s

    I cannot see any way to fix the term. The horse is out of the barn and long gone. .

  57. theasdgamer says:

    Da GBFM says lxzlolzoa;d’arfoe

    I don’ need no steenkeeng Song of Solomon.

  58. anonymous_ng says:

    @Scott wrote: “There is pretty close to zero chance we will here a “Mothers day” sermon at the Serbian Orthodox Church we attend. It will be a homily about whatever scripture the liturgical calendar has us reading from. :)”

    I started to write something similar yesterday. I very much find comfort in knowing that the sermon is set by the liturgical calendar. I paid special attention last year and noticed barely a mention of it being Mother’s day. That said, I’m hesitant to say that these ideas have no place in the Orthodox church, only that they’re unlikely to appear in the sermon. There is still plenty of room in the Sunday schools and the bible studies for these heretical notions of rebellion.

  59. BradA says:

    I heard the term “servant leader” used long before its misuse in the area of family relations. At least that is what I remember of my college experience as well.

    I do hear many teachers noting that women have been “beat over the head with submission,” yet I have never heard such beating over the head. We could probably use a bit more of that today. We already have men getting beat over the head with many things.

    Some of this is fine and good. True teaching is worthless if it never challenges you to be better, but it needs to be focused on that, not some other goal.

  60. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    I cannot see any way to fix the term. The horse is out of the barn and long gone.

    The only way to fix the term would be to put down the rebellion. To put down the rebellion, first we must smoke the treachery out. Adopting the term ourselves in an attempt to redefine it would only add cover and plausibility to the deception.

    The brilliance of the tactic is the phrase is tuned to confuse us and enlist us into defending it. It sounds so great, even though it means the opposite of what we want it to mean. So we provide cover for the deception. This fits with the larger pattern of feminists enlisting conservatives to defend the cause. But they blew the dog whistle; we have to bark! Yet we don’t have to bark. We have a choice.

  61. Scott says:

    I started to write something similar yesterday. I very much find comfort in knowing that the sermon is set by the liturgical calendar. I paid special attention last year and noticed barely a mention of it being Mother’s day. That said, I’m hesitant to say that these ideas have no place in the Orthodox church, only that they’re unlikely to appear in the sermon. There is still plenty of room in the Sunday schools and the bible studies for these heretical notions of rebellion.

    Yep, I am concerned about it in a more global sense, just not at my particular parish. Our family slava is going to be next Sunday after church because it is the week after St. George (which I think is Wednesday).

    When we were planning it, I asked the priest if it mattered that it would fall on Mother’s Day. He very politely said something like this (cue Easter European Accent): “I think you will find that none of the Serbians at our church are going to even notice that it is Mothers Day, so it will not conflict. We have something similar but it is in December. It is an American holiday but not something we pay much attention to.”

    Slava, which is Serbian celebration of the family patron saint is a tradition that is about 1300 years old, dating back to when Serbia was converted in the 7th century. Its way more imporatant that Mothers Day.

    It’s kind of what I like about ethinic Orthodoxy. The Serbs were converted by Cyril and Methodius centuries ago. They survived hunderds of years of Ottoman Turks. They survived Nazi invasion. They survived communism and the break up of Yugoslavia. All with the Christian faith as the backdrop. Mothers day seems silly in that context.

  62. Scott says:

    @Scott wrote: “There is pretty close to zero chance we will here a “Mothers day” sermon…

    YIKES! I meant “hear,” of course.

  63. jeff says:

    I’ve seen this even with marriage counseling. Pastor asked me directly what I wanted him to go over with us. Remember this is nouthetic counseling…. going directly from the bible.

    I told him 1Cor 11, specifically headship and headship within marriage. He wouldn’t do it. He did talk extensively on servant leadership in marriage and the husbands role as servant leader.

  64. Opus says:

    Everyone knows that St George’s Day is 23rd April, and not just because it is also Shakespeare’s birthday. He is our patron Saint even though it has not been recorded that he ever visited the country, is famed for fighting off dragons (so obviously a bit of a white-knight) and on that day the local shopping-mall fly his flag (red cross on white background).

    I don’t believe that your declaration of independence provided for a patron saint, no institution of religion being allowed and all that.

  65. Opus says:

    ‘Cry God for Harry, England and St George’ Henry V Act !!! Scene 1.

  66. Jack71 says:

    This is very easy to reframe. As an example, the U.S. President is the leader of the nation but is also servant to the people (in theory anyway). In the family context, the man is leader of the household, but within that role his responsibility is to serve the family by making sure that the family is taken care of and provided for.

  67. PokeSalad says:

    I received a circular this weekend from the local Baptist church I (now infrequently) attend…full of ‘volunteer opportunities’ for the church men to cook, sing, celebrate, and venerate all the women of the church, relieve them of all their burdens for a day, and tell ourselves how fantastically lucky we men are that these ladies deign to suffer our presence. I’ve never seen any such orchestrated outpourings ever scheduled for men on Father’s Day. “Thanks, Dad” is about it. Or the pastor uses Father’s Day as yet another target of opportunity to lecture us on our responsibilities to wife, women, kids, career, taxes, supporting the fabric of civilization……

    *sigh*……its time to find another church.

  68. gdgm+ says:

    Admittedly somewhat O/T, but in a very strange way, maybe another example of the *opposite* of male headship:

    It’s just been reported that this past Friday that Dave Goldberg, CEO of SurveyMonkey, unexpectedly passed away. That’s sad, but what is making it “news” is that Goldberg was the husband of Sheryl Sandberg, of Facebook and the ‘Lean In’ books for women. A feminist blogger has now speculated that Goldberg’s passing was due to suicide:

    http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2015/05/03/dave-goldberg-cause-of-death-i-think-its-suicide/

    http://www.thewrap.com/dave-goldberg-undisclosed-cause-of-death-leading-to-speculation-concern/

    Dalrock, please delete if you feel this is inappropriate or *too* off-topic — but it is surreal to me., especially in light of posts like this OP.

  69. Boxer says:

    Hey Scott:

    I’m getting an error message when I try to hit your page. Is there a good way to contact you? Just have a quick question. Thanks!

    Boxer

    [D: If you wish, I can send Scott the email you are using to post.]

  70. anonymous_ng says:

    @gdgm+, interesting link. I wonder how many other people read about his death and thought “What are they hiding?”

  71. thedeti says:

    gdgm:

    NYT reports a source “close to the family” who “spoke on condition of anonymity” says Goldberg died shortly after exercising at a gym and couldn’t be revived there and at a hospital:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/technology/dave-goldberg-cause-of-death.html?smid=pl-share

  72. Boxer says:

    If you wish, I can send Scott the email you are using to post.

    Thank you very much!

    Now back to planning the end of feminism…

    Boxer

  73. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Let me start out by saying that when I hear the words servant leader I listen very, very carefully to what follows.

    The sin isn’t in the use of the term, but in their rebellion. They use the term to hide their rebellion; the deception is an add on sin.

    We agree. Rebellion absolutely is the sin full-grown, and the deception is an add-on sin, but it starts before that. I’m going to take it further, and Opus’ centaur comment is key. He said:

    The awkwardness of the term servant leader (looking in opposite directions at the same time) strikes me as oxymoronic; like married bachelor or date rape, it is a centaur of a word.

    This is it. The OP rightly said that those who use the term servant leader use it to deny headship, and they do so because they want to invert headship (want to rebel), but also because in their immaturity and disingenuousness, see a serving leader as oxymoronic; just as you have expressed. This rebellion and ignorance is best expressed by the 1st Century Jewish leaders who claimed to wait for the seed of David, but crucified Him when He (Jesus) showed up as the suffering servant who yet claimed that they must follow Him. They rejoiced to kill Jesus because He seemed to them a centaur; a chimera who on one end performed miracles and claimed to be the Seed of David and Son of God, but on the other end was clearly a poor man who did not even have a place to lay His own head. Nor did they want to bow to any man unless that man had proven his dominance. So they would bow to Alpha Caesar and caress Alpha Pilate. Even then their fidelity was capricious. Only as long as such a man’s material dominance existed would they adore them. Essentially: They whored themselves for the Romans.

    And they could not abide even Jesus’ mere existence. Pilate had no issue with Him, but the Jewish leaders were so afraid of being diminished AND so despised Jesus’ appearance as a servant that they demanded He be incarcerated, beaten, and executed. They both did not understand and hated the idea that bowing to Christ would have made them greater; even while their mouths proclaimed that they were waiting for the Christ.

    This is not dissimilar to the descriptions in Ezekiel 23 and in Hosea of the two women who don’t understand that in marriage to the uncool man they were rescued from suffering and abuse rather than enslaved in marriage. They both did not understand and they did also lust after their former lives as whores. They pine for their old sexual captors, leave to find them, copulate with them, and then mutually turn in disgust from each other and complain that they have no husband.

    This ignorance, misunderstanding, rejection, and hatred of Jesus and the servant leader is still with us today. Seeing Jesus as a chimera they mentally dissect Him into two discrete entities; depending on what they want to emphasize at the moment. Sometimes they see Him as the warlord from the House of David, and sometimes they consider foot washing Jesus. I tell you that in their minds they cannot connect the two, and most of them really do not like the idea of the warlord. The overall effect, then, is to nullify headship; to banish the leader portion because ignoring leadership soothes their childlike minds which—both!—cannot understand completeness, and also do not want to be led.

    Do this enough times (we are well past that point) and one ends up believing in the creation of fantasy creatures by sorcery; yet when they lay eyes on, it is revealed to be a monster. (I describe the sorcery in my comment above.) This is what postmodern Christians do (just like all people ever have done) with the idea of a servant leader (or steward, or husband, as Cail observed). They reject in the end because they at least know chimeras aren’t real, but it never dawns on them that the problem is they sight; that it (a servant leader) is not a chimera. They cannot get their head around the completeness of a thing. Instead they see a centaur. So in their insanity they keep making marriages, perceiving a chimera result, and then to chop it in half and discard what they don’t like. Because they are spiritually children and rebellious, the part they choose to discard is the leader. In the past the chopping was mental, but now it too is full-grown. The leader is chopped off, and now halved to a concept they will accept: a servant; whom they hate. Hence divorce. Hence child support family formation. Hence oppressive taxation. Etc.

    The truth is that a servant leader is no more a centaur—no more chimeric—than a man is chimeric because he has one head at one end, and two feet on the other; which is asymmetrical both in form and number. This passage (which, fittingly, is the preamble to 1 Cor. 13) abjures the thought of chimerism; that the two ends are different things, and also confirms that the problem is ignorance and rejection of the complete and ordered man both of Christ, and in Christ.

    1 Corinthians 12:12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

    14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

    21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

    27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

    And I will show you a still more excellent way.

    Like the church in Corinth, like the ancient Israelites, we have to be taught these very natural truths that a man has one head and two feet because we are born stupid. We are born wanting to believe the headman is just a head, and a footman is just a foot when in fact such half-creatures would be monsters, and when we achieve them we turn from them in disgust only to seek another. Nevertheless we desire these monsters because of our ignorance and our rebellion. We are born less than sane, and must be taught to accept what our eyes actually see if we will take the baby step of faith and desire to know what we see instead of choosing to be blind and so leave us to our desires.

    In the meantime since I have started this comment, Empath has strongly denounced the term servant leader as unhelpful. I strongly disagree. The thing to do is not to discard servant leaders or the term, but to warn and rebuke that those who are to serve the servant leaders had better start do so! In that way they will stop being like pharisees and start being like Jesus.

    I am afraid that I have probably confused more than I have enlightened. I offer a story.

    There was a tailor who made the finest clothes for every occasion. His seams were well-hidden. His dyes did not fade, and his fit was impeccable. As he was walking through the city one day he came upon an orphan. She was naked, starving, and ignored. These three circumstances had driven her half out of her mind. She cried and raved and shivered in a ramshackle hut she had built for herself from what other people had thrown away.

    The tailor took pity on her, and so he took off his fine coat, and his clean shirt and even his pants. Wrapping her all up in this with his own belt, he said to her, “Follow me and I will get you some food, and you will not be hungry. Not only that, but I will teach you to sew like I sew. You will make clothes so great that kings and princes will come to you. They will beg for your skill, and shower you with riches. You will never be hungry or cold again.”

    The urchin warmed a bit. She stopped screaming. She looked down at her new clothes and at the tailor’s naked body and said, “What are you, some kind of creep?”

    The problem isn’t being a servant leader and the problem isn’t the term servant leader; which is an accurate description of Christ. The problem is that we are born neither understanding nor liking them. The problem is we have to choose to learn to respect them, and that is not being taught. The fact that we don’t isn’t taught. The fact that we have to choose isn’t taught. The fact that we MUST choose isn’t taught. Respect isn’t taught. These ignorances continue in many, many ways because there is only one Way, and every other ignorance is just a different wandering off that path.

    I am just now about to post, and I see in the interim you have said:

    Adopting the term ourselves in an attempt to redefine it would only add cover and plausibility to the deception.

    I disagree.

    16 As the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, and she despised him in her heart. 17 And they brought in the ark of the Lord and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it. And David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord. 18 And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts 19 and distributed among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins to each one. Then all the people departed, each to his house.

    20 And David returned to bless his household. But Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, “How the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!” 21 And David said to Michal, “It was before the Lord, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the Lord—and I will celebrate before the Lord. 22 I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in your eyes. But by the female servants of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor.” 23 And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.

    Naked and giving food I will make myself more contemptible to the false teachers as I lead with service to others by telling my children to respect their mother, and their grandparents, and all their other elders; by upholding other men as servant leaders, and telling other women to get in line behind their own servant leaders; by telling the false teachers that they are at great risk of cutting the throats of husband and fathers and even themselves. Most of them will laugh, but they will die with no children in the spirit.

  74. Last year I heard a statistic about spending on Mday and Fday. If I recall correctly, the national average spend on a Mother was about $160.00. For Fathers it was either $0.75 or $1.75….

    My only surprise was that the Mother’s amount was not higher.

  75. gdgm+ says:

    Thanks Deti – looks like the NY _Times_ article you noted just came out today (May 4), so the web pages I’d listed may not have seen that. Did you see this related article that was also on that _Times_ page (at least it was on my browser)?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/technology/david-goldbergs-lifetime-of-advocating-for-women.html

    Again, apologies if O/T.

  76. Scott says:

    Boxer-

    The site is down right now. Not sure why.

    try [redacted].

  77. Scott says:

    Everyone knows that St George’s Day is 23rd April

    Yep, but 06MAY on the Julian calendar.

  78. Novaseeker says:

    Thanks Deti – looks like the NY _Times_ article you noted just came out today (May 4), so the web pages I’d listed may not have seen that. Did you see this related article that was also on that _Times_ page (at least it was on my browser)?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/technology/david-goldbergs-lifetime-of-advocating-for-women.html

    Of course, it’s unfortunate that he passed away at such a young age. However, that article makes him look like a 100% lick-spittle orbiter beta white knight. Couldn’t be more stereotypical if you tried, really.

  79. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Most of them will laugh, but they will die with no children in the spirit.

    You have provided a lot here for me to teach on with my daughters. This sentence alone as haunting as it may be, also holds a reassurance that they’ll be able to claim as they go forward and are laughed at, told they are in an abusive marriage if they are in submission, told they live in “golden cages”, are meaningless to the world without being more than helpmeets etc.

  80. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    The problem isn’t being a servant leader and the problem isn’t the term servant leader; which is an accurate description of Christ.

    Agreed. If you were coining a new term it would be an excellent one. But “servant leader” already exists, and its meaning isn’t the simple joining of the words to create the paradox of Christian leadership you are thinking of. The meaning of “servant leader” for Christians is that headship isn’t real, not to mention terribly embarrassing, so get on with the business of submitting to your wives like the Love Dare teaches. It is deception, cover for rebellion. There are as you already noted perfectly good biblical terms they could use, but they don’t use, because they are in the process of running away from what is in the Bible.

  81. desiderian says:

    “But this term servant leader was conceived and is used expressly for pandering to women to make the words of Ephesians 5 and others go down better, a spoon of sugar.”

    It is used that way but it was not conceived that way.

  82. Dalrock says:

    Sticking with the theme of servant leadership, I’ll offer another example of two words put together that don’t mean what you would otherwise think they should mean. I make it a point to have a napkin when I eat. I want my napkin as well as my dishes, etc, to be clean. Not just clean, but sanitary, so I’m not exposed to disease. But if I ask for a sanitary napkin, especially after I know what the term means, one would be forgiven for lumping me in with tampon boy.

  83. Scott says:

    “try [redacted].”

    Got your email, thanks.

  84. Gunner Q says:

    Cane Caldo @ 12:14 pm:
    “In the meantime since I have started this comment, Empath has strongly denounced the term servant leader as unhelpful. I strongly disagree. The thing to do is not to discard servant leaders or the term, but to warn and rebuke that those who are to serve the servant leaders had better start do so!”

    The term is vague, self-contradictory and did not exist before certain elements of the Christian church found the concept of authority, husband’s authority specifically, to be very inconvenient. Creating “servant leadership” allowed these infiltrators to undermine Biblical leadership while denying they are doing so… verbal camouflage.

    Reclaiming the term is pointless as Empath and Dalrock have pointed out. I’m reminded of the “classic liberal” of the 1980s, the old-guard Democrats who kept making long-winded explanations of how real Dems weren’t Marxists (because the alternative was becoming a Republican, IMO). It didn’t work because nobody wanted to spend fifteen minutes of every conversation being told liberal does not mean “liberal”.

    We need a clearly defined ideological gulf between Christianity and Churchianity.

  85. DrTorch says:

    [quote]“Servant leader” is fine as a thought experiment for people with the right attitude about headship. There is a sense in which every good leader is a servant, because good leadership is often a thankless task that involves more caring for people and cleaning up after them than it does standing up front and receiving accolades. For the husband or leader who has authority, it’s a way to ask himself, “Am I being the right kind of leader? Do I use my authority to lord over my subjects, or do I put their needs (and in the Christian sense, their sanctification) ahead of my own desires?”[/quote]

    This is how I always took it. That’s why I never balked at the term. But obviously it has been twisted; FL Today was doing it overtly 15 years ago. I used to get infuriated when I’d hear it being done, so I’d avoid listening to FLT. Now I don’t have many places to run to as I try to avoid this.

    Still, it’s not quite so overt in the churches I’ve attended. Usually it’s still delivered w/ words like “love” and “be kind,” avoiding too many specifics and leaving it open to individual interpretation driven by the culture.

    I did have one pastor bring his wife up front and she taught what she felt it meant. I should have left at that point. Some months later they were clearly disqualified from being leaders in the church by an unavoidable sin, but they explained they examined themselves and couldn’t find any sin, so it must be a obstacle put there by Satan. We did leave then.

  86. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Sticking with the theme of servant leadership, I’ll offer another example of two words put together that don’t mean what you would otherwise think they should mean. I make it a point to have a napkin when I eat. I want my napkin as well as my dishes, etc, to be clean. Not just clean, but sanitary, so I’m not exposed to disease. But if I ask for a sanitary napkin, especially after I know what the term means, one would be forgiven for lumping me in with tampon boy.

    This is a great argument with which I can find no fault!

    I propose an agreement: I will set aside Servant Leader, and you will set aside Game. This should be relatively painless as neither of us use either term very often, and both will make Empath very happy. Do you agree?

  87. Cane, I have no idea what has motivated you to marshal such a defense about the term. I’m not really moved to debate it. I know what the preachers mean when they say it, I know what women take on board when they hear it, I know what white knights do when they use it to Lift Chase.

    Imagine the words that have passed through the race lexicon now settled on African American. I could go through all manner of explanations as to why the word itself….colored….is a fine word and therefore should not have been jettisoned. I could give examples of wonderful sentences using the word outside the racial context and declare therefore the word is juuuust fine. That’s one point.

    The other point is that all the argument from scripture EXPLAINS what servant leader should mean. But it has no efficacy in the matter of doggedly defending the term. I said it already, I agree the words themselves are not the problem. Sort of like a gun isn’t a problem. the user is…but to follow that with “therefore everyone ought to carry a gun, every single person no matter their criminal history or psych state”. (Lest some infer incorrectly, I’m a pro gun guy and this is for analogy sake) and proceed to extoll anecdotal virtues of people with guns. The gun is still not the problem, but best consider the holder when considering the guns wider use and possession.

    The term is not a biblical term. It may have a Biblical derivation and may have been the best one in the moment it was coined. The problem is the word servant in and of itself. The word is defined as
    a person who performs duties for others, especially a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.
    synonyms: attendant, retainer; More
    domestic (worker), (hired) help, cleaner;
    lackey, flunky, minion;
    maid, housemaid, footman, page (boy), valet, butler, manservant;
    housekeeper, steward;
    drudge, menial, slave, water boy;
    archaicscullion
    “servants were cleaning the hall”
    a person employed in the service of a government.
    a devoted and helpful follower or supporter.
    “a tireless servant of God”
    synonyms: helper, supporter, follower
    “a servant of the people”

    The bold part is where the correct usage is found. The users of this term know that the parts above the bold are where the minds are when it is used.

  88. I propose an agreement: I will set aside Servant Leader, and you will set aside Game. This should be relatively painless as neither of us use either term very often, and both will make Empath very happy. Do you agree?

    Drop “Game” and you can call me a servant leader my friend

  89. 8 in the Gate says:

    “I propose an agreement: I will set aside Servant Leader, and you will set aside Game. This should be relatively painless as neither of us use either term very often, and both will make Empath very happy. Do you agree?”

    Classic and Funny. Bravo, Cane and Dalrock!

    “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!”

  90. jeff says:

    Dalrock,

    This is on subject. Others…. This is Brad Hambrick. Feel free to go to his sight. This is considered Biblical!

    When it comes to making headship decisions it would be easy to engage the process (i.e., pursue an outcome) more than the person (i.e., serve your wife). This is a common mistake that results in great damage to marriages. Here are five key things a husband should have done or known before asserting his role in making a headship decision.

    Know your wife well. If you do not know your wife well, three bad things happen: (1) your starting point will likely not be your wife’s starting point; (2) the process of making the decision will be marked by conflict or silence; and (3) the decision you reach is unlikely to serve your family well.
    Start “leading” by asking questions and listening. Ask, “In your opinion what aspects of this decision are most important? What fears or dreams of yours are related to this decision? As we make this decision what are the most important things you want to see in me and want from me?”If you do not believe you are an expert on what is important to your wife, return to the exercises given in chapter two of Creating a Gospel-Centered Marriage: Foundations seminar.
    Express honor in what you say and do. Most abuses of power (i.e., manipulation) are unintentional. The person “with the power” simply phrases questions and defines words so that it is “obvious” things should go their way. This is form of dishonor, that intentional or not, is sin.
    Realize headship is primarily expressed during times when you disagree with your wife, so be aware of the strong bias you have for your own opinion. Be on guard for how this shapes your words. Those with the power in any conversation bear the most responsibility for what they say.If this is hard for you then review chapters two (listening) and four (conflict resolution) in the Creating a Gospel-Centered Marriage: Communicationseminar.
    Institute healthy home policies. Yes, this is getting repetitive. But a large percentage of issues that filter through to headship decisions are result of the absence of a shared plan for time, money, and values within the marriage. When these main things are agreed upon it is much easier to talk about everything else.
    If you do not have a budget you jointly use, review chapters two and three of the Creating a Gospel-Centered Marriage: Finances seminar.
    If you do not agree on the time commitments within your family, review Appendix B of this seminar.
    Establish an environment of trust. Trust is the difference between a hard, but good, conversation and an argument. Take advantage of every opportunity to serve and sacrifice for your wife, so that there is no reason for her to believe you are being selfish when you need to lead.
    One way to establish trust is to only respond to big deals as if they are a “big deal.” Over and under reacting are large trust breakers. Be aware of your tendency to either over or under react to situations and regularly ask your wife how you’re doing in that regard.
    Show interest in your wife’s day-to-day activities and share about your day-to-day activities. The more “foreign” you feel to your wife the harder it will be for her to trust you in moments when leadership is needed.
    Initiate important conversations. Difficult conversations that are brought to you have a much different tone that those you initiate. Passivity that forces your wife to initiate difficult conversations causes your leadership (often rightly) to be perceived as reaction to nagging rather than a thought-out response to a challenge.
    Beware of the lie, “If I bring up [blank] it will only upset my wife.” The longer [blank] is allowed to fester the bigger it gets. When [blank] forces itself into the conversation, and it will, the timing will be bad. As the leader of your family choose how and when these subjects will come into conversation.
    Regularly ask, “Is there anything that we need to discuss?” Inviting a conversation is a legitimate way to initiate a conversation. Don’t use this question to bait your wife into starting a conversation you know needs to be had. But screening for things you may miss is a wise form of leadership.
    This may sound like a great deal of work. It is work. Leading a family is an important job. Lazy men should not apply. These actions are not extravagant; nor do they represent the “Green Beret” of husbandry. These are the foundational actions and commitments which set the stage for a husband to exercise headship in a way that is a blessing to his marriage.

    Now we need to look at the process a couple should go through in a headship-submission decision. These steps are directed primarily to the husband. But they can be used by a wife to articulate what she is looking for in her husband as he leads the family in a way that honors her.

    Enact healthy individual and consensus decision making. Personal maturity and honoring friendship are prerequisites for healthy leadership in marriage. In particular, taking the step to seek counsel from mutually trusted people is important so that the exercise of headship does not come across as an excuse for autonomy. This is also when and how a husband gains the information necessary to comply with the next two recommendations.
    Articulate clearly your wife’s position or concerns. A husband who cannot clearly express his wife’s position and concerns in words she would agree with is in no position to exercise headship. If your bias against your wife’s position is so strong that your articulation of her position is simplistic or condescending, then you lack the love to lead her as Christ leads His church.
    Articulate clearly why this is important to her. Every effort should be made to understand not only “what” your wife is thinking but also “why.” Be very leery of exercising headship over a decision when the “why” of your wife’s concern is unclear to you. Hearing her husband express both the “what” and “why” of her concern provides a level of security in her husband’s decision that is important for her godly responses to that decision.
    Vocalize about what you’re weighing in the decision. Leadership is not just about understanding, but also being understood. Let your wife know what you are weighing most heavily in the decision and the time line in which the decision is being made. Yes, this also means inviting questions about that process. If you are defensive about questions, you’re not a leader; you’re a dictator. This is an important part of setting your wife up to support the decision. If the wife is uninformed about the plan, when and how it will be implemented, it can produce perceived resistance or undermining on her part as she acts out of her confusion.
    Request for your wife’s support in your decision. Questions honor; demands or expectations dishonor. “I would ask that you support me in this decision and work with me to make it succeed for the good of our family,” is the tone in which headship should be articulated. A husband cannot force his wife to follow his leadership. When leadership takes on that tone it becomes an abuse of power. God calls a wife to voluntarily submit to her husband and does not gives the husband jurisdiction to “enforce” that command.
    Only choose your preference if… “I’m convinced I’m right” cannot complete this sentence. The context of headship-submission decisions is disagreement, so you’ll always be convinced you’re right. Below is a list of criteria for when it is wise the exercise the role of headship. It is not exhaustive, but should help you further apply the idea that in the gospel leadership exists for the good of those being led rather than the pleasure of the leader.
    Moral Protection – If the issue under discussion has a clear moral component, requesting your wife to submit to your preference (which should be the morally acceptable option) is a form of asking her to honor the Lordship of Christ. This is part of the role of husband as the pastor of his family.
    Mission Drift – This is another area where the husband serves as pastor of his family. All families, like all individuals and organizations, drift off mission. The role of a husband as head of his family is to call the family back to their primary purposes: loving God, loving each other, and loving the world. This may involve drawing upon his role as head of the family to request focused attention in one of these areas.
    Life Balance – A husband protects his family by making sure the pieces of the various family schedules can mutually exist. This is not technically moral protection, but excessive scheduling is an often overlooked cause of moral drift, overt sin, and family dissension.
    Issue Warranting a Trust Withdrawal – This is the criteria used to establish the list above. In many cases utilizing headship to choose your preference will result in an initial decrease of trust. When you exercise headship and choose your preference you are saying this issue is “worth” that trust deficit. If you exercise headship well, then this withdrawal will be temporary and there will be a long-term trust gain.
    If a difference of opinion does not meet these criteria, then it is advised that the husband defer to his wife’s preference more often than not in order to protect the level of trust in the marriage. If an issue is not “that important” then positional authority should not be leveraged as the deciding factor in resolving a disagreement.
    Distinction: Obedience vs. Submission – Children are called upon to obey their parents (Eph. 6:1). A wife is called to submit to her husband (Eph. 5:22). There are many implications of this distinction, but one will be highlighted here. A husband does not have the authority to punish his wife for choosing not to submit to his leadership. Withholding finances, restraining social freedom, or other “grounding-like” actions are unbiblical for a husband to utilize with his wife. Whenever a husband-wife relationship takes on the quality of a parent-child relationship it creates problems that are greater than a lack of submission.

  91. It is used that way but it was not conceived that way.

    How was it conceived? I honestly have no idea.

  92. feeriker says:

    seriouslyserving said:

    I lost a lot of respect for that minister that day.

    If I were in your husband’s shoes, believe you me, that would have been the first and LAST visit to that church. I would also have given that minister an earful (hopefully in the form of constructive spiritual food for thought) on my way out the door.

    Sadly, that man is just one of far too many like him who are “leading” too many churches today.

    Spike said:

    Further, there is a strong streak of feminism in my church: one woman knits during the sermon, and continues knitting even after she has asked the pastor a question and he is addressing her directly. Other women spend their time at the back talking during the sermon, criticising the sermon as it is being presented. It’s disrespectful.

    I’ve been seeing more and more of this in a variety of churches over the last decade, so this isn’t just confined to “down under.” And sadly, it does seem to be almost exclusively women who do this; I cannot honestly say that I’ve ever heard a group of men yakking it up with each other (and NOT sotto voce either) while the pastor delivers the message. It is VERY disrespectful, not only to the pastor, but to the worship service as a whole and everyone else in attendance. I actually once did attend a service at an Assembly of God church in the Washington D.C. suburbs in which the pastor politely (more so than I would have been in his place) invited the ladies in question to make use of the narthex in the rear of the church to continue their conversation. PLUS ONE to this man, as I’ve never before or since heard any other pastor do this. Many more need to make it a practice.

    On the topic of “servant leadership,” I’ll simply offer this: leadership IS service. That is to say, he who leads is serving those he leads by guiding them in directions that are to their benefit, safety, growth, and well-being – often at tremendous cost or jeopardy to himself. I would ask not only wives, but also children, especially adolescents, to remember this: you may not like (or may not THINK you like) where hubby/dad is leading you, or even the fact that he IS leading you, but not only is it not “a basket of joy” for him, the consequences of his decisions will affect HIM first and foremost before they affect the rest of the family. Also, consider the alternative: he could just step down, back off, or walk away and not lead you ANYWHERE, letting blindness, confusion, uncertainty, fear, and chaos take their course. I strongly suspect that you would be begging for daddy/hubby to reassert his headship in rather short order (and yes, this painful little lesson DOES succeed in making its point, trust me). If daddy/hubby is smart, he would say “you made the mess, now go get the mop and clean it up.”

  93. Gunner Q says:

    feeriker @ 2:50 pm:
    “On the topic of “servant leadership,” I’ll simply offer this: leadership IS service. That is to say, he who leads is serving those he leads by guiding them in directions that are to their benefit, safety, growth, and well-being – often at tremendous cost or jeopardy to himself.”

    Still risky. If Christ could save a soul by hurting me then I doubt He would hesitate an instant. The blind man in John 9:1-3 is a disturbing indicator of how little God owes us.

  94. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    This is a great argument with which I can find no fault!

    Excellent!

    I propose an agreement: I will set aside Servant Leader, and you will set aside Game. This should be relatively painless as neither of us use either term very often, and both will make Empath very happy. Do you agree?

    Ha. I knew when I first wrote the post this was coming. It is after all a post about definitions, and therefore was inviting this.

    The reason I don’t want to deny Game is the same reason I want to separate from the term “servant leader”. Servant leader is a term used to deceive, to pretend to be supporting headship while actually attacking it. Coopting the term has the problem of trying to go against what is already established (making the goal all but futile) while in the meantime providing cover to those who wish to deceive.

    It would be deceptive for us to rename Game and pretend we didn’t learn it as unexpected fallout from our own faithlessness. One doesn’t have to lack faith to learn Game, but our jettisoning biblical sexual morality for a morality centered around romantic love and attraction is what lead to the formal cataloging of Game. Even worse, giving it a Christian sounding name would make it sound like it was Christian teaching. It isn’t*. Let us call it what it is, and not hide the reminder that Christians can take credit for the conditions required to learn what we have learned. You have gone to great pains to point out the taint of the term Game, but then you want to hide the taint by avoiding the term. Moreover, Game as even Heartiste uses the term isn’t exclusively for pickup/fornication. Obviously marriage isn’t Heartiste’s focus, but he wrote about married Game both before I started blogging and before I learned of his blog. When I use the term Game, I’m not trying to coopt it and change the meaning. I’m using it as it is commonly understood by those who teach/practice/advocate it.

    *This would be the danger in formalizing Headship Game as a system (to quote a wise man), and not a rough outline (and simply a blog post title) of how one can utilize the knowledge while keeping their true focus on biblical headship. However, given the desire by many to turn it into a system, the title of the post risks being re-purposed in that way.

  95. Scott says:

    When I was an intern, a psychiatris faculty member once told me “if you get a patient and a whole bunch of providers from different disciplines (psychiatry, psychology, social work, etc) are confounded by the diagnosis, it’s probably a personality disorder.”

    This discussion about “servant leadership” seems to have the same feel.

    If a bunch of really smart guys–protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons, atheists can’t agree on what it means–it’s probably not biblical.

  96. Cane Caldo says:

    @Empath

    Cane, I have no idea what has motivated you to marshal such a defense about the term. I’m not really moved to debate it. I know what the preachers mean when they say it, I know what women take on board when they hear it, I know what white knights do when they use it to Lift Chase.

    Imagine the words that have passed through the race lexicon now settled on African American. I could go through all manner of explanations as to why the word itself….colored….is a fine word and therefore should not have been jettisoned. I could give examples of wonderful sentences using the word outside the racial context and declare therefore the word is juuuust fine. That’s one point.

    The other point is that all the argument from scripture EXPLAINS what servant leader should mean. But it has no efficacy in the matter of doggedly defending the term. I said it already, I agree the words themselves are not the problem.

    Why I mounted my defense you have precisely pinpointed with your race lexicon comment. In this case, we husbands and fathers are the African Americans, the Blacks, the Coloreds, the Niggers; a point I have made before while acknowledging that the best current pastors on family are Voddie Baucham and Jesse Lee Peterson, and that the reasons are not unrelated. We could, like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, go around accusing anyone who dares call us colored; insisting that it’s a pejorative. Avoiding servant leader as not literally Biblical strikes me as a parallel kind of schizophrenia.

    Several here, including myself, think steward is a fine word, but already we are behind the times. It, too, is out of date. Just ask the flight attendants who would rather attend to my needs than to be stewardesses of them. Is husband still a respected word? I would say that is up for debate. It has the connotation of a kind of superior pet. What of father?

    My point wasn’t that we should go around calling each other servant leaders in an attempt to “reclaim” it; like ghetto kids nigga-ing one another. Rather that wherever we hear the term and also see the idea being diminished, we should fight it, and in terms that they understand. “When you say servant leader, pastor, you are talking about me, and not just me. Let me tell you what you are talking about…”

    Along this line of thought (and in keeping with my bloated 2000+ word post) I have zero faith that the masses will accept any word as sufficient and good as long that word carries the idea of servant leaders as I have said here. It will not happen. In this thread are the words of the sadducees and pharisees; claiming to a fealty to Christ, but will have no truck with submitting themselves to other men as their due. How far behind is the brigade of “traditional” and “conservative” women who then will use those specific men’s pride as excuse for being generally rude and rebellious; calling for other men to make rules for husbands that will “keep them in their place”? Since these groups are considered leaders by virtue of their volume and brashness, many who are more followers by nature will bolt altogether in the disarray, and go back to reading their comic books and Cosmo mags.

    But if, like Dalrock’s excellent sanitary napkin example, servant leader misleads more than it informs, and if, by avoidance of it, I can be be helpful then I will. (1 Cor. 9:22) In this case, it carries the added benefit of creating a fun pact with my friend.

  97. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo
    Excellent comment overall, and I especially agree with:

    My point wasn’t that we should go around calling each other servant leaders in an attempt to “reclaim” it; like ghetto kids nigga-ing one another. Rather that wherever we hear the term and also see the idea being diminished, we should fight it, and in terms that they understand. “When you say servant leader, pastor, you are talking about me, and not just me. Let me tell you what you are talking about…”

    This is the spirit of what I was trying to get at. My goal isn’t to ban the term, but to shine a light on what it really means (which is so different from what we are tempted to believe it means). By being clear on this, we can then engage in the very conversation you suggest.

  98. @feeriker
    “If I were in your husband’s shoes, believe you me, that would have been the first and LAST visit to that church. I would also have given that minister an earful (hopefully in the form of constructive spiritual food for thought) on my way out the door.
    Sadly, that man is just one of far too many like him who are “leading” too many churches today. ”

    My husband just shrugged it off, probably because he is used to years of copping this kind of treatment from those in ministry. I try to make it my personal mission to counter all the tearing down of husbands that gets done, in the way that I speak to him.

  99. Good, it isn’t about banning terms. You, Cane, likely would have me categorized as someone who would find such a silly exercise, well….silly. The same place I come from when I deride the endless redefining of game is what would drive me to Ctrl Atl Del a discussion about banning a term.

    Now, as you’ve gotten to finally, rebuking the term’s usage is quite different from banning it,

    Question, when you hear it used, do you

    A. Assume its stealth evangelical feminism
    B. Assume its rightly used
    C. Sit and wait for proof its Lift Chasing and think, see….”I knew that’s what he meant”

  100. Is husband a good word?

    Is the infinitive, to husband? Husbanding?

    Or is all husbandry lost?

  101. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    You have gone to great pains to point out the taint of the term Game, but then you want to hide the taint by avoiding the term.

    If both Game and Servant Leader are symbols pointing to things not of God which are actually in competition with the things of God, then both must go regardless of how either of them got there. Leaving behind what must go and moving towards what you must have is not “hiding the taint”. That is the very definition of repentance.

    When I use the term Game, I’m not trying to coopt it and change the meaning. I’m using it as it is commonly understood by those who teach/practice/advocate it. […] However, given the desire by many to turn it into a system, the title of the post risks being re-purposed in that way.

    I agree that theoretically there’s an opportunity for a discussion of Game that has a “I have been all things to all men” usefulness, but I have said that usefulness is something like a one in twenty proposition here, while nineteen in twenty excuse sin as just good Game. And you have written here that the idea of servant leader is good, but it’s the vocalization of it that troubles you. This, you have said, is because the vocalization of the symbol is used to disrupt that to which the symbol should naturally point; like a sign that says “Creator of the Universe”[1] but which is always found pointing towards Hell. I can see your point.

    It is under those auspices that I made my proposal, and perhaps that was not communicated. It was not an agreement that I would say I was wrong, and you would say you were wrong. Rather, that I would recognize you are right how about servant leader is used and received, and you would recognize that I am right about how Game is used and received. Two men agreeing not to eat food sacrificed to idols in front of those weaker than us; not for our sakes, but for theirs.

    But it’s too late now. The pact is gone, baby! Mmmm-hmm-mmmm!

    This is the spirit of what I was trying to get at. My goal isn’t to ban the term, but to shine a light on what it really means (which is so different from what we are tempted to believe it means). By being clear on this, we can then engage in the very conversation you suggest.

    I am glad to agree, but I am wondering what you think that conversation would look like. I think it must start with accepting the term; sort of like Paul on Driscoll Mars Hill.

    “So Cane, standing in the midst of the Fellowship of Overcoming Grace, said: “Men of the Purse, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the Starbucks in your Narthex, I found a plaque with this inscription, ‘Diaper Station in Men’s Restroom’ What therefore you uphold in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.”

    [1]”Creator of the Universe”, if anyone doesn’t know, cannot be found in the Bible as a direct translation.

  102. The Tingler says:

    Former Christian checking in. I was always a little bemused by the ‘servant leader’ thing, felt it was a way of explaining away male authority too. Not to be overly narrow in my exegesis, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall there ever being any mention in the NT that the husband is supposed to be a ‘servant leader.’ It’s a 20th century American evangelical Protestant convention and would have had zero resonance in 1st-2nd century Roman Christianity, whether Greek, Latin or Jew. The men in Paul’s audience practically owned their families; any woman who divorced her husband lost all her property, and the father had complete control over the course of his children’s lives. These are the men he’s telling to love their wives. They had way more legal control over them than husbands today do, and Christians fail to take that into account when applying Paul’s words to modern marriage.

    I’ve read a fair amount of Christian stuff from the early Church Fathers to the present and I don’t recall ever seeing any notion of a husband as ‘servant leader’ anywhere prior to the advent of no-fault divorce. You can’t be a husband today as the early Church understood it, because your wife could divorce you at the drop of a hat – and Christian women in this country file for divorce at the same rate non-Christian women do, even after giving all sorts of lip service to wanting male headship in the household. This ‘servant leader’ b.s. is the pastors’ tacit admission that the legal system doesn’t give the husband the option of having that kind of authority, but 1st century Holy Writ assumed he always will.

  103. @Dalrock: “The only way to fix the term would be to put down the rebellion. To put down the rebellion, first we must smoke the treachery out.”

    Which you do with this blog. What is the second step? Heck, give us the full 10 step plan! You must have thought about it.

    @Brad: “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Glenda.”

    Don’t forget Lilith (:

    And the wisest man who ever lived, not to mention his song.

    And on the whole Servant Leadership example of Jesus. I think y’all are reading to much into it. He was giving a pep speech to the faithful and reminding the masters that they had a master in heaven and to be kind to their wards and look out for their welfare. That is the context of what the Lord spoke. Basically nothing more than a reminder for leaders to be humble, not arrogant etc.

    I don’t get how modern churchians managed to distort the clear doctrine of male headship and husbandry of his wards (wife and children) into “Servant Leadership.” So headship now means serving the wards, aka exactly the opposite. At the same time, leadership is only legally permitted at the sufferance of the wife and the full weight of the law, police, social services, courts, jails, you name it are lined up to make sure there’s no “Husbandry” happening in these parts.

    I smell a foul serpent wrapped up in all of this tangled skein.

  104. Gunner Q says:

    Cane Caldo @ 6:23 pm:
    “If both Game and Servant Leader are symbols pointing to things not of God…”

    I can tell there’s a long-running debate here but this seems like an unfair comparison. The latter term is an intentional deception whereas the former, moral or not, is what it is.

    Bluepillprofessor @ 7:09 pm:
    “I don’t get how modern churchians managed to distort the clear doctrine of male headship and husbandry of his wards (wife and children) into “Servant Leadership.””

    That was the purpose of the term Servant Leader. It was picked deliberately, like homosexuals using the term “gay” to make their evil more palatable. Is a Servant Leader a servant or a leader? The infiltrators teach it means servant until they’re called on the carpet… and then they claim it means leader until the heat’s off.

    It’s an impressive lie, using an oxymoronic term to teach evil under cover of good.

  105. Rather that wherever we hear the term and also see the idea being diminished, we should fight it, and in terms that they understand.

    Makes sense. So when we hear “servant leader” being misused (which will be in most cases), we should point out how it’s being twisted and explain the correct concept. It wouldn’t hurt to suggest they switch to a better term like “steward,” also.

    On the other hand, we shouldn’t use the term ourselves or encourage others to use it, because too many people already understand it incorrectly. We can deal with it when others use it, without trying to “reclaim” it ourselves.

  106. Cane Caldo says:

    @Gunner Q

    the former, moral or not, is what it is.

    To sum up my side of the debate: What I quoted of you is a deception. The rest can be found at my blog.

    If it’s of any use to anybody, I think one of the differences between my perspective and Dalrock’s can be found in this statement:

    One doesn’t have to lack faith to learn Game, but our jettisoning biblical sexual morality for a morality centered around romantic love and attraction is what lead to the formal cataloging of Game.

    Morality (or marriage and sex) centered on love and attraction is Eros. What he says is true, but we know from the letters to the churches in Corinth and Ephesians that the world has always been this way, and so what was needed was vigilance against the spirit of Eros. My saying so did not go over well, and there were (back then) important sectors of the Men’s Sphere who strongly disagreed and in fact said what needed was MORE Eros; Social Pathologist, Ian Ironwood, Novaseeker… The list was pretty star-spangled.

    So, to me, it is an issue of the Church failing to keep out the assault of Eros; a battle fought since there has been a Church. That is a real and tragic failing, but I think the right thing to do is remind Christians that they are in a battle, and to get back on the wall. Dalrock focuses more on killing the traitors in our midst.

  107. desiderian says:

    Empath,

    “How was it conceived? I honestly have no idea.”

    See the Isaiah passage above. Amplified by the Gospels, in my mind it speaks to what distinguishes Western leadership from, say, Eastern despotism, although in Confucius and Gautama Buddha one can find similar concepts. Note the contrast between Xerxes and Leonidas in the movie 300, for instance.

    The key thing to keep in mind is that servant leadership is about how dominance is practiced, not whether it is at all.

  108. desiderian says:

    Cane,

    “Dalrock focuses more on killing the traitors in our midst.”

    Meh. Once their spell is broken there will be no need for killing. Did Dorothy kill the Wizard of Oz?

  109. PokeSalad says:

    A husband does not have the authority to punish his wife for choosing not to submit to his leadership.

    *amused chuckle*

  110. desiderian says:

    empath,

    “Or is all husbandry lost?”

    Not at all. The truth is timeless, and ever endures to benefit those who would seek it.

  111. PokeSalad says:

    Did Dorothy kill the Wizard of Oz?

    Well, she wielded a mean farmhouse. Witch never had a chance.

  112. desiderian says:

    Dalrock,

    “This is the spirit of what I was trying to get at. My goal isn’t to ban the term, but to shine a light on what it really means (which is so different from what we are tempted to believe it means).”

    Only in the sense of Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty* is that what it “really means”, and that is only for a time until the evil passes. It is, of course, useful to be aware of that temporary meaning in order to effectively challenge it or avoid it as necessary.

    * – from Through the Looking Glass:

    “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.'”

  113. infowarrior1 says:

    @Cane Caldo

    ”Morality (or marriage and sex) centered on love and attraction is Eros. What he says is true, but we know from the letters to the churches in Corinth and Ephesians that the world has always been this way, and so what was needed was vigilance against the spirit of Eros. My saying so did not go over well, and there were (back then) important sectors of the Men’s Sphere who strongly disagreed and in fact said what needed was MORE Eros; Social Pathologist, Ian Ironwood, Novaseeker… The list was pretty star-spangled.

    So, to me, it is an issue of the Church failing to keep out the assault of Eros; a battle fought since there has been a Church. That is a real and tragic failing, but I think the right thing to do is remind Christians that they are in a battle, and to get back on the wall. Dalrock focuses more on killing the traitors in our midst.”

    Shouldn’t Eros find its proper context in marriage? Consider the Eros of “Song of Songs” in Scripture. Is not Eros in the holy context of the marital bed celebrated?

  114. Cane Caldo says:

    @IW

    Shouldn’t Eros find its proper context in marriage? Consider the Eros of “Song of Songs” in Scripture. Is not Eros in the holy context of the marital bed celebrated?

    Sex and romance are not Eros-with-a-capital-E. There is no Eros in Song of Solomon. Eros is a Greek concept. While it’s possible to keep the terms erotic, etc., I don’t think since even the Early Church times that we’ve kept the erotic pure from (e.g. separated out) Eros. A good corollary that the Church was pretty successful at abjuring is psychology; right up until the modern era. There’s too much Psyche in the Church’s adoption of psychology. Those two ideas as well as the over-specialization and secularization of the rest of the sciences, give us our modern confusion of interpersonal relations, Game, etc.

    And that’s all I’m going to say on the subject on Dalrock’s blog.

  115. desiderian says:

    “There is no Eros in Song of Solomon. Eros is a Greek concept.”

    Eros is a Greek word. That to which it refers is an aspect of reality to which Song of Solomon also refers, as does, say, Hosea and the Epistles; the former in (mostly) its positive, healthy form, the latter in the negative, unhealthy.

    See:

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

    I must admit to having great difficulty following what the hell you’ve been talking about recently, Cane.

  116. Tarl says:

    When I pointed out the obviously stupid contradiction in terms represented by “servant leader” and “mutual submission”, I was told to talk to the hand and quit making trouble.

  117. Scott says:

    When I pointed out the obviously stupid contradiction in terms represented by “servant leader” and “mutual submission”, I was told to talk to the hand and quit making trouble.

    You did not comply with the hive-mind.

  118. Boxer says:

    Dear Cane:

    Sex and romance are not Eros-with-a-capital-E. There is no Eros in Song of Solomon. Eros is a Greek concept.

    There’s a Modern Hebrew word, אהבה – which roughly corresponds to eros. It’d be interesting to get one of the Hebrew scholars around these parts to comment on whether this is the word in the original text of Song of Solomon, and to comment on any lexical changes since it was authored with its definition now.

    Boxer

  119. When I pointed out the obviously stupid contradiction in terms represented by “servant leader” and “mutual submission”, I was told to talk to the hand and quit making trouble.

    Now you’ve gone and done it. We were settling into our original seats to restart the movie and you’ve dropped “mutual submission” into the mix. Murmuring restarts.

    Oh, the movie is an Alvin and the Chipmunks one. The parts where they insist “after you, no after you” is perfect modeling of mutual submission. But no one ever goes anywhere, they are stuck standing still by mutual submission

  120. >There is no Eros in Song of Solomon.

    How can you possibly hold that view when the book starts out with: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth for your love is better than wine” and then goes on to describe multiple sexual acts- and the power of Dread- in graphic, pornographic detail.

    You MUST be joking. Is this a test?

    Eros is the Greek word for intimate or romantic love. Hebrew contains many words for love, including ‘âhab “sexual or romantic love” and châshaq “the kind of love that involves clinging together” which are words that include the Greek Eros.

    The Song of Solomon is pure Eros and not even any indication that the Beloved and Lover are even married- well, no more indication than the lover is actually his sister as he refers to “My sister, my spouse” a couple times.

  121. @Marcus: Choosing celibacy in marriage:

    The guy writes like he has Stockholm Syndrome and is terrified of his wife’s denials. This is because his religion and honor have trapped him. His wife knows it and uses his weakness- aka his fundie interpretation of Scripture that Jesus never authorized- and uses it against him to full effect. She knows he is defeated and owned and has lost all attraction for him. He has realized that he would rather be celibate than get denied with nasty exasperation most of the time and occasionally get starfish sex. It is so sad. He holds the keys to his prison but doesn’t know it because the Catholic FI has hidden it so well from him. I know lots of Catholic men trapped in horrible, unhappy, low sex marriages and the elders just mumble bullcrap to them- this is your cross to bear, or whatever. Double down on helping her around the house, do choreplay, pray to Jesus for relief, yah, that will help.

    No…IT….WON’T.

    He who has ears let him hear.

  122. Cane Caldo says:

    It appears to be lost on everyone but Boxer that Eros-with-a-capital-E was a Greek god, and it is that which I reject. If you do not know who Eros/Cupid is, you can see a picture of him getting his ass whipped in my avatar.

  123. Boxer says:

    Eros-with-a-capital-E was a Greek god, and it is that which I reject

    Apologies. I saw the word as corresponding to the type of affection, and ran with it. Still sorta interested in what the Classical Hebrew word was, though. If anyone knows, it’d probably be an interesting side discussion.

    Peace,

    Boxer

  124. desiderian says:

    Cane,

    “Eros is a Greek concept.”

    Obviously there is no little guy shooting his bow in Song of Solomon. The concept is there, just as obviously.

  125. DrTorch says:

    The guy writes like he has Stockholm Syndrome and is terrified of his wife’s denials. This is because his religion and honor have trapped him. His wife knows it and uses his weakness- aka his fundie interpretation of Scripture that Jesus never authorized- and uses it against him to full effect. She knows he is defeated and owned and has lost all attraction for him. He has realized that he would rather be celibate than get denied with nasty exasperation most of the time and occasionally get starfish sex. It is so sad. He holds the keys to his prison but doesn’t know it because the Catholic FI has hidden it so well from him. I know lots of Catholic men trapped in horrible, unhappy, low sex marriages and the elders just mumble bullcrap to them- this is your cross to bear, or whatever. Double down on helping her around the house, do choreplay, pray to Jesus for relief, yah, that will help.

    No…IT….WON’T.

    Happened to my father in a protestant, evangelical church. And when my mother left him, (of course she returned to get the house), and he finally filed for divorce, the people in the church blamed him.

  126. John Nesteutes says:

    The Bible talks plenty about husbands and wives, and never speaks a peep about “servant leadership”

    Wives are told to submit, to dress modestly, to bear children, and to not live worldly sinful lives in order that God’s name not be blasphemed.

    Men are told to exercise loving leadership (instead of being authoritarian / controlling), like Jesus exercises with us. The church is commanded to uphold this system, and the church is commanded to maintain proper discipline of its members precisely to deal with men who might not be exercising leadership properly or at all. This is a problem for men to deal with, not for women to usurp headship with to try to “fix” the problem.

    Wives with unbelieving husbands (I would consider a husband who is abusing his wife an “unbeliever”) are commanded to win him over with their chaste and silent behaviour, although they are told they are free from this obligation if the husband moves out, and they don’t need to pursue him. (Same goes for the reverse)

    This issue is of such critical, central importance that Paul established an ordinance for the Corinthian church when he personally visited there. In the first epistle to them, he excoriates them for not complying with this.

    Women and men are commanded to maintain separate hairstyles. Men are commanded not to cover their heads with a religious symbol when they pray. Women are commanded to cover their heads when they pray or prophesy in a church gathering. Women are told not to cut their hair short and that doing so is a shame unto them, and that if they won’t cover their heads, they are one and the same with a woman whose head is shaved.

    Men are told that long hair on them is a disgrace unto them. A careful exegesis makes it plain as day that women are being told not to cut their hair at all, period, ever, and to keep it covered.

    You can laugh and scorn all you want about this is cultural or about how it won’t work, but given the complete lack of any proper headship I see today in the wider “Christian” church, I will go so far as to say that any church where a gender distinction is not maintained in hair length and head coverings between men and women (and this distinction is preached from the pulpit as a visible reminder of the creation order) is not a Christian church. It is not part of the church that Jesus established. And its followers are not followers of Christ.

    They are followers of the false gods who have been trying to destroy God’s creation since before the fall. Today’s false gods are feminism, abortion, unchastity, divorce, remarriage, and child support based family.

    The true Christian will reject all of these things. Those who embrace these things and cause little children to stumble will face God’s wrath for eternity.

  127. @DrTorch

    Your average protestant, evangelical church has fewer followers of Jesus in it, and less biblical Christianity, than your typical Kingdom Hall or Mormon temple. (Although from what Boxer says the latter is not far behind.)

    Sad.

  128. Da GBFM has da soslutionzzz!!!

    A Good Christian Uses Game to Become a Servant Leader, by Leading da Butt Tingleozzlzozo with da Gina Tingzlzlolzozozo, and thusly Preserving Christian Marriage Via GAME instead of Christ, as da Dalrocokainsz Marcusian Freuidiainz flocksz teaches us.. lzolzozoozzooozoozooz

  129. Anchorman says:

    Oh, the movie is an Alvin and the Chipmunks one. The parts where they insist “after you, no after you” is perfect modeling of mutual submission. But no one ever goes anywhere, they are stuck standing still by mutual submission

    Isn’t that Chip and Dale?

  130. Most people preaching “mutual submission” for husbands and wives sure aren’t interested in practicing it in an actual brotherhood. Mutual submission is supposed to be practice between the men in the church of good standing.

    Instead, your averge churchian synagogue of Satan has one superstar, well-paid senior pastor at the top, with everyone else expect to submit to him. God forbid he actually live like any of his congregation or submit to any of them.

    The only person who might be higher in the heirarchy than the senior pastor is the senior pastor’s wife. I think the divorce rates of evangelical pastors attests to this (50%).

  131. Pingback: The dialectic of submission. | Dark Brightness

  132. pukeko60 says:

    @John.
    There are cultural and racial differencces in femininity Iamscualingy, less so). They are driven by what women can and cannot do with their bodies and the climate — some african tribes have extremely kinky hair (on their heads) or very little hair and they generally have it short because it works in that climate. Or consider our Asian sisters: their bodies are a different shape (married one: — she had to buy her stuff in Asia where she was told she was huge, (at 160 cm /54 kg) ahd hated it) because their trunk is longer in proportion that it is for European. Or Samoan/Tongan women are simply larger…. their husbands wer 100 kg at 16 and it was all muscle. But even a seven foot shotputter (Valerie Adams) can and does enjoy dressing as a girl. The length of hair is less of an issue than the attitude.

    In most societies long hair is a fitness sigh, and seen as feminine: it takes time and a certain amount of health to grow it. Which is why hair product advertisements are aimed at women. And in most societies you are correct.

    Similarliy with dress: at times trouses are needed — includng in my job, where we have to get the hell out of situations, including jumping fences. (We can help, bue we are not allowed to detain and arrest).

    Byt allowing for those variations — which exist even between provinces in Canada or states in the USA as to what is approrpirate in this situation or that, you are correct about diferentiation.

    One of the perverse fruit of this time is that everyone is gaining eight and look like genderless teletubbies. We are told to eat food which would be animal abuse if you fed it to your stock. Without going down the paleo rabbit hole dight now, where is the teaching for young men and young women on how to eat, how to exercise, how to look after yourself? It used to be done my mothers and fathers. But the father has been kicked out and the mother is too busy.

    And on these issues, sex matters. To deny that is to deny the very basisi of humanicy: that we are a sexual species.

  133. pukeko60 says:

    Oh… typos. Memo to self>>> Put contacts in first!

  134. where is the teaching for young men and young women on how to eat, how to exercise, how to look after yourself?

    If you live and breath, are sentient, and have the majority of your senses intact you are inundated with “teaching how to eat and exercise”. The problem isn’t lack of teaching. It’s what has been coined “orthorexia”….an over load and obsession with same to the point where people tune it out as back ground noise. Much like they do other forms of evangelizing cum yammering.

    As proof I offer that I once saw a guy, in a discussion thread about headship and submission, work in a paleo pitch. Can you believe it?

  135. and the church is commanded to maintain proper discipline of its members precisely to deal with men who might not be exercising leadership properly or at all

    I cannot see the genesis of church discipline being the correction of over dominant men. That’s a stretch. That church discipline would be the appropriate manner of dealing with them, sure….although I do not trust church discipline in the evangelical feminist age to even be able to discern what overly dominant really even is.

  136. Scott says:

    I cannot see the genesis of church discipline being the correction of over dominant men. That’s a stretch. That church discipline would be the appropriate manner of dealing with them, sure….although I do not trust church discipline in the evangelical feminist age to even be able to discern what overly dominant really even is.

    Agreed. Church discipline is for all manner of sin.

    Also agreed. When it is applied to husbands vis a vis wives to day, it is used to compel them to “be more attentive” or hold them accountable for why their wives cheated and left.

    (Happened to me).

  137. pukeko60 says:

    @Empath:

    1. I could have been weights! I see the red pill PUA types in my gym. Not the deep blue people. And that is Dunedin, where we do walk and have hills. What scares me is that in Manitoba I am skinnier than almost everyone, and I need to lose a lot of weight. I wonder if this is because we don’t celebrate male and female nature, and think of everyone as the same with different plumbing. Which is not the case: if in doubt, watch what the advertisers do. Including hair length. If there is orthorexia, it is not working.

    2. I agree with John on this issue. The aggressive man should be dealt with by the leadership. However, what happens where I live is that the woman calls the cops and they give him an order to leave the home and not return for five days. Regardless of whose name is on the ownership papers or lease.

  138. pukeko60 says:

    @Scitt,
    OT
    Have had to deal with a crapload of DV leadubg to overdoses in the last week. On top of more than the garden variety violence — one nurse got a tooth broken when attacked by a kid who had been dragged to the psych ER on the weekend when I was on call. This “five day and you are out stuff” is scary: the cops are doing to everyone after a murder suicide last year.
    Is this just a local thing or is it happening in your neck of the woods as well?

  139. John Nesteutes says:

    @pukeko60:

    There are cultural and racial differencces in femininity Iamscualingy, less so). They are driven by what women can and cannot do with their bodies and the climate — some african tribes have extremely kinky hair (on their heads) or very little hair and they generally have it short because it works in that climate.

    We have plenty of missionaries in Africa (the biggest concentrations of Anabaptists are in Africa nowadays) and Africans sometimes come over and visit our churches. The women don’t cut their hair. They all cover too. They tend to work out styles that work for them.

    The issue at hand is women cutting their hair, not how short or long it is. Every woman’s hair will naturally end up a different length than another’s.

    The length of hair is less of an issue than the attitude.

    Correct. The issue at question is cutting hair, not how long it ends up being. The attitude involves is one of either choosing to conform to the Bible, or choosing to conform to the world.

    In most societies long hair is a fitness sigh, and seen as feminine: it takes time and a certain amount of health to grow it. Which is why hair product advertisements are aimed at women. And in most societies you are correct.

    Of course it is; that’s why Paul refers to a woman’s long hair as “her glory”. And in many societies, not cutting one’s hair won’t be a visible sign of feminine submission. That’s why he established the ordinance of a visible, religious covering.

    Similarliy with dress: at times trouses are needed — includng in my job, where we have to get the hell out of situations, including jumping fences. (We can help, bue we are not allowed to detain and arrest).

    Women and men should wear distinctive clothes. In our Western culture, pants for men and skirts or dresses for women are the best bifurcation of that.

    Nothing says women can’t wear skirts or dresses that are practical, or wear something under their dresses. The variety of yoga pants, yoga shorts, etc. available today make great underthings.

    Mennonite women engage in all kinds of athletic or outdoor active pursuits whilst clothed properly. (Running marathons, hiking, mountain climbing, winter sports, and so on.) I’d daresay they do more of this stuff than the average American woman does who spends most of her days decked out in “athletic” attire which is one step away from complete nakedness.

    If an occupation can’t be done by a man or woman whilst properly clothed, it’s something he or she shouldn’t be doing. Modesty and chastity are far more important than careers.

    One of the perverse fruit of this time is that everyone is gaining eight and look like genderless teletubbies. We are told to eat food which would be animal abuse if you fed it to your stock. Without going down the paleo rabbit hole dight now, where is the teaching for young men and young women on how to eat, how to exercise, how to look after yourself? It used to be done my mothers and fathers. But the father has been kicked out and the mother is too busy.

    Well, yeah, of course.

    See, for example, http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=29559

    The results show that [Old Order Mennonites] experience better mental health than [non-Old Order Mennonites], in part due to the strong mental health of [Old Order Mennonite] women.

    Unfortunately as our plain communities get more and more pozzed by our worldly culture, we tend to eat and act more like the world, and we’re getting fatter, too, albeit not as quickly as the outside world.

  140. OKRickety says:

    @John Nesteutes

    I agree that church leaders and, especially, pastors/ministers/whatever often think they are somehow exempt from the same expectations they preach.

    John Nesteutes said:

    I think the divorce rates of evangelical pastors attests to this (50%).

    I know there is a long-standing claim that “evangelical Christians” have a 50% divorce rate just like the non-Christian world. Recently, there has been some discussion on this topic, including on this site. See Does Shaunti Feldhahn’s rosy divorce data prove that no fault divorce is working out pretty well after all?

    Whatever the rate for divorce in this group, I don’t think I have seen any evidence that the rate is different for the “evangelical pastors” than the rest of the group. Have you?

  141. Scott says:

    Pukeko60-

    I don’t work in that environment so I really couldnt say much about trends on the ward/ER.

    Nowadays, since I am in an outpatient setting that is detached from the main hospital (it’s the Army equivalent to “community mental health”) my interactions with them are like this:

    Suicide or others harm risk is detected and pins my meter/threshold.

    Call psych attending physician, arrange for bed availability.

    Call soldiers unit to have him picked up and escorted to hopsital.

    The end.

  142. Scott says:

    To be honest, what you do sounds like way more fun.

    I am taking an academic position this summer (no patients! YAY!!!) for two years. After that, I think I am going to either a forensic fellowship or take a faculty position as an internship director.

    Either way, I am done with worker bee positions until I retire now. It’s kind of nice once you get some rank and experience.

  143. John Nesteutes says:

    @pukeko60

    Our DV laws are out of control too, although women are being charged and convicted at a shockingly high rate. Where I live we have almost zilch for any kind of violence, but if you go to the nearby old rust belt cities, women and men are almost neck and neck for DV. It’s insane.

    I have a few friends who are cops, and one thing I have noticed is a gradual shift in how cops deal with DV. They really, really, really don’t like it, and it’s about half of their calls. One guy I know always arrests both people on a DV call, and always finds something to charge both of them with. Usually the person who placed the call gets charged with resisting arrest, too, when they go absolutely bananas when he arrests them.

    The judges and prosecutors are all pro-cop and just rubber stamp whatever the cops want to do. The “victim’s advocate” which is required for any DV case now seems to just be aligned with whatever the cops want.

    Cops are tired of all of this tomfoolery, and the entire system rests on them.

  144. pukeko60 says:

    @John, I had you pegged as orthodox. So, to paraphrase you, if intelligent laymen from the Roman, Orthodox, Reformed, Baptist, Petnecostal and Anabaptist traditions cannot find a scriptural justification for something it is not there.
    I think you need to read my reformed brother Will, who coined “:evanjellyfish”.
    NZ still sends missionaries == primarily now to places we are not allowed to talk about, because that will put the missionaries at risk. But the liberal congregations ARE now a mission field.
    My local congregation is basically white bread: interstingly there is a differentiation between the men and women. From a very young age — the three year olds wear tutus and gumboots. (rubber boots, or wellngton boots) and fairy wings, given half a chance.

  145. pukeko60 says:

    @Scott. Email me. Am overdue for a sabbatical.

  146. John Nesteutes says:

    @OKRickety:

    I agree that church leaders and, especially, pastors/ministers/whatever often think they are somehow exempt from the same expectations they preach.

    I know there is a long-standing claim that “evangelical Christians” have a 50% divorce rate just like the non-Christian world. Recently, there has been some discussion on this topic, including on this site. See Does Shaunti Feldhahn’s rosy divorce data prove that no fault divorce is working out pretty well after all?

    I think her assertion was that 23% isn’t bad at all, so quit worrying, man up, and marry that highly questionable girl with a past, a short haircut, and who wears yoga pants.

    Whatever the rate for divorce in this group, I don’t think I have seen any evidence that the rate is different for the “evangelical pastors” than the rest of the group. Have you?

    I checked Barna Group research and it wasn’t broken down by evangelical/not-evangelical, but the divorce rate cited for pastors was indeed 50%. Something tells me they excluded Catholic priests from the data. Mainline Protestant pastors are such an endangered species these days that they wouldn’t affect the total much.

    Since the divorce rate of people who attended church last sunday is a much more modest 23% (I think? – we discussed it around here a while ago), pastors are actually getting divorced at double the rate of faithful attenders.

  147. John Nesteutes says:

    @Scott

    Would you mind getting in touch? Your website seems to be down right now and the Contact page is a 404.

    My email is john_nesteutes@yahoo.com

  148. Keoni Galt says:

    In my opinion, “Servant Leader” is the perfect description of the Supreme Order of Latter Day Orthodox Churchianity: It is a title for any husband who is a member of The White Knights of Our Lady’s Sacred Imperative.

    It’s a title for an office that bestows upon all married men of the faith, all of the responsibilities and accountability of being a leader, but restricted solely to the privileges and benefits of being a servant.

    Martyrdom Inc. – Churchianity sanctioned Marriage 2.0.

    I say one should quit worrying about using that term or trying to reclaim it or say it’s the proper answer to WWJD. It’s more like a signal or red flag, clearly revealing to those who have the eyes to see, a false prophet preaching a false and corrupt doctrine.

    If you are in a church in which the Father, Pastor, Preacher, Reverend, Bishop or whomever is supposedly in charge of the congregation, and you hear them preach the doctrine of defining husbandry as SERVANT LEADERSHIP… NEXT that church and find one that truly worships the Father and the Son, rather than that pagan goddess bitch.

  149. Regular Guy says:

    @ Chris Nystrom

    “““The husband of only one wife” – Actually that is a command for Eldars, not the general laity. The Bible actually supports polygamy.”

    Thanks for the info. Volumes and volumes of material is written on the subject of Christian marriage in today’s environment so I hope you aren’t suggesting polygamy as a viable option for anyone these days because that would make you either superman or stark raving mad. Cheers!

  150. John Nesteutes says:

    @Regular Guy

    Someone new shows up around here regularly advocating one of these positions:

    (1) Christians can take multiple wives. (Answer: Jews could, the church Jesus established never tolerated polygamy for one single day.)

    (2) Only women can fornicate. Men aren’t sinning if they fornicate. (Answer: both Jewish and Christian custom and teaching placed severe penalties on men for sex outside of marriage.)

    (3) If a man and a woman have sex, it constitutes a marriage. No need for witnesses or to be in the church. (Answer: That may be the case in a specific cultural context; Christian marriage happens within the context of a Christian church, and if the families involved are Christian it involves them too.)

  151. thehaproject says:

    pukeko60 says:
    I think you need to read my reformed brother Will, who coined “:evanjellyfish”.

    I have a Reformed Presby friend that says that all the time. Hope we don’t have a copyright suit brewing…

  152. Mychael says:

    MarcusD-

    I married into the same culture as the girl who wrote the article. (I can tell by her last name). With all the cheek kissing and such, it never occurred to me to tell Scott I feel like I am being raped.

  153. Mychael says:

    In fact, all the Serbian men at church are VERY alpha, but none of them or boors.

  154. Pingback: How servant leadership is twisted | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  155. Anonymous Reader says:

    Keoni Galt

    In my opinion, “Servant Leader” is the perfect description of the Supreme Order of Latter Day Orthodox Churchianity: It is a title for any husband who is a member of The White Knights of Our Lady’s Sacred Imperative.

    Heh. Mahalo!

    Definitely an indicator, like “mutual submission”, of blue pill poisoning. I demand a “trigger warning” for those words!

  156. Jane Dough says:

    In fact, all the Serbian men at church are VERY alpha, but none of them or boors.

    Yep. I married into a very traditional, fresh-off-the-boat Ukrainian family, and my experience has been the same. I’m in my 20’s, and my husband was born and raised in the states, but he is so different from all of the passive, indecisive, skinny jeans wearing guys our age. All of the men in his family and the church he grew up in (Byzantine rite/Ukranian Catholic) are the same way. It’s very refreshing and VERY attractive.

    There’s so much talk on here about finding a wife abroad, especially in Eastern Europe, but I’d recommend looking there for a husband too.😀

  157. OKRickety says:

    There’s so much talk on here about finding a wife abroad, especially in Eastern Europe, but I’d recommend looking there for a husband too.

    Since most of the readers are men, I hope none of them are looking for a husband there … or anywhere. 🙂

  158. infowarrior1 says:

    @Cane Caldo

    If you are referring to the Greek God I have no objection

  159. Dalrock, for your next post maybe….

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-05/liberals-try-talking-about-family-breakdown

    Liberals, can we talk about marriage?

    No, not same-sex marriage. It’s clear you strongly believe that should be a constitutional right, as do I. But there’s another marriage discussion that you’ve been largely avoiding for, well, 50 years.

    In March 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan sounded the alarm about the breakdown in marriage rates among African-Americans — and was excoriated by his fellow Democrats, who never quite forgave him for “blaming the victim.” But it’s impossible to read the Moynihan report today without thinking of the underlying conditions in Baltimore that gave rise to last week’s riot:

    Amazing. Saying what we’ve all been saying forever. He even gets into IQ tests futher on down in the article and everything.

  160. MarcusD says:

    If I feel I am being psychologically abused, what do I do?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=959120

    Certain marital acts – determining if sinful, venial sin, or mortal
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=959075

    turn for the worst
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=959052

  161. freebird says:

    unwobblingpivot says:
    May 3, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    “It also helps if you live in such a way that leaves no room for doubt, or rebellion. But if they come, your frame takes on the shape of the Cross.”

    Steaming pile of BS right there.

    If you’re doing seduction don’t pull State sponsored murder of a holy man into it.
    2 totally different concepts.
    OR IS IT 4 U?
    You go ahead,I will wait here!

  162. desiderian says:

    Service is distinct from submission.

    Our Lord (leader) and Savior washed the feet of his disciples, but only ever submitted to the will of His Father in heaven. His disciples submitted to His leadership, and whenever they failed to do so, he rebuked them for it. He never submitted to them.

    Likewise, the husband is the head (leader) of the family even as he serves that family, just as an honorable law enforcement officer takes seriously his pledge to protect and to serve his community even while he is trained to take command of situations that may involve law-breaking or danger. The good husband never submits to the wife or children, even as he serves as an effective husband by, for instance, making sure his sons are well-instructed.

    “Mutual submission” is as meaningless as “gay marriage.” One is either the leader or one submits to the leadership of another. It is natural for good men to gravitate to legitimate hierarchies where they can submit to the leadership of better men, and in time take on the responsibility of leading lesser (often younger, less experienced) men. This is never mutual, but rather lesser submitting to better on up the line.

  163. desiderian says:

    John,

    “Instead, your averge churchian synagogue of Satan has one superstar, well-paid senior pastor at the top, with everyone else expect to submit to him.”

    In the Presbyterian Church (both PCUSA and PCA/Reformed) there has been a re-emphasis recently on the traditional demarcation between “teaching elders” (pastors) and “ruling elders” (members of Session, which has the authority to lead/make the major decisions that impact the life of the church) who are elected by the congregation to serve three-years terms. The role of the pastor is to Preach (i.e. teach) the Word and administer the sacraments, not to lead.

    Submitting to the pastor is mistaking his role.

  164. johnnesteutes says:

    @IBB

    The author rather predictably prescribes IUDs for everyone as a cure.

    He is not familiar with breeding patterns in the ghetto. Teenage moms actually want kids. It’s not some accident. Biological fathers often intentionally spawn a child; there’s a certain prestige that comes from having a “baby momma”.

    The evangelical church does need to figure out that their effort opposing same sex marriage was almost entirely wasted; it would have been far better if they’d simply asked every wilfully divorced person to either reconcile with their first spouse or leave.

  165. Stryker says:

    Off topic – going to my in-laws church for a Mother’s Day service on Sunday. Just wondering what a preacher would have to say to get you to walk out of such a service? I think I remember some of you guys sayng you’ve done just that in the past…

  166. john,

    The author rather predictably prescribes IUDs for everyone as a cure.

    He is not familiar with breeding patterns in the ghetto. Teenage moms actually want kids. It’s not some accident. Biological fathers often intentionally spawn a child; there’s a certain prestige that comes from having a “baby momma”.

    I am entirely surprised that Francis wrote that article touching on the illegitimacy in the ghetto to begin with. I spread as many red pills around as I could in the comments section. I might have “converted” one poster to become an MRA if he wasn’t one already. I am doing my part to spread the good news.

  167. Phillyastro says:

    @Johnnesteutes –

    If a Mohammedan and his four wives convert to Catholicism, must he leave three of them or is he denied membership into the Church?

  168. John Nesteutes says:

    @Stryker: The last time I exited a service, planning never to return, was when the preacher preached on Ephesians 5, warned that “some of you are going to upset, but don’t worry about that just yet”, read the text, and then pronounced that it doesn’t say what it actually says, so that’s why nobody should be upset.

    I was thoroughly blue pill and churchian at the time, but for some odd reason the guy who claims to believe in biblical inerrancy (which at the time I did not) then doing an about-face and rejecting the plain meaning of the text, turned me on to the idea of going to church where they actually believe the Bible, and trying to believe it myself.

    That completely changed my whole life.

    Regarding my in laws and my parents… they are welcome to attend church with me. I will not disgrace myself on a Sunday by showing up in an unholy temple to churchianity. If my mother or mother in law doesn’t like that, she’ll have to just deal with it.

    @IBB: Good point, I was actually quite shocked that the author was willing to talk about illegitimacy at all. A typical blue pill writer talks about bastardy as if it’s some kind of holy baptism or public good.

  169. John Nesteutes says:

    @Phillyastro

    In my church only the first marriage is recognised. The rest are considered adulterous, although a man will be expected to support his children and be an active father in their lives. In the (rare) case of a convert who has been remarried and has kids from that, usually himself and the 2nd or 3rd wife separate but live close by, she goes and gets a job, and they live close enough to each other the kids are within walking distance of both parents.

    Ethiopian Mennonite church addressed this by saying new members must keep their wives and cannot divorce some of them (which most want to do converting to Christianity, as it’s an excuse to ditch all the old, unattractive ones).

    Existing members who take another wife will be excommunicated from membership.

    See Holly Blosser Yoder, “Landmark Decisions in Ethiopia,”, Mennonite Weekly Review 84, no. 46 (11/06)

    Unfortunately, they also decided to allow women in leadership positions, after being under crushing pressure from westerners to do so. So Ethiopia is getting pozzed, and will end up being destroyed just like the west.

  170. John Nesteutes says:

    @GBFM, my hat’s off to you, sir.

    The real problem here isn’t liberals’ advice. The real problem are the trad-cons and so-cons, who think they are conservative because they oppose same-sex marriage, but aren’t willing to oppose things like Christians suing each other for child support, suing each other for divorce, or remarrying.

    They aren’t really willing to oppose things like Christians marrying non-virgins, either, which is a trend that really needs to end. I grew up learning that if you had sex outside of marriage (male or female), you were guaranteeing yourself a bad marriage. Nowadays it’s verboten to say in most evangelical churches.

  171. Thanks John Nesteutes🙂

    I was actually very active in DC politics for awhile and ran around with all the major “conservative” players.

    One time I suggested to a major editor at a major publication that we salute the “Great Books” as Russel Kirk et al. had done.

    He looked at me and stated, “We’re a political magazine, not a literary review.”

    Today when I write that we ought salute Jesus and Moses on “Christian” blogs, the response is somewhat similar. “We’re a frankfartian game blog, not a church.”

  172. Novaseeker says:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417931/if-you-want-destroy-your-church-follow-liberals-advice-david-french

    Yeah I saw her article in The Washington Post. French summarizes it pretty well. As a left-leaning millenial (as most of them are), she wants more ancient liturgical rites (because they feel more “authentic”, the absolute obsession of that generation) coupled with an emphasis on SJW Christianity and de-emphasis on Christian sexual teachings, especially regarding people who are actively engaged in homosexual relationships of whatever duration. Essentially, she wants to be an Episcopalian — which is what she became, and that makes sense. Without offense the Episcopalians who participate, I’ll just note that her attraction there was specifically to the idea that they are so very flexible on actual belief that she doesn’t feel threatened or marginalized there when she wanders off the reservation theologically, doctrinally or morally.

  173. desiderian says:

    From the comments on that National Review article:

    “All her demands began: ‘We want…’ Have you ever asked what does God want?”

  174. Robin Munn says:

    In other words, she wants her church to feel authentic without actually being authentic.

    And yet, if you asked her if she was a rational person, she’d say yes.

  175. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker, as French points out the Episcopal church is in the process of destroying itself, just as the United Church of Christ, the PC-USA, ELCA and others. So taking advice from doomed institutions seems to be curious at best. Rachel Held Evans appears to be one of those people who calls for “dialog” incessently, but never actually gets around to really participating in one.

  176. Anonymous Reader says:

    Robin Munn, this is easy to understand, she’s purely rhetorical in her thinking. It’s all about the emotional. I’m sure that Rachel Held Evans would feel that she’s a rational person, however since she doesn’t actually do dialectic at all, that feeling would not be factual.

  177. John Nesteutes says:

    Back when I was a feminist, I venerated Rachel Held Evans almost as much as the Virgin Mary. She is one of the vanguards the “Bible does not teach a sex ethic” doctrine.

    Armed with her books, along with Sarah Bessey, John Howard Yoder, and others, I embarked on a journey of justifying the worst depths of pick-up artistry. The ethic is based on consent, so as long as I told a girl what I planned to do, I felt justified before God and that my works would be good enough.

    “Just so you know, I’m planning to bang you tonight and not call you back tomorrow. Is that cool?” “*giggle* Yes!”

    Of course, she fully thought I was joking.

    Rachel Held Evans is a heretic and a high prietess in the synagogue of Satan. I will spend a lifetime repenting for being one of her worshippers–for being a patron of the whoredoms dispensed at her unholy temple, where innocent Christian girls were pressed into being nothing more than harlots for any PUA who could pay the price of entry.

  178. John Nesteutes says:

    I should clarify that the “innocent Christian girls” aren’t so innocent in the fact they still chose to fornicate and to sin, but I hold the apostate church and teachers like Rachel Held Evans complicit in teaching such formerly-innocent children that fornication is A-OK, and for creating a churchian system where mass fornication is accepted.

  179. Dave says:

    This is a real Servant-leader who is worth marrying: here.
    Notice that he is not afraid of the woman’s huge credit card debt, and he does all the compromising, while his boss, the woman, does nothing back for him in return.

    Behold, a servant (to the) leader indeed.

  180. The Brass Cat says:

    I’ve seen the term “servant leader” used to describe leadership styles in a business context. It is basically leading by consensus and trying to make everyone have feelgoodz. IMO, leadership requires two things: making decisions and accepting responsibility. “Servant leadership” strips you of decision-making authority whilst leaving you with all the responsibility. That’s a bad position to be in, whether in business or marriage.

  181. feeriker says:

    “All her demands began: ‘We want…’ Have you ever asked what does God want?”

    Has that ever been a concern of any churchian?

    “‘God?’ Which one?”

  182. @BradA

    “Many things are allowed that are not profitable. Keep in mind that allowing some men to have multiple wives would mean many more would have no wife at all. That is definitely not a way for a stable society, whether in today’s guise or some polygamy utopia you envision.”

    Your entitled to your opinion on sociology. My only point is that the opposition to polygamy does not come from God or the Bible. My only goal is to defend his word and he never said what you are saying.

    Having said the above, if you want to talk sociology, since men are no longer getting married at the rate they used to, it seems like your point would not really be an issue.

    “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Glenda.”

    It is pretty easy to show that God has no problem with polygamy. He sent a prophet to rebuke David for Bathsheeba, but he had no problems at all with Abigail. You can have another wife if you can support her. You just can not have someone else’s wife.

  183. Gunner Q says:

    Chris Nystrom @ 7:03 am:
    “Your entitled to your opinion on sociology.”

    This is math, not sociology. Because men and women are born in a 1:1 ratio, if one man has four wives then four men are forced to share one prostitute or live sexless. That is cruelty, to have a society divided between the glutted and the starving. Cruelty makes it unBiblical.

    Add in how the Bible disallows polygamists from having authority in the Church and it’s a safe doctrinal statement that the only reason the Bible does not ban polygamy is because doing so would mandate divorce.

  184. John Nesteutes says:

    Chris,

    Reductionism about New Testament polygamy is tiresome. Please show me one church leader (Origen, Tertullian, Calvin, Menno Simons, Luther, Zwingli) who supported the vile practice.

    The only company you will find is heretics like John Leiden of the Münster rebellion.

  185. Regular Guy says:

    @ Unwaveringpivot

    “It also helps if you live in such a way that leaves no room for doubt, or rebellion. But if they come, your frame takes on the shape of the Cross.”

    I hope you don’t mean, “She’ll never rebel if I maintain frame/Christlike holiness/alphaness”. Christian men make this deadly mistake and set themselves, and others, up for failure. Eve had the ultimate Alpha Father in God Almighty and the stupid broad STILL rebelled against his authority. Maintaining frame/holiness/blameless/alphaness, no matter how much you Christianize it, is not a Holy Covenant from on high guaranteeing your wife will not rebel, period.

  186. Regular Guy says:

    …to add.

    Lucifer, chief among all Angels, dwelt with the Lord in Heaven and still convinced a third of the Angelic host to rebel against God’s authority, yet some Christian men foolishly believe they can command the submission of their wives better than God did with the Host of Heaven.

    HA!

  187. honeycombe says:

    This was interesting. But, not surprising.

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/07/dating-app-tinder-married-relationship

    In fact, the research claims that 30% of Tinder users surveyed are married, while another 12% are in a relationship. 54% classed themselves as single, while 3% were divorced or widowed.

    Nothing to see here … move along.

  188. Dragonfly says:

    Dalrock, I just started a Bible study on Esther (by Beth Moore), and I’m kind of shocked to see that she is, in the first 30 pages (!!) backing Queen Vashti’s decision to not only disobey, but publicly humiliate her husband, the KING of all that region (which was a quite a vast region as he owned everything in the area, except for Greece). She ridicules him, calling him “King Headache,” and refers to his advisors as the Seven Dwarfs (when the Bible refers to them as the “wise men who knew the times.”

    That phrase, “who knew the times,” is very critical… the meaning behind it according to other uses in scripture is that it was a precarious time of the possibility of war. King Xerxes had just thrown a 180 day celebration, showing off the King’s bounty and trying to gain the support of all the people (to prove to them that they could win if they were going to try to conquer Greece). He tried to impress all the people and officials, and it was a very sensitive time for him.

    Beth Moore tries does refer to Ephesians and say that “women supposed to “honor” their husbands,” but she never says the word “submit,” I noticed. She tells us in the Bible study to look up those verses (Ephesians 5 on wives and husbands) and see how “honoring” your husband is supposed to be framed in a kind of context. When I did look it up, all I saw was “Wives submit to your husbands…. ” and another sentence that clearly said “wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

    I can only guess that Beth is trying to say that Xerxes wasn’t worthy of his wife (and Queen) submitting or honoring or obeying his simple request. She tries to undermine his sanity, say that he was just drunk while requesting her to come, and give every excuse for Vashti not to obey his simple command. It’s really sad, I love her studies that I’ve done before, and she is just so obviously off the point when it comes to monarchy’s and how King’s behave (how you would expect a King to behave), and how the Queen is expected to behave.

    In my opinion…. Vashti either thought she could get away with publicly humiliating King Xerxes (that he wouldn’t do anything about it), or she willingly threw away her position and crown knowing that she would be forcing his hand. My guess is that she really thought she could get away with treating him like that and still keep her position. But the position of Queen holds A LOT of responsibility, she is more than a role model because she is held so much higher than the common people or the noble women. My family can trace our line directly back to Mary Boelyn, the sister of Queen Anne Boelyn married to King Henry the 8th, so I’ve had this discussion many times in with my own family on how Queens are expected to act – how it is really a survival game. To me, especially in light of how King Henry the 8th acted, Vashti clearly thought she was able to get away with it.

  189. Dragonfly says:

    *Boleyn !!! typos

  190. Dalrock says:

    Dragonfly,

    I’ve seen some bizarre readings of Esther. Mark Driscoll’s teaching of the book comes to mind. When Driscoll is done, Esther is the villain and basically a whore, and Vashti is the heroine for telling her husband to stuff it. We discussed this a bit in one of my Driscoll posts a while back, starting here: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/message-received/#comment-158090

  191. Stryker says:

    Interesting to hear about he Beth Moore studies. My wife completed both the study on Daniel and Ephesians in the past two years, just before we got married. I had never heard of the studies before but a bible study pepared by a woman brought my attention, but I have not investigated further. I may have to now.

  192. Opus says:

    Henry Tudor only beheaded two of his wives – he wanted a son and for good reason. Whatever the merits of Gloriana the succession of James VI of Scotland in 1603 caused real trouble and trouble which echoes even and especially now. On the reverse of the coinage it abbreviates but in Latin that the monarch is ‘Defender of the Faith’, a title or honour given Henry Tudor by the then Pope. The Monarchy treat that as hereditary. I deprecate the recent decision to allow a female first born to be higher in line to the throne than any of her later-born brothers. Happily (this time) Princess Charlotte has an older brother.

  193. JDG says:

    I can only guess that Beth is trying to say that Xerxes wasn’t worthy of his wife (and Queen) submitting or honoring or obeying his simple request.

    It’s even worse. She is saying that NO MAN is worthy of his wife’s submission, honor, or obedience. In other words, she is a feminist. IMO no one should be taking advice from her regarding marriage, let alone using a book she wrote for a Bible study.

  194. Regular Guy says:

    …”I just started a Bible study on Esther (by Beth Moore)”…

    “1 Tim 2:12-14 “12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (KJV)

    I heard Joyce Meyer’s on the radio last week for a 1 minute sermonette on Obedience to God during a commercial break and I almost choked laughing.

  195. PokeSalad says:

    This is a real Servant-leader who is worth marrying: here.
    Notice that he is not afraid of the woman’s huge credit card debt, and he does all the compromising, while his boss, the woman, does nothing back for him in return.

    See? There are still good guys out there!

    😀

  196. feeriker says:

    I’ve seen some bizarre readings of Esther. Mark Driscoll’s teaching of the book comes to mind. When Driscoll is done, Esther is the villain and basically a whore, and Vashti is the heroine for telling her husband to stuff it.

    This is why biblical literacy for the layperson is absolutely essential in order to minimize the absorption and impact of nonsense like this. It’s also why churchian franchises almost never focus on the Bible itself during “Bible” study. A biblically literate congregation is the biggest existential threat there is to the Mark Driscolls of this world.

  197. @Regular Guy

    I think Beth Moore studies are written for women (I don’t think she is trying to teach men). Not saying I agree with the content though…

  198. Regular Guy says:

    @ Seriouslyserving

    ““1 Tim 2:12-14 “12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (KJV)

  199. Oh, I just realised we must be understanding that Scripture differently.
    Please allow me to bow out now – I won’t argue the point with you.🙂

  200. JDG says:

    I think Beth Moore studies are written for women

    You bet they are. One feminist to another.

  201. JDG says:

    Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

    Beth Moore is NOT teaching women what the Bible teaches. How many “teachers” of the Word dance around the words “submit”, “submissive”, and “obey” in regards to a wife’s behavior towards her husband? Is the teaching from these “teachers” more in line with feminist writings or with the words in the Bible?

  202. @GunnerQ

    “This is math, not sociology. Because men and women are born in a 1:1 ratio, if one man has four wives then four men are forced to share one prostitute or live sexless. That is cruelty, to have a society divided between the glutted and the starving. Cruelty makes it unBiblical.”

    Not all men seek wives.

    And God did not speak against supposedly cruel practice because he just did not get around to it? No. Your mistaken opinion that it is cruel does not make it unbiblical. The only thing that makes something unbiblical is if the Bible speaks against it and in this case it does not. In fact it supports it in a number of places where it could easily have simply said not to do it, Exodus 21:10, for example. You are not defending the Bible. You are defending Western Civilization culture. They are not the same thing.

  203. @John Nesteutes

    “Reductionism about New Testament polygamy is tiresome. Please show me one church leader (Origen, Tertullian, Calvin, Menno Simons, Luther, Zwingli) who supported the vile practice.”

    Here is Luther on the topic:

    “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

  204. @JDG
    Sadly, that teaching is becoming more rare!

    (Everyone is welcome to pray for our ladies’ Bible study to that end, if you think of it, as we are currently doing a series on marriage!)

  205. John Nesteutes says:

    @Chris

    So a Christian can “get away” with polygyny.

    So what?

    Polygyny serves FI. Study your eco psych. This is why any sane civilisation gets rid of it. Modern day serial divorce and remarriage is essentially a version of polygyny fine-tuned to maximally serve the FI.

  206. John Whitten says:

    @ Chris Nystrom
    @ Brad
    Chris is correct in pointing out that “husband of one wife” is in the list of requirements for elders or bishops. But he didn’t go on to make the connection between polygyny and marital headship. An author on the topic said “Patriarchy allows polygamy, but polygamy requires Patriarchy. ” This is so true. For any marriage to be successful, the Biblical pattern of male headship must be in practice. Otherwise, it’s not a marriage but something else. What is good for one marriage makes two or more simultaneously, a possibility.

    BradA, my friend, not every male deserves a wife. If he’s not man enough to get at least one, he’s not man enough to be a husband and shouldn’t reproduce. There is no logic to forbid a man having more than one wife, only his personal capacity to fulfill the role. By no means should most men seek plural marriage.

  207. Dave says:

    It’s happening, people. As America continues to drown in debt, and strong, able bodied men refuse to increase production to support massive, unsustainable welfare for everyone but the working people, America now pursues its citizens to pay taxes wherever they reside on the planet. And it is the only country among its peers to do so.

    “An estimated 6 million U.S. citizens are living abroad, and the U.S. is the only country within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that taxes citizens wherever they reside.”

    What are these foreign based Americans only protection? Giving up their citizenship in droves.

    Source

  208. Dave says:

    1 Tim 2:12-14 “12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (KJV)

    I hope we do not misread the passage. Paul did not say women could not teach, but that they could not teach men, no usurp authority over them. Women are free to teach each other about a lot of things (e.g. how to love their husbands; how to keep the home, how to take care of the young, etc, etc).

    Titus 2:3-5 New International Version (NIV)
    3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.
    4 Then they can urge [or teach] the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

    One of the biggest problems that we have in Christian marriages is the failure of older women to teach the younger ones the right things, both by precept and by example. Rather than teaching them to obey their husbands, the older women teach the younger ones how to dishonor and rebel. And the “pastors” are too chicken to call them to order.

  209. desiderian says:

    “One of the biggest problems that we have in Christian marriages is the failure of older women to teach the younger ones the right things, both by precept and by example. Rather than teaching them to obey their husbands, the older women teach the younger ones how to dishonor and rebel. And the “pastors” are too chicken to call them to order.”

    This. Way too much “crossing of the streams” = older men teaching younger women (about feminine things, i.e. you go, girl!) and older women teaching younger men (about masculinity).

  210. @John Nesteutes

    “So a Christian can “get away” with polygyny. So what?”

    The original article quoted Spike “there is an obligation for men to be faithful and be “The husband of only one wife””

    I was pointing out that this was a false teaching. There is not such obligation from God or the Bible.

    If you wish to argue against it for “eco psych” reasons that is your business and irrelavent to my point.

  211. @John Nesteutes

    “So a Christian can “get away” with polygyny. So what?”

    P.S. If you find yourself in love with a second women perhaps “eco psych” will seem less important? What is important to know is that the Biblically correct response is to marry her and not participate in fornication (Doug Phillips, Arnold Schwarznegger, etc.). You can have her, but you have to keep her. No samples.

    The idea is that as Christians we are to please God. This is not the same thing as pleasing our culture, or even our church.

  212. Opus says:

    Entirely off-topic:

    I previously wrote of Democracy as it is practiced in Gt Britain: I would like to add a bit.

    There is an election and after the results are in (the next day except for results from islands to the north of Scotland) the man or woman who was Prime Minister but who can now no longer maintain a majority of supporters in Parliament goes (that same day) to see a very old lady, who is well past retirement age and says that he can no longer control a majority in the house and will she release him from being her Prime Minister. She agrees. Whilst this is going on (usually about 03.15pm) the removers go into his home and take out all his furniture. At about 03.30pm another man goes to see the elderly lady and says he can form a government. She says that he can be her Prime Minister. Whilst this is going on his furniture is being moved into the house so recently vacated. Meanwhile in Whitehall, Sir Humphrey and his staff (the people who really run the Empire) continue at their appointed task of bringing cultural-marxism to the nation – no waiting from November to mid-January to get a new team in place!

    As it happens Mr Cameron has increased his majority and so when he shortly goes to see the elderly lady he will be telling her that he can continue and thus the removers will not be going into his home. The other man has cancelled his proposed visit to the elderly lady.

    I am wondering how this further shift to the right will affect Feminism and TFH’s prediction which foresees the demise or destruction of that vile ideology about the time Mr Cameron next has to see the elderly lady (actually he visits her every week to tell her what he has been doing – a sort of care in the community for top people). Will this give encouragement to your Republicans for 2016? For myself I cannot say that I am anything but delighted (I always like to back a winner especially if the winner has a hawt wife – that means you SamCam) as we will not now have to endure the appalling Harriet Harman as Deputy P.M. regaling us with her overt misandry or her boss, a man who has a ‘This is what a Mangina looks like’ Tee-shirt. Rejoice, rejoice.

    We now return you to your normal program.

  213. Todd D. Webb says:

    @John Nesteutes

    “Modern day serial divorce and remarriage is essentially a version of polygyny….”

    While this is true, most people fail to realize such and the bad part is that they have no problem with divorce and the destruction of the family unit. Scriptural plural marriage isn’t about divorce and destruction. Scriptural plural marriage is about patriarchy, submission, leadership, growing, protection, commitment, provision, etc. Scriptural plural marriage doesn’t involve divorce. So the question is, do we continue to embrace the evil destructive societal serial polygyny or do we instead turn from that and embrace the good, holy, and pure Scriptural plural marriage? Scripture doesn’t prohibit a man having more than one wife. However, Scripture DOES regulate plural marriage the same as it regulates monogamy. In fact, most of the aspects are the same regarding how a husband is to treat/interact with his wife(s) and how a wife is to treat/interact with her husband.

  214. Novaseeker says:

    Opus —

    So is it now basically like this:

    Scotland = Nationalist = SNP
    England = Unionist = Tories
    Labour = ????
    LDP = Crushed by Tories

    Looks like the beginnings of a realignment. The almost complete loss of Scotland to Labour seems devastating, really.

  215. Scott says:

    There is an election and after the results are in (the next day except for results from islands to the north of Scotland) the man or woman who was Prime Minister but who can now no longer maintain a majority of supporters in Parliament goes (that same day) to see a very old lady, who is well past retirement age and says that he can no longer control a majority in the house and will she release him from being her Prime Minister. She agrees. Whilst this is going on (usually about 03.15pm) the removers go into his home and take out all his furniture. At about 03.30pm another man goes to see the elderly lady and says he can form a government. She says that he can be her Prime Minister. Whilst this is going on his furniture is being moved into the house so recently vacated. Meanwhile in Whitehall, Sir Humphrey and his staff (the people who really run the Empire) continue at their appointed task of bringing cultural-marxism to the nation – no waiting from November to mid-January to get a new team in place!

    Love this.

  216. Scott says:

    especially if the winner has a hawt wife

    Had not seen a picture of her until today. I will concede–she is kind of a cutie.

  217. Regular Guy says:

    @ Dave

    Beth Moore presumes to “Pastor” women, a role assigned to your Congregation’s Eldar, Visiting Eldars, or in the case of the home, the Chief Priest is the husband.

    “Titus 2:3-5 New International Version (NIV)
    3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.
    4 Then they can urge [or teach] the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.”

    This a case of trusted, honorable women of maturity (within your congregation or trusted sister congregations) to pass down these things so that they may be Godly wives and mothers and to help raise a generation of new faithful young people.

    Why restrict who teaches what? That’s easy: ” 1 Tim 2:14 “14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (KJV)”

    Beth Moore and Joyce Meyers push all sow the seeds of rebellion in home their content reaches any responsible Christian husband would forbid it from entering their home.

  218. Regular Guy says:

    Ugh, wish I could edit.

    *Beth Moore and Joyce Meyers sow the seeds of rebellion in the homes their content reaches. Any responsible, Christian husband would forbid their Moore’s and Meyers’ filth from entering the home.

  219. Opus says:

    @Nova

    I would think so. Politically, the question will be to what extent Scotland acquires independence.

    Cameron should thus go on to 2020 and now freed from their coalition-partner the LDP it will be interesting to see whether Cameron now acquires some cojones (as did Lady Thatcher after her first term) and ceases being so cringeworthy, as he sometimes is. There is no bar to Cameron remaining Prime Minister after 2020 – our parliaments are of up-to of five year duration, although the Prime Minister has the power to call an election at any earlier time should he see fit. 2020 is the same year as your next-but-one Presidential election, but we prefer our elections in the spring – when the weather is tolerable, which is said to help Labour, but this year with the birth of the baby Princess this must have provided that feel good factor that ensured a Conservative victory. All our ballot papers by-the-way are counted by hand and we really do physically put a cross in thick pencil on the sheet – not like Florida – and we have only one question to answer (as I wrote a week or so back) – so just one cross beside the name of our chosen representative. Where I am, I was amused to note that 120 people voted for no candidate (i.e. wrote none of the above or something similar) and 35 voted for more than one candidate (i.e. failure to understand what is required is no bar to voting).

  220. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus, how is it that UKIP can get more votes than the SNP yet pick up so few seats in Parliament? Geographical distribution, or what?

  221. Regular Guy says:

    @ Seriouslyserving

    My apologies, I have no authority to correct you or any other mans’ wife in matters of theology. Please defer to your husband’s judgement on the matter.

  222. Opus,

    Prime Minister has the power to call an election at any earlier time should he see fit. 2020 is the same year as your next-but-one Presidential election, but we prefer our elections in the spring – when the weather is tolerable, which is said to help Labour, but this year with the birth of the baby Princess this must have provided that feel good factor that ensured a Conservative victory.

    Sidebar, I think William and Kate are awesome, pure England. Your second in line for the thrown wasn’t just the most eligible bachelor in the entire world for more than 5 years just because he was royalty. Its because William was a genuinely good person and great looking guy. And I hope against hope that for a country such as yours (with your birth dearth) Kate sets an example and winds up being a little bit of a baby factory. I am rooting for six children.

    Given that your first in line for the thrown married a divorced woman (and given Luke 16:18 of the Bible named after his own ancestor), what are the chances (IYHO) that Charles does the right thing and abdicates the thrown to his son on that terrible day when the Queen (God save Her) is called home to the Almighty? I think he should. But I doubt he will.

  223. Novaseeker says:

    Opus, how is it that UKIP can get more votes than the SNP yet pick up so few seats in Parliament? Geographical distribution, or what?

    They have a first past the post system like we do, so it doesn’t matter if you pile up a lot of votes nationally — what matters is winning each separate election for a seat. So the UKIP got some votes, but not enough in any constituency to win the seat.

    Opus —

    If I were the Tories, I guess I would give Scotland fiscal devolution and see them choke on it (oil prices down, Scotland would be running massive deficits, etc.). The SNP are hoping that England votes to leave the EU (I think that’s unlikely) so as to provide a pretext for Scotland to split the UK and remain with the EU. Seems very far-fetched to me.

  224. Scott says:

    An Orthodox priests response to same sex “marriage”

    http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/features/one_priest_one_state

  225. Anonymous Reader says:

    Not exactly off topic:

    http://www.828ministries.com/Diary/Mark-Driscoll-Returns-Unr-by-Anthony-Wade-Prophet-150504-807.html

    Great cartoon at the top of the posting.

    Excerpt:
    There have been astronomical amounts of personal accounts of cult like behavior and leadership from Driscoll. It became so bad that former sheep had to band together to form online groups to fight back against the Driscoll machine. This includes former leaders, despite Driscoll making them sign agreements to not speak against Mars Hill after they leave.

    Yup. The stench of cult leader, or even cult-leader-wannabe, is very distinctive and easy to detect once one knows what it smells like. All the other stuff – the $200,000 of church money spent to buy Driscoll’s book onto the NYT best seller list, the “under the bus” sermon, the “how dare you” sermon, etc. – flows from the notion of cult leader. Because cult leaders always are seeking to create, and then to maintain, their cult of personality which inevitably must include various forms of bullying the weaker in order to control the stronger.

    Anyone who claims some sort of religious superiority because “I’m right and you’re not because you’re not me” is a cult leader wannabe. Doesn’t have to be someone running a megachurch, could be someone running a study group, or a church administrator, or even just a self-righteous “never wrong, never in doubt, because ME” blogger, wannabes are not difficult to smoke out.

    Just use the word “humble” or “humility” and see how they react. It’s almost always a tell. Then one can proceed as appropriate – maybe a conflict is inevitable, maybe one can go around them, or maybe such a small fish with a big mouth is simply a waste of time and energy. The tells are always there, though.

  226. PokeSalad says:

    As it happens Mr Cameron has increased his majority and so when he shortly goes to see the elderly lady he will be telling her that he can continue and thus the removers will not be going into his home. The other man has cancelled his proposed visit to the elderly lady.

    I’ve always had a soft spot as only a foreigner can for British rituals and traditions……but in 2017, unfortunately, our elderly lady will most likely be in actual charge of the place.

  227. Regular Guy says:

    @ Scott

    Good for them! It was bound to happen sooner or later and I hope more pastors take this stand.

  228. Opus says:

    Nova has answered the questions and probably with more political acumen than I could muster.

    IBS: your spell-check is playing up. You mean Throne not thrown.

    Parliamentary constituencies take some account of geographical size but not as much as they do population. A look at the geographical map will show that England is almost entirely Blue but that is because many rural constituencies cover large areas (with sparser populations). The Inner Cities (smaller in area) are more densely populated and tend to be Red – Scotland is now of course almost entirely Orange. You in America overcome this problem by providing (as you know) for each State to have two Senators (even the Dakotas) but Congress is determined by population size. (Correct me if I am mistaken). British political boundaries are revised on a regular basis by The Boundary Commission.

    The result was pretty much as I expected and I say that partly on the basis of last years local elections (UKIP failing to match their boastful rhetoric, the LibDems being trounced) and partly the general tenor of the times.

  229. Laura says:

    @Opus

    If all 650 MPs show up in the House of Commons simultaneously, do they all get a seat? The room doesn’t look big enough for 650 people. (I’ve only seen the room on TV, so that may create a misleading impression.)

    Under what sort of circumstances would a PM call an election early? Has this happened much in the past 50 years?

  230. Dave says:

    The original article quoted Spike “there is an obligation for men to be faithful and be “The husband of only one wife””

    Not true. While fornication and adultery are universally condemned, there is no specific command against polygyny. Of course, men who would be leaders in the church must be husbands of one wife.

  231. Boxer says:

    Dave:

    there is no specific command against polygyny. Of course, men who would be leaders in the church must be husbands of one wife.

    Why do you suppose Paul declared this prohibition against polygamists teaching others?

    Boxer

  232. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer says:
    May 8, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    “Why do you suppose Paul declared this prohibition against polygamists teaching others?”

    It couldn’t possibly be because church leaders must present a good example of how God wants us to live. Could it?

    Let’s look at the scripture in context.

    1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of [a]overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 [b]An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine [c]or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation [d]incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

    8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not [e]double-tongued, [f]or addicted to much wine [g]or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 [h]Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and [i]good managers of their children and their own households. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a [j]high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

    According to pro-polygyny legalists, there is no Biblical requirement for a man to be temperate, prudent, free from the love of money, to manage his own household well, to keep his children under control with all dignity, men of dignity, not double-tongued, etc. Because all of those requirements only apply to church leaders, not to the rest of us.

    Except of, of course, that we all become church leaders at some point. Or, at least, we should. Each of us, as we age, is supposed to serve as an example to younger believers. That, ladies and gents, is a form of leadership.

  233. Opus says:

    @Laura

    I am not sure whether they can all get a seat or not, but as they have benches rather than seats, perhaps at a sueeeze they can all just about sit down, and certainly when someone (say an American President or The Queen) address both houses of Parliament they all somehow fit in albeit standing like un-sandwiched sardines.

    The Prime Minister will call an early election under a number of differing circumstances; for example if for some reason or other (small majority, perhaps) he finds it impossible to get his legislation passed, or if he fancies his chances now but thinks it might be more difficult later on. In 1975 there was an election early in the year but the Prime Minister having only a small majority went to the country again in the autumn (and secured a larger and more workable majority). Sometimes however the election is late. In 2001 The Prime Minister delayed the election by a month or two because an outbreak of foot and mouth disease amongst cattle caused him to think that was the better way to proceed (cows want to vote too, you know🙂 we love democracy that much). Usually, of course, they hang on until the last minute.

  234. Boxer says:

    Dear Oscar:

    Thanks for that thoughtful and well supported reply.

    I have large numbers of people in my extended family who still live “the order” (i.e. Mormon polygamy and, to a greater or lesser extent, religious communism). Their kids, while usually not quite as bad off as divorce orphans or the vag-droppings of skank-ho single moms, do not generally perform as well as kids who grow up in a normal patriarchal family. This ought to make sense intuitively, since the time that every child spends with his father is divided between far more numerous siblings, and the father’s free time is curtailed working two or three jobs, in an attempt to support more women and kids.

    The men here who seem to idealize this backwards arrangement, imagining that polygamy merely means the status quo + ability to fuck lots of different women, have an inverted view of the reality of the situation. Men in these communities range from unhappy to suicidally miserable, and every home is ruled by a woman (usually the eldest of the “sister wives”).

    Freud wrote a bit about the transformation from polygamy to monogamy, and how it signaled a great leap out of the matriarchal slums of years past into a world with order, virtue and high culture. I think we should all take these lessons to heart, whether we get them from the Bible or secular intellectual sources, or just anecdotally — from looking at people who are living polygamy today. It’s a step backward, not a step forward.

    Best,

    Boxer

    P.S.: Plyg women ain’t hot like those actresses on Big Love, either. They’re almost all dog ugly: 1/10 WNB. Just FYI.

  235. Boxer says:

    Hot or not?

  236. anonymous_ng says:

    But, if I divorced my adulterous wife when she decided that she didn’t want to be married to me any longer, and I remarried, I would in effect be polygamous, but much like serial monogamy, having only one at a time.

  237. Boxer says:

    But, if I divorced my adulterous wife when she decided that she didn’t want to be married to me any longer, and I remarried, I would in effect be polygamous, but much like serial monogamy, having only one at a time.

    I suppose if you were still whoring around with your ex-wife after you married the legit wife, then you’d technically be correct, but why would any self-respecting man lie down with a woman who can’t be faithful?

    More generally, your question/response is an example of the sort of legalistic sophistry that seems unpalatable on the surface. Interpret the Bible however you’d like. Polygamists are still selling short their children, and that’ll be the case however one justifies his own lack of self-control.

  238. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer says:
    May 8, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    “The men here who seem to idealize this backwards arrangement, imagining that polygamy merely means the status quo + ability to fuck lots of different women, have an inverted view of the reality of the situation. Men in these communities range from unhappy to suicidally miserable, and every home is ruled by a woman (usually the eldest of the “sister wives”).”

    It’s worse than that, actually, because the people you reference belong to a tiny, isolated sub-culture.

    In countries where polygyny is the norm – i.e., Muslim countries – the result is that older men of greater status scoop up all the wives, leaving young men of low status with none, and consequently, no way to earn “wasta” (respect, honor, etc.).

    That is one reason Islam has always encouraged – and continues to encourage – conquest. Ya gotta satisfy those horny young dudes somehow, otherwise they tear up the joint. Muslim polygyny was a major factor in the slave trade that raged across Europe, south Asia and Africa when the Caliphate had the power to sustain it.

  239. BradA says:

    Boxer,

    Polygamists are still selling short their children, and that’ll be the case however one justifies his own lack of self-control.

    That is a common threat among all humans today, and likely throughout history. Few are really concerned about the children. That is ultimately the reason I still throw out a rebuttal against the ideas of those like greyghost who advocate fathers having children without a “mother”. (As if that were really possible. They haven’t figured out how to override biology even for them.)

    I would have to think on it more, but that likely underlies some of the supposed equivocating Scott claims I make too. I am focused on a different party.

  240. BradA says:

    Chris N,

    My only point is that the opposition to polygamy does not come from God or the Bible.

    Yes it does. Try looking at the pattern we are given for marriage at the very beginning. I can wait if you read slow.

    John W.,

    BradA, my friend, not every male deserves a wife. If he’s not man enough to get at least one, he’s not man enough to be a husband and shouldn’t reproduce. There is no logic to forbid a man having more than one wife, only his personal capacity to fulfill the role. By no means should most men seek plural marriage.

    Not all women deserve a husband either, so your argument falls flat.

    Plenty of logic to deny a man having multiple wives. I cannot find a single Scriptural example where such as good either. God used and allowed them, but He never encouraged them.

    You want a society with a bunch of men who can never get a wife merely because a hot alpha wants a bunch? That is not a pattern for a stable society and John N correctly notes why sane civilizations do put the practice down. Note the success of societies that encourage it.

    Chris N.,

    What is important to know is that the Biblically correct response is to marry her and not participate in fornication (Doug Phillips, Arnold Schwarznegger, etc.). You can have her, but you have to keep her. No samples.

    Nice straw man there. Don’t approach the woman who is not your wife. That avoids it and fits with the Biblical principle started in Adam and Eve.

    Which Scripture commands multiple wives?

  241. @Dave

    “Of course, men who would be leaders in the church must be husbands of one wife.”

    Actually this is not at all clear. The Greek is ambiguous. For example, the same word (strongs 1520) is translated as “first” in John 20:1. If the verse were translated this way then men must be (still) married to their first wife, meaning that divorced men were not qualified. Since God said “I hate divorce” (Malachi 2:16), but he never says “I hate polygamy” I submit that this is an even better translation as it fits better with the overall teaching of the Bible. It would be highly irregular to introduce a new teaching in a qualification list.

    Another valid translation would be “must be husband of A wife”, meaning married, and single men who have not demonstrated family leadership would not be qualified.

    In either of the other two valid translations polygamists could be qualified to be church leaders.

  242. @Oscar.

    See above post.

  243. @Boxer

    “P.S.: Plyg women ain’t hot like those actresses on Big Love, either.”

    The real life family that inspired Big Love:

    They do not look so bad to me.

    P.S. I am sure monogamists stuck in cults look as bad as polygamists stuck in cults.

  244. @Boxer

    “Polygamists are still selling short their children” – This is simple and pure prejudice. Do you actually know any non-cult polygamist families?

    P.S. There are plenty of at-risk children in monogamous culture families.

  245. @Regular Guy:

    ‘@ Unwaveringpivot

    “It also helps if you live in such a way that leaves no room for doubt, or rebellion. But if they come, your frame takes on the shape of the Cross.”

    I hope you don’t mean, “She’ll never rebel if I maintain frame/Christlike holiness/alphaness”. Christian men make this deadly mistake and set themselves, and others, up for failure. Eve had the ultimate Alpha Father in God Almighty and the stupid broad STILL rebelled against his authority. Maintaining frame/holiness/blameless/alphaness, no matter how much you Christianize it, is not a Holy Covenant from on high guaranteeing your wife will not rebel, period.’

    The answer was already in my statement that you quoted:

    ‘But if they [i.e., doubt and rebellion] come, your frame takes on the shape of the Cross.’

    No different than Christ. I did not put that there by accident. If I meant rebellion would never come, I wouldn’t have included that part.

    (And thank you for not calling it a steaming pile of BS, or something equally inflammatory, and then failing to back it up with reasoning.)

  246. @BradA

    “Try looking at the pattern we are given for marriage at the very beginning.”

    You are cherry picking a pattern. There is no evidence that the pattern you are picking is held by Jesus. You might as well say that the pattern is to marry all the woman in the world. After all that is what Adam did and we need to copy his pattern. Matthew 19 is about divorce, not polygamy. Lastly, the guy that wrote Genesis did not seem to have the same opinion of what it means as you do. He had more than one wife.

    “Don’t approach the woman who is not your wife.”

    But there is no sin in approaching a woman to make her your wife, otherwise no one could be married.

    “Which Scripture commands multiple wives?”

    Levirate marriage for one (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). Whether you were already married or not was not a factor.

    However, to your main point no one is saying God wants you to get yourself another wife. No one is saying polygamy is for everyone. The point is that adding to the Bible is just as bad as taking away from the Bible. You can not just make something up and say it is a sin. You have to have scriptural evidence.

    Divorce is a sin. God says “I hate divorce” and yet churches are filled with divorced people. And yet if a polygamous family walked in the door they would quickly be shown out even though there are no verses that say “I hate polygamy”. It makes no sense. Clearly people are not following the Bible.

  247. @ Chris Nystrom: “Another valid translation would be “must be husband of A wife”, meaning married, and single men who have not demonstrated family leadership would not be qualified.”

    Who WROTE that passage again?

  248. bradford says:

    @GIL

    Touché, nice touch.

  249. Boxer says:

    This is simple and pure prejudice. Do you actually know any non-cult polygamist families?

    First of all, the “cult” seems no less weird than your own personal interpretation of the bible. Still waiting for the verse that allows for married men to go chasing skirt, by the way.

    I know tons of polygamists. One of my students, “Darshavious” (not his real name, but close) lives with his wife and his side-ho lives down the street. He has kids by both women. This is one example.

    Sure, Darshavious’ kids will grow up marginally better off than the average skank-ho single mom’s kids, because he’s around sometimes… but they won’t have the advantages that they would have if they had one mom, one dad and a harmonious, monogamous home. The statistics bear this out.

    If you want to bang lots of different women, just run ho’s at the nightclub on the weekends. Don’t marry any of them, and don’t let them get pregnant. Then you can have your polygamist lifestyle without doing damage to anyone but yourself.

    I hope this is helpful.

    Boxer

  250. Todd D. Webb says:

    @Boxer

    “If you want to bang lots of different women, just run ho’s at the nightclub on the weekends. Don’t marry any of them, and don’t let them get pregnant. Then you can have your polygamist lifestyle without doing damage to anyone but yourself.”

    You are misunderstanding what plural marriage really is. Plural marriage is just that: marriage. It is not the whoring around as you understand it. Scripture regulates plural marriage and differentiates between those in plural marriage and prostitutes or whores. Unfortunately your understanding has gotten the two subjects confused and combined. Plural marriage is similar to monogamy in that it involves patriarchy, leadership, responsibility, accountability, etc, etc. This is different from the whoring you describe in that men in plural marriages do not just use up the women and toss them to the side of the road when they’re done. Plural marriage is a life long commitment like monogamy. The whoring and the “side-ho” lifestyle that you describe is not plural marriage. It is simply whoring around.

  251. desiderian says:

    Boxer,

    “The statistics bear this out.”

    Do they ever.

    (Roughly) 20% of human societies on record feature(d) monogamous pair-bonding.
    (Roughly) 80% of humans who have ever lived live(d) in such societies.

    A (literally) killer app

  252. Boxer says:

    Dear Chris Nystrom:

    I am sure monogamists stuck in cults look as bad as polygamists stuck in cults.

    Well, you’re wrong.

    On a more important note, why do you think these plyg bitches let themselves go like this? I’ll tell you why it is: unlike in a normal monogamous home, these bitches have no motivation to look nice for their man or please him. They give the orders, and he is at the very bottom of the totem pole in the house(s) he built.

    Those dog-ugly women have a man, and they own his ass. He is the bitch who works himself to death every day, while they do as they like.

    Go ahead and get yourself a couple more wives, who can commiserate and plot and scheme together, and report back boy. I can guarantee you it won’t be as you hope it will. heh heh

    Regards,

    Boxer

  253. Oscar says:

    @ Chris Nystrom says:
    May 8, 2015 at 5:33 pm

    “Actually this is not at all clear. The Greek is ambiguous.”

    If you’re confused about the correct interpretation of a particular Scripture, the right thing to do is to follow the historically accepted interpretation, unless you have compelling evidence to support the idea that the historically accepted interpretation is inaccurate.

    Do you? If so, let’s see it.

    It’s not a coincidence that different Christian traditions that disagree strongly on many subjects agree universally on the subject of monogamy.

  254. On polygamy/polygyny:

    ‘And the TWO shall become one flesh.’ QED

    And if the church leaders were to be married to their *first* wife only, it could also be explained as: church leaders must not take another wife if the first wife dies.

    We see a living example of this in permanent Catholic Deacons today, as well as in John Paul’s pastoral provision (wherein married Protestant ministers who convert can be ordained, but never remarry after the death of their wife).

    ‘First’ does not necessarily connote an openness to polygamy. It only seems that way, if that’s what you are obsessed with finding support for.

  255. Hugh McBryde says:

    What is “faithful” for a man?

  256. I suggest that the reason the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write this passage on the “husband of one wife” is because many converts at that time were polygamists and they were unfit for leadership based on having to many worldly responsibilities already. Paul also states that he wished that none would get married, that they should remain as he, in order to more fully serve the Lord. These fit together well. If one wife is a distraction, how much more multiple?

  257. BradA says:

    Chris N,

    You are cherry picking a pattern.

    It is called the principle of first mention (or something close to that). God set the pattern at the start. Violate it at your own risk.

    I would hardly call using Adam and Even, a relationship founded by God, as cherry picking either. Believe what you want, but it is not Biblical.

  258. Hugh McBryde says:

    Brad, Moses used the “Principle of First Mention” and died on a mountain top overlooking the promised land, instead of going into it

  259. Fairlight says:

    @Brad…in regard to the “principle of first mention”……Then all men must go around naked and tend a garden just like Adam???

  260. @God is Laughing

    “Who WROTE that passage again?”

    The Apostle Paul who never served in the position in question.

  261. @Oscar

    “If you’re confused about the correct interpretation of a particular Scripture…”

    I am not confused at all. I am just pointing out the ambiguity. The passage in question is ambiguous in English as well:

    1. “the husband of [at least] one wife” – Lower limit

    2. “the husband of [no more than] one wife” – Upper limit

    3. “the husband of one [and only one] wife” – Lower and upper limit.

    Can you tell from this scripture alone what the author means? Or must one let other scripture illuminate it?

    “It’s not a coincidence that different Christian traditions…”

    So you are not in the “sola scriptura” camp?

  262. @unwobblingpivot

    “And the TWO shall become one flesh.”

    Christian polygamists believe that the two become one flesh, too. It does not say anywhere (at least for men) that you can only do this one time. Each marriage is a marriage of two that stands alone. If David died his wives would not have to marry the same man. They are free to marry different men. They were not married to each other.

    There are some theological problems with the idea that you can only do this one time with one person. For example, which of David’s wives was his “one flesh wife”? Nowhere does the Bible indicate that polygamous marriages were less than marriages or polygamous wives were less than wives. Indeed some of the ancestors of Jesus were not first wives which has theologic implications. 1 Cor 6:16 applies to married men, just as much as single men because it is possible to be one flesh with more than one woman.

    “And if the church leaders were to be married to their *first* wife only, it could also be explained as: church leaders must not take another wife if the first wife dies.”

    Exactly! You have proved my point that this verse can mean many different things. It does not stand alone as doctrine and we need to look at the rest of scripture to understand what it does mean.

  263. @God is Laughing

    “I suggest that the reason the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write this passage on the “husband of one wife” is because many converts at that time were polygamists and they were unfit for leadership based on having to many worldly responsibilities already. Paul also states that he wished that none would get married, that they should remain as he, in order to more fully serve the Lord. These fit together well. If one wife is a distraction, how much more multiple?”

    That is possible. This interpretation falls short of calling polygamy a sin. At worst for a polygamist it would disqualify him for a leadership position.

    One problem with this interpretation is that it seems to go against the sense of the passage. If a minimum of distractions is the goal then surely singles would be the ideal candidates for leadship positions? If the goal that you want someone who is capable of managing his own family well, then surely a man who manages several wives and the resultant offspring well would have to be a very capable man?

  264. “God set the pattern at the start. Violate it at your own risk.”

    The pattern that Jesus was referring to was that marriage is for life. He did not say anything about monogamy. Just because you see a pattern does not mean that it is binding pattern. The Bible has to actually say it is binding pattern. Marriage is for life is a binding pattern.

    “Believe what you want, but it is not Biblical.”

    The Bible that is where most people get the idea for it.

  265. Dragonfly says:

    Thank you for the link to the other post, it was great to read all the other commenter’s opinions on Vashti and Esther, and even King Xerxes on how the issue really wasn’t about him (whether he was right or wrong to ask her to come to show off her beauty). The issue was about her and her honoring and submitting to him. I wrote about my own take on submission, what it really looks like, http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2015/05/13/submission-is-it-really-a-dirty-word/

    Thank you for making it clearer for me.

  266. infowarrior1 says:

    @GodisLaughing

    Agreed and the prescription for Kings applies for leaders of the church:
    Deuteronomy 17:17
    ”He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.”

  267. Pingback: They aren’t talking about headship. | Manosphere.com

  268. Athol Dickson says:

    Getting back to the question asked in the blog post about the term “servant leader,” my wife and I are in the thirty-second year of our extremely happy Christian marriage. Neither of us wastes one second thinking about who is the head of our household. We just try to put each other first, and Christ above all. It’s called “sacrificial love.” According to my Bible, Jesus was pretty big on it. Some of you guys who are so clearly unhappy in your marriages might want to give it a try.

    Here’s a little everyday example: Most nights before we go to bed, I spread an extra blanket on my wife’s side of the bed because I know she likes to sleep warm, and she brings an ice pack into the bedroom because she knows my shoulder hurts. We serve each other in dozens of little ways like that every day, not out of a sense of duty, and certainly not from the Pharisaic, legalistic mind set so many of you seem to have, but because it gives us pleasure to take care of each other.

    When a big decision must be made, this sacrificial love my wife and I have for each other comes in handy. We talk about the pros and cons. We listen to each other. And we arrive at the decision together, with deep seated mutual respect for each other’s desires and opinions. This works, because neither of us feels the need to insist on getting our own way. We both want what’s best for the other one. Again, that’s what love looks like. And if there is such a thing as “servant leadership,” that’s what it should look like.

    If Jesus taught anything it is that LOVE SERVES. Part of what that means, is that love doesn’t demand to be in charge. Jesus is the King of Kings, the Master of the Universe, yet when did he ever demand that you must follow him? Did he say, “You must obey?” Or did he say, “If [and only if] you love me, you will do what I command?” Does it say, “He loves, because we first loved him?” Or does it say the opposite? Jesus knew most of us would never love him, never do what he commands. He died on the cross for us anyway. He put no conditions on his love, no demands. He died for us “while we were still sinners.”

    The word “Christian” is supposed to mean a follower of Christ. So if you’ve not willing to pick up your cross and follow, if you’re not willing to put your pride to death and serve your wife (and everybody else) with the kind of humble, sacrificial love Jesus has for you, then you don’t deserve to lead anyone. You may not even be a Christian.

  269. Robert says:

    “My problem is that no church I know makes it clear what the wife’s obligation to her husband is.”

    I don’t know how Spike defines the word ‘church’ but I would say his search is defective. Look harder and you will find them

  270. Pingback: Polygamy – where the winners are losers | A quest for two

  271. Pingback: If you can”t feel the current, you have already been swept away. | Dalrock

  272. Cowgirl says:

    Very simple what man and woman is to bring to a marriage: Submission to each other in reverence to Jesus Christ. Fully explained in Ephesians Chapter 5 beginning in verse 21.

  273. Cowgirl, most English translations confuse that passage by putting a paragraph break before verse 21 and lumping it in with the following verses, even though verse 21 is a continuation of verse 20. (They didn’t use paragraphs back then, or even sentences as we know them, but we still know where thoughts started and ended. The Douay-Rheims and the King James — the oldest Catholic and Protestant English translations, respectively — show verses 18-21 as one sentence.) Verse 21 is the completion of the previous set of verses which talk about how Christians are to treat each other in general. Verse 22 begins a new section on specific relationships — husband and wife, parent and child, master and slave.

    But regardless of how much you over-stress verse 21, there’s nothing ambiguous about, “Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. (22-24).” Do you think verse 21 somehow nullifies the clear meaning of verses 22-24? Even though they say it twice? Or is it more likely that verses 22-24 mean what they say, and you’re reading things into verse 21 that Paul didn’t put there?

    Even if you start cold at verse 21, you get: “Christians, be subject to each other in general. But in these specific cases where someone needs to be in authority, here’s who is subject to whom.” It only makes sense if you read the rest of the chapter (and the beginning of chapter 6) as exceptions to the general rule he just presented.

    (Amusingly, my copy of the New American Bible, the 1970 Catholic translation, has a footnote for verse 21 that admits that’s why they stick it with verse 22, to suggest mutual submission rather than “domination” of some people over others.)

  274. @Cowgirl, mutual submission is a feminist construction (lie).

    For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
    (Eph 5:23)

    People like these:

    Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
    (2Ti 3:5-6)

  275. theasdgamer says:

    Some of you guys who are so clearly unhappy in your marriages might want to give it a try.

    Quit being a d1ck. Many of us have done what you suggest. Just because you married a unicorn doesn’t mean that all women are unicorns. You really need to get your head out of your @$$ and open your ears and shut your piehole. Lurk a lot and keep quiet until you understand.

    By the way, my marriage is probably in the top 10% of marriages, if frequency of sex is an indicator. Been married longer than you and Mrs. Gamer is still in love with me.

  276. Athol, congratulations, you may actually not be married to someone who was saturated by feminist culture.

  277. desiderian says:

    Athol,

    “not from the Pharisaic, legalistic mind set so many of you seem to have”

    I would say that one comes into someone else’s household and start casting aspersions on its members with very little understanding of their character or beliefs would be the Pharisee. Mind the plank in your own eye before the mote you imagine you see in others’.

  278. MarcusD says:

    Interesting:

  279. His wife just fucked him over! Do not marry a career women. You will get one child, max! And you will be a hen pecked piece of dirt to her. Just don’t do it.

  280. Hugh McBryde says:

    I think after that little f-bomb, I’ll take my leave of this untidy discussion.

  281. So all it takes for some people to start shaking dust of their shoes is for SOMEONE to drop the “F-bomb”? Cool. I don’t know if I would announce it though.

  282. Pingback: No true Scotsman | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  283. John Nesteutes says:

    How to have a successful marriage:

    Put an extra blanket down on the bed on her side.

  284. theasdgamer says:

    I think after that little f-bomb, I’ll take my leave of this untidy discussion.

    Don’t you all hate boring, prissy types? And boring, judgmental types?

  285. theasdgamer says:

    How to have a successful marriage:

    Put an extra blanket down on the bed on her side.

    Exact opposite. Hog the single blanket, but do it with a twinkle in your eye. Get her to want to be close to you and your warmth.

  286. theasdgamer says:

    The ice pack can be on the opposite from the wife. I know, this may be conceptually difficult for Blue Pillers to accept.

    Wonder how many times per week year Athol and his wife do the dirty?

  287. theasdgamer says:

    I think that Athol may be his wife’s BFF. Her girlfriend.

  288. John Nesteutes says:

    @theasdgamer

    The “Jesus taught that love serves!” line is funny, considering his letters to the churches in Revelation. Didn’t he promise to spew them out of his mouth?

  289. theasdgamer says:

    John, love is a devouring fire.

    Song of Songs 8 (NASB)

    6
    Put me like a seal over your heart,
    Like a seal on your arm.
    For love is as strong as death,
    Jealousy is as severe as Sheol;
    Its flashes are flashes of fire,
    The very flame of the Lord.

    7
    Many waters cannot quench love,
    Nor will rivers overflow it;
    If a man were to give all the riches of his house for love,
    It would be utterly despised.

    Jesus said that he would vomit one of the churches out of his mouth. Expel violently due to nausea.

    In one context, love serves. In another, it vomits the SO out of its mouth.

  290. John Nesteutes says:

    People have confused “love” with “appeasement”.

  291. Pingback: Compelling Christian Slang Term Deconstruction of the Day - jason (r) anderson

  292. James Sprattimer says:

    We need to read the CONTEXT of the passage. Paul a senior apostle is writing to his helpers Timothy and Titus about how to choose Leaders for the church. He is saying “get men who have experience ruling” men who can rule their own households well, will be able to rule well in the church. To have a house hold one had to have at least one wife. He was NOT saying avoid those dirty lusty men that have more than one wife. He was saying single men have no experience in ruling a household. Find men who rule their households (wives and Children) well. IF the can do that then they can rule in the church. All three passages 1st Timothy 3;2-6 and 1st Timothy 3;12 and Titus 1;6 ALL have this concept within the context. “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity or if man know not how to rule his on house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”

  293. Pingback: Modern Christian wife worship | Dalrock

  294. Pingback: Leadership means telling her she is pretty | Dalrock

  295. Pingback: Servant leaders mind their own business. | Dalrock

  296. Pingback: She only acted crazy to get her own way. | Dalrock

  297. Pingback: Supplicating to rebellion | Dalrock

  298. Pingback: Complementarian marriage: Egalitarian marriage with a veneer of headship. | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s