If you can’t feel the current, you have already been swept away.

Instapundit kindly linked to my post They aren’t talking about headship.

LIFE AMONG THE CHURCHIANS: “My problem is that no church I know makes it clear what the wife’s obligation to her husband is.” In contemporary society, men have obligations. Women have entitlements.

This brought out all of the standard denials in the comment section.  We live in an age where feminist rebellion is considered the highest virtue.  Modern Christians have bought into feminism but deny this by denying the very rebellion.  Feminism doesn’t feel like rebellion because it feels normal.  Donald Sensing explained that there can’t be a problem in modern Christian culture, because he personally has made sure there is no problem:

Well, I have preached on that a number of times!

Maybe the author needs to get out more.

Certainly some pastors do fight our feminist culture, but they more than anyone else understand the amount of effort this takes, and the amount of crying and wailing this creates from the women in the congregation.  A few of these pastors have even managed to develop a culture in their congregation contrary to the modern Christian culture surrounding them, and for them the amount of crying and wailing is greatly reduced.  But even here, these pastors know the constant effort which is required to keep the modern Christian view that feminist rebellion is virtue from seeping in and taking over.  Pastors who are actively fighting our feminist culture don’t minimize the problem because they understand how serious it is.  Meanwhile, others like Sensing first deny that feminism has overtaken our culture before explaining that the real problem is that husbands aren’t minding their own business:

The main part of his serious error is that the New Testament spends a lot more time instructing husbands on their duties that wives on theirs. Maybe if he learned and practiced his obligations first he wouldn’t be worrying so much about hers.

His claim that the NT focuses much more time on the duties of husbands than wives is a bizarre one, but aside from that he is also encouraging rebellion by suggesting that there is no problem of feminist rebellion, but instead husbands who aren’t minding their own business.

Commenter Noah D carries on with the same denial;  if you only went to Noah’s church it would be obvious that there is no problem at all:

Well, there’s this little organization called the Catholic Church, that a few people belong to, and as been preaching about and thinking about that sort of thing for at least a little while. Might want to check them out – just sayin’.

It is true that formal RCC teaching on headship and the roles of men and women is quite good.  However, faithful Catholics understand that just like everyone else they have to fight against the current of modern Christian culture.  Because modern Christian culture is thoroughly saturated with feminist thinking, there is a profound difference between RCC teaching and what one is likely to be taught at the local church.  Bonald of Throne and Altar recently described the constant vigilance he and other faithful Catholics have to exercise in his post Youth mentorship in a Catholic parish:

I’m thinking I’d like to involve myself in the religious education program at whatever parish I end up in.  (It seemed silly to bother infiltrating my current one when I don’t have tenure.)  I have no relevant expertise to teach, but I can volunteer to make copies and babysit.  The point is to be able to follow what’s going on in the program and check material for orthodoxy.  My oldest girl will soon be old enough for religion class, which they usually make children take if they want to receive the sacraments (otherwise I wouldn’t even consider accepting the spiritual dangers of a post-Vatican II religion class), and I’ll definitely want to be able to spy on them.

Bonald knows the powerful current exists because he is anchored in the rock, but Noah can’t feel it because he was swept away long ago.  Noah is in fact now part of the current.

Men who are part of the current rationalize feminist rebellion without a second thought.  There is no malice or calculation here;  this is what you do when you are part of the current.  Commenter Creative Dude explains that when the Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands even if their husband doesn’t obey the word, this really means his own wife’s submission is contingent upon him obeying the word:

She is to Love, Honor and Obey me to the same extent I Love, Honor and Obey our Lord.

Moreover, when the Bible calls on husbands to wash their wives in the water of the word, this means that husbands should mind their own business:

Our Lord is not a boss. He sets the example, teaches truth and invites us to obey.

He did not tell me to tell others what they should do, he told me what I need to do.

Note: Those who have this blog in their reader feed will have received a version of this post which I accidentally published while still editing. Please disregard that incomplete version.

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

175 Responses to If you can’t feel the current, you have already been swept away.

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

  2. Volunteering with the local parish’s youth ministry has been an eye opening experience for me. We’ve done nights on the roles of husbands and wives and they’re always the most controversial. We emphasize to the teens that, “This isn’t your core team being sexist jerks or whatever, this comes directly from Scripture here, here, and here.” Even so, the youth minister always receives angry emails from mothers outraged over something he or I said: “You want our daughters to skip college and just be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!” He has to be more politic as that’s what he does for a living, and he has a wife and infant daughter to raise. I replied, “Your problem isn’t with us. It’s with Scripture and ultimately with God.”

  3. Neguy says:

    I attended a conservative church. Yet just this morning the pastor preached a sermon designed to reinforce the feminist position. He knows my point of view on this stuff as I’ve told him I think feminism is the biggest issue in the church and given him flat out examples of how he himself does this stuff. I think to him he’s trying to thread the needle of trying to retain nominal affirmation of orthodoxy (complementarianism) while doing everything rhetorically in his power to cut it down to a nullity. He’s obviously very conflict averse and does not want to make waves if he can avoid it. As with many other sermons we’ve analyzed here, this one was very carefully constructed in terms of content and wording, so it clearly exhibits a high degree of intent in its messaging. Even the most conservative of churches in American don’t want to touch this stuff.

    The sad thing is that not only does this undermine the church, it undermines women as well.

  4. Yes, Noah is completely naive (or lying). Mainstream (Novus Ordo) Catholic parishes are fully on board with feminism, with the one exception of abortion, which they oppose (often reluctantly). Other than that, they’re indistinguishable from the general public. They can’t have womyn priests, but they’ve found ways around that, by reducing many parish priests to figureheads who say Mass while lay people, mostly women, do everything else. Yes, the traditional teachings on marriage are solid, but modern Catholics blithely ignore those as they ignore everything else prior to Vatican II. Even their priests are trained almost completely on writings written in the last 55 years, which are generally so mealy-mouthed that they can take anything they like from them.

    At a very traditional parish, the type where the Mass is in Latin and the women wear head coverings, you might get some scriptural teaching on marital roles, but even there you have to be wary. The tradcon strain of feminism often sneaks in there, with wives bragging about their submission — as long as their husbands keep them happy and follow all their “suggestions.”

    If you find a Catholic parish that’s truly solid on this topic, it will be one that’s so far outside the norm that mainstream Catholics will think of it as a cult and want nothing to do with it.

  5. Dave says:

    Pastors who are truly called by God should free themselves from the grip of feminism in the church. If a pastor is financially independent, he is much more likely to preach the truth than one who needs the church to pay his bills. Maybe a new paradigm needs to be established among preachers: never go full time and be sure you are completely financially independent. Keep your day job, and only volunteer as a pastor. I can’t see any other way to free pastors.

  6. okrahead says:

    The churchians remind me of Israel when rebuked by Malachi… Each time Malachi would relay God’s message that Israel had sinned, the people would simply deny it with, “When have we done” such and such. I am well aware SJWs always lie, I am beginning to think that churchians fall into the same boat.
    Especially distressing is the idea expressed by the commenter that “Our Lord is not a boss.” One wonders, or perhaps not, whether “creative dude” even knows what the word “Lord” means. Christ told us “if you love Me, keep My commandments.” I would extrapolate from that statement that He issued commandments, and that He expects them to be obeyed. Furthermore, my reading of Hebrews 12, and the letters to the seven churches in Asia at the beginning of Revelation, indicate that He will chasten the disobedient, and eventually fight against them if they do not repent.
    However, since creative dude and his degenerate ilk are determined that no one (including Christ) can “boss” them, I would encourage them to eschew the use of the name “Christian.” Luke, writing in Acts, tells us that the word Christian was first used in Antioch as a description of “disciples”. A disciple is one who follows his master and teacher in all things. If Christ does not tell you what to do, if He does not in fact exercise His Lordship over you, then you are not a Christian.

  7. Neguy says:

    @Dave, you hit on a topic that is very important and one I’ve thought a lot about. That’s the idea of financial security. Thinking about the challenges facing the church today, it occurs to me that the Gospel Coalition crowd and similar groups are not a very effective spokesmen for Christianity. Why? Precisely because they are too secure. People like John Piper and Tim Keller are rock stars and presumably quite wealthy. (Even if they haven’t monetized their fame, they easily could). Also, some of the older crowd are clearly sailing into the sunset of retirement. In short, these guys have little at risk personally, so they have no credibility when they tell Christians to stand up and be counted and to take tough stands.

    By contrast, the apostles were on the front lines of persecution. Paul literally wrote some of his letters from prison. When a guy who’s been stoned, beaten, etc. and who is in jail tells you to stand firm, he’s got credibility doing it.

    So in my view it’s critical for pastors who aren’t famous and who aren’t financially set to speak out. By publicly laying it on the line and putting their trust in God, not the size of their bank account, that’s how they earn credibility in speaking out (with help from the Holy Spirit of course).

  8. Cail, it’s for that reason I made it a point to learn which parish in my diocese had a reputation for being weird and cultish. Sure enough, the priests are solid and the people are well formed and committed to the orthodox faith.

  9. donalgraeme says:

    As a Catholic, I second what Beefy and Cail have said. Most Catholic parishes have jumped head-first into that current. You have to look towards some of the Eastern Rite Churches or Latin Mass parishes (and the occasional traditional minded NO parishes) to find orthodoxy.

  10. desiderian says:

    It’s interesting that Reynolds would link that one, given who his father is and his arch-libertarian background. Confirms my intuition that the next rebirth of the Church will come from unexpected places – including many not yet in the pews – rather than from “conservatives.”

  11. Peter Wiggin says:

    There’s a mighty rift in the Catholic Church, and you’ve put your finger on the center of it — patriarchal values vs female rebellion. The ‘trads’ v.s. the ‘Novus Ordo’. It will resolve itself at some point, but until it does, good luck finding a bastion for patriarchy. Unlooked at by most of the ‘manosphere’ bloggers is the influence of Vatican II on the current culture; in the spirit of Vatican II the Church gave up so much ground to the Enemy that it lost itself. Fortunately, the Council had no power to change doctrine, just its expression. Now we have a house divided against itself; the trads who understand the doctrine, and find that it can only be expressed meaningfully within the old (patriarchal) rite, and the rest of the Church, who blindly follow the Novus Ordo because it’s easy and familiar. Mayhaps some of the current issues will straighten themselves out if the Church starts living it’s doctrine again….”Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”

  12. gunner451 says:

    Unfortunately even if you do attend a church that is steadfast in resisting the feminist creep it may not help as is the cast with my wife who has decided that she does not have to submit but has read a few books (which I told her not to) that outright say, “if your husband is not perfect like Christ you do not have to submit”. It was easy to find that statement as my wife had bookmarked it, underlined the sentence and had two start and an arrow pointing to it.

    That plus the therapist that she’s going to (she demanded that we go to “Christian” marriage counseling and when I refused went by herself) has been re-enforcing her victim-hood and actually gave her a divorce attorneys number during their first session! (Don’t ask how I know but thank God she’s not that technically literate).

    So your church may be a steadfast rock in the middle of the stream but it’s quite easy for an unhaaaaapy wife to hop off and get carried along with the current when all the supposed “Christian” books and services are rabidly feminist. As for me it looks like I’ll be single and a wage slave for the rest of my life as she’s talking about dropping the DV hammer on me and having me ejected from my house. Luckly she does not yet know that I know so I’m right now working to get set up in an apartment before she does this, have already moved all financial assets into accounts with my name only and move a lot of my stuff to the office at work. Our sutistic son is totally screwed by this but not much I can do but pray.

  13. How often are men told by church leaders what their obligations are to their wives and children (not denying that those things exist) vs. what a woman’s obligations are to her children and her husband?

    I can’t think of a time when a pastor did a sermon on a wife’s obligations to her husband and family in my life.

    And considering that most divorces are initiated by wives, I think this is something that needs to be addressed.

  14. hansston says:

    Instapundit brought me along for the ride. It was in the mid 90’s in the city of Seattle at the neighborhood parade of Greenwood that we assembled a family float with some Christian instruction written on both sides. Just the basics: “Husbands love your wives”, “Wives submit to your husbands”, and “Children obey your parents”.
    The screams from the women as the float passed by reminded me of the screams of the wicked witch of the west as the water splashed upon her.

  15. I thought it was a very good analogy you made about feeling the current only when you are holding onto the rock. A good reminder to hold onto Jesus, our unchanging rock!

    Our pastor will be preaching on one of the “rules for households” passages in a few weeks, so it will be interesting to see how this is handled.
    Our church does affirm a commitment to Biblical teaching on marriage, but given the frequent jokes about men from the front, I suspect it might be a matter of “men need to do better here, so that their innocent wives can follow them”.
    For now, the only thing I am doing is purposefully not laughing at these male-denigrating jokes and watching my own behaviour and speech.

  16. Trust says:

    Problem is the rebellion has been recruiting from kindergarten through university for some time, and includes marketing departments in Hollywood and masquerading as newspapers.

    I have a theory. If you had 10 churches in a neighborhood and coordinated sermons. 5 would call our husbands to manbup to their obligations, and 5 would call out wives on feminist rebellion and failure to submit biblically. My theory is that the following week, the 5 churches calling out wives would have significant less people present, and the 5 callingbout husbands would have more present due to the mass exodus from the other 5.

  17. Sean says:

    I’m going to keep my thoughts on Catholicism to myself since our intrepid host is.

    Try finding a real Reformed Baptist, God-fearing, Christ-exalting, TULIP Church. I’ve found one here in Western Canada that unapologetically preaches complementarianism (that was today’s Sunday School) and there are others as well. They require a bit of searching and effort to find but they do exist. The pastor stood up and taught for 45 minutes solid on male headship and the submission of all to the proper authorities and more than once mentioned that wives submit to husbands be them Believer or not, full stop. Was a thing of beauty.

    I looked around a few times during the class wanting to see the sourpuss faces of the wives but found none. 70 people in total agreement. It was a beautiful thing.

  18. Dave says:

    Probably in not too distant a future, the true Christian church will be headed by nontraditional pastors and elders (who never been to a bible school and are not ordained by any group), and they will meet at nontraditional places outside the church building. Maybe on Dalrock’s website. Or at Scott’s house.
    As I see it, the traditional church is increasingly becoming Church 2.0, and true Christians are finding it intolerable, in the same way that Marriage has become Marriage 2.0, and good men simply can’t stand it.

  19. Donald Sensing has not preached on this at all. I can say that with confidence, not because I know what he has or has not said, but because I know that I have sought high and low for a preacher that preaches that message. Many have claimed , “not in my church bub”. All that have claimed that to me have been proven wrong.

    They don’t see it because it is normal , as the fish knows not wetness.

    Its as obvious as a the pattern in a Fibonacci sequence that he doesn’t preach about the truth because of the follow on claim that its men who need to get sorted then all would be well.

    This is no surprise. Its good that a Dalrock piece and its attendant comments made it to that wider audience because there will be new readers thinking the old saw about their lyin eyes.

    What a crock-o-crap.

  20. Trust has it right. Voting with feet is what the Sensings fear. The message is unpalatable if it is bold and true.

  21. killerwhale681 says:

    Gents, as the Good Book says…..Don’t be puzzled at the burning among you. Feminist rebellion started with a serpent and Eve. The Bible has a way of revealing the heart condition of each person. Rebelliousness is the same as Spiritism in God’s eyes. So, there you are. The more you know the Bible, the more you can see just how bad it is getting. Feminism is part of the spirit of this world. Women are misleading and being misled, as it says.

    True fruit can’t come from a rotten tree, can it? What’s the rule? By their fruitage you will know them. Jesus never said it would be easy. He said a man’s enemies would come from his own house. That’s as plain as it can be, isn’t it? I don’t believe organized religions will be able to stand the test. I reckon it will be each INDIVIDUAL and their relationship with God. Women have always rebelled. As the Book says, few women are trustworthy, only a few. There are so many points of contention with a rebellious woman. Read carefully what Satan said to Eve. Think about it. Each of us face the same choice Adam faced. That’s not coincidental.

  22. OT but I have never been able to comment at Instapundit. Ive been registered for years. Ive successfully changed passwords and other interactions that would suggest I am in the system. It accepts my log in, then its as if Im not logged in. Anyone else have that issue?

  23. Boxer says:

    It was in the mid 90’s in the city of Seattle at the neighborhood parade of Greenwood that we assembled a family float with some Christian instruction written on both sides… The screams from the women as the float passed by reminded me of the screams of the wicked witch of the west…

    Superb.

    My favorite philosopher, Herbert Marcuse (also a favorite of Hipster Racist, GBFM, the old geezer from the one-donkey town in Mexico, and many others here) wrote a bit about “the defeated logic of protest”, and he touched on the efficacy of exactly this.

    Getting mad at our ideological enemies and picketing their institutions helps them, in the long run. It calls attention to them and allows them to generate sympathy and donations among the rank and file feminists, etc.

    A much better strategy is as the one described here. Simply pay these fools no mind (their ideas don’t hold water anyway, so why worry about them?) and start building more effective institutions in the vacuum. Where they must be confronted, it helps to let them see a smart, happy bunch of people who live as examples of healthy old-school, patriarchal values.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  24. Gunner Q says:

    I like the analogy, too.

    killerwhale681 @ 5:20 pm:
    “I don’t believe organized religions will be able to stand the test. I reckon it will be each INDIVIDUAL and their relationship with God.”

    Marriage is a good example of that attitude’s limitations. Marriage is a social sacrament; it involves multiple people and society/culture/laws. It cannot exist as something exclusively between each person and God.

    “Women have always rebelled. As the Book says, few women are trustworthy, only a few.”

    It only looks like that because modern women are raised so badly and rewarded so heavily for doing evil. Women are more gullible than men, yes, but that’s why we build institutions and legislate morality. Life is easier with social supports.

    Boxer @ 6:55 pm:
    “Getting mad at our ideological enemies and picketing their institutions helps them, in the long run.”

    Depends on the situation. A pillar of Christian apologetics is that publicly calling out evil can have a powerful, beneficial effect.

    I know the picketing of abortion clinics has been very effective. Many abortionists have lobbied for special laws to stop the $ drain on their babykilling practices.

  25. rugby11ljh says:

    Clearly I need a lot of work on myself.

  26. theasdgamer says:

    Married with Options Field Report:

    I’m still going out clubbing Fri. and Sat. nights. Been doing it for a year now. Mrs. Gamer is still in love with me. I make sure that I have options; a secondary benefit is that Mrs. Gamer stays interested.

    Fri. night I was mauled by a drunk woman while dancing. She was all over me. She wanted a kiss after the dance. She had halitosis, so I turned the other cheek.

    Sat. night a woman @$$-grabbed me (actually just incidental kino) and commented about it to the group of women we were with.

    Options.

  27. embracing reality says:

    The self proclaimed preacher “Sensing” in the comments has likely never read the New Testament. Having read it in its entirety myself I can say it does not spend more time instructing husbands on their duties than wives. This clown exposed himself right there as either a deciever or a moral failure as a preacher (if he even has access to a pulpit at all). It’s not surprising however that his comment was up-voted by the oblivious churchian sheep.

  28. @asdgamer

    I initially read that as “Married with Onions”🙂

    Married with Onions Field Report:
    Ate onions for dinner.
    Husband told me to use mouthwash.
    My husband still loves me but he doesn’t want to kiss me right now.
    Onions.

  29. Having read it in its entirety myself I can say it does not spend more time instructing husbands on their duties than wives.

    It’s a dumb argument anyway. If husbands are in charge, it makes sense that they would get more instruction. Once you’ve told wives to be subject to their husbands in all things, what’s left to tell them? The rest of their instruction will come from their husbands. But husbands may need direct guidance on many different topics.

    So if he’s right that husbands get more instruction, that only supports the truth of male headship in marriage which he’s trying to avoid.

  30. @Gunner451: See an attorney forethwith.

    @Dave: “the traditional church is increasingly becoming Church 2.0, and true Christians are finding it intolerable, in the same way that Marriage has become Marriage 2.0, and good men simply can’t stand it.”

    The recent numbers on church attendance support this frightening claim. The salt is losing its savor.

  31. Novaseeker says:

    @gunner451 —

    Prayers for your situation. Hang in there.

  32. FAL Phil says:

    The Roman Catholic Church is not truly catholic, but it is truly Roman. You should refer to it as “the Roman Church”, rather than “the Catholic church”. Essentially, the Roman empire never disappeared; it merely morphed into the Roman church. Aside from their own canonical interpretation, there is no warrant for such a hierarchical structure in scripture.

  33. Spike says:

    Hello Dalrock
    I hope you had a good and well-deserved break.
    Here’s the rub: My church has voted to go into liquidation. It will cease being an entity in a month’s time.
    The immediate initiator of this is the Pastor leaving. The long-brewing problem is that the size of the congregation was too small to manage operating costs. So, after 12 years, the shop gets shut.
    The biggest impediment to growth I would say is “soft diplomacy” in the church: We don’t treat Jesus as Lord, Master, Saviour and King. We treat Him like “friend” and in the case of a large clique of women, “boyfriend”. Evangelism is lifestyle, not proclamation.
    After returning home from church I spoke to my wife about the depressing news. I told her that “soft diplomacy”” isn’t Biblical, as I had read Acts 17 just a few nights before. St Paul, as I see it, favoured “hard diplomacy”: He was sneered at, threatened in a riot in Thessalonica, and then went on to Athens where he told the Athenians they worshipped in ignorance.
    She told me that the only “hard diplomacy” Christians do today is “hateful”: barring gay parents from sending their children to Christian schools. It seems that in her mind, lesbian parents (many of whom she has as friends) should be able to have their cake and eat it too, despite there not being ANY conclusive scientific basis for homosexuality, despite 40 years of scientific research.
    I am rapidly approaching the notion that if I am to go to a church and help grow it, that will require hard diplomacy: OBEYING the Word of God, treating it seriously, and PROCLAIMING the Word of God. I realize too that I will have to do this alone, knowing that,

    ‘”Ä man’s enemies will be those of his own household”, (Matt 10:36)

    and that will include my wife.

  34. Leper and Stranger says:

    This is concerning the Duggar incident. I expected there to be a post regarding this topic, but still would like to share something I found interesting.

    It seems to me that both sides aren’t telling the whole story. On one side, there’s a police report and he was 17, and there were either one or five girls (“young”) and they may have been relatives. On the other, there was one girl (or maybe more, as I’ve heard “mistakes”), and he was 14, and she, now a Feminist, was closer to his age and it was mutual.

    Then you have the presidential race coming up. Then you have the feminist agenda, which has been set-off by events in the recent years and is resorting to terror-like tactics. Then you have Josh Duggar leaving his job at the Family Research Center.

    Now, the church tabloids maintain that Duggar was 14. Think about this: if you were to go with the story that he went to third base with a girl around his age at 14… why would you care? I wouldn’t care. You have 20 kids, yeah, it happens. All they would really need is an apology from him, an “I fell away a while, made mistakes, and then blahblahblah, found Jesus again” and his dad to say, “I regret this happened, but we have 20 kids.” And the media would shut-up. The leftists wouldn’t care that much, the Evangelicals wouldn’t care that much, and no one else would care at all. It would be old news. The Republicans could face-save and Jimbob wouldn’t have all that much to worry about.

    So… why did he quit? What’s the real story? What about the police report? Why is a Feminist supporting the story that makes Josh look pretty innocent (yes, I know the far left would still call that “rape”, but most people would call it messing around).

    See, this isn’t adding-up. Now, I’m genuinely intrigued. This is a bigger deal than Josh Duggar.

  35. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner 451:

    Please see inside text…

    As for me it looks like I’ll be single and a wage slave for the rest of my life as she’s talking about dropping the DV hammer on me and having me ejected from my house. Luckly she does not yet know that I know so I’m right now working to get set up in an apartment before she does this, have already moved all financial assets into accounts with my name only and move a lot of my stuff to the office at work.

    You are a very wise man. There’s no real advice I can give you that goes beyond what you’re already doing, but I hope you can keep your mouth shut and your eyes on the prize.

    In order to keep from failing at this game, you have to think like a wimminz. Be sneaky, never show your hand, and pretend to be the dumb sheep that she thinks you are until you are ready to spring the trap.

    Our sutistic son is totally screwed by this but not much I can do but pray.

    You’ve got to harden yourself and be ready for the long haul.

    When I was in grade school, my mother kidnapped me and my siblings, moved us (without our father knowing) across an international border, and spent the rest of her life meddling in our relationship. We did not know our father for many years. In adulthood, I read a book called “No More Mr. Nice Guy” (purple pill, at best, but still) and was inspired to contact my dad. He has been nothing but supportive ever since.

    Had my father pulled a Thomas James Ball in the many years between our meetings, I would never have had any idea as to what a cool guy he really is. As it happens, both me and my sister cut off contact with our bio mom who pulled this ridiculous stunt, and we both talk to him regularly today.

    Don’t get depressed. The worst that whore can do is throw up a temporary roadblock. Always be open to your son finding you later.

    Much love…

    Boxer

  36. Boxer says:

    Depends on the situation. A pillar of Christian apologetics is that publicly calling out evil can have a powerful, beneficial effect.

    That might be true if the institution in question is open to reform. I don’t think the contemporary churches and synagogues, etc. that you guys complain about qualify.

    If you’re a religious man, I hope you are meeting quietly with other patriarchal brothers and studying and reading your religious texts among yourselves. If you must go to one of these ridiculous establishment churches, please don’t give them any money. They’re at the forefront of spreading the poz to the rest of us, and I am personally sick of them.

    http://www.ucc.org/lgbt

    I have nothing against gay dudes personally, mind you. I just don’t want to see their grabassery on public display. This gaggle of Christian idiots puts on an annual freakshow during what is otherwise a nice community event, where dudes make out and simulate sex acts on the street.

    With this in mind, what’s to reform? Why bother protesting? Let them collapse under the weight of their own deviant misbehavior. You shouldn’t have anything to do with them.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  37. desiderian says:

    TFH,

    “Crap. Donald Sensing was a blogger I used to respect. Unfortunately, he has unmasked as a SoCon ‘feminist’, which to me is an unforgivable offense.”

    He’s human.

    I have yet to find a man over 50 or so who has any concept of the seriousness of either female rebellion or the economic disaster faced by the majority of the rising generation. Some with struggling children of their own sense that something is off-kilter, but they’re terribly ill-equipped to figure out what it might be.

    The utter solipsism of Boomers is their tragic flaw.

  38. mrteebs says:

    Donald Sensing’s comments riled me enough to register on pj media and pound out a comment of my own – with my index finger on an iPhone. I’m not enough of a texter to be proficient typing with both thumbs, so a comment of that length required a good 20 minutes of pecking with one digit. But it was worth it. The notion that more NT verbiage is spent giving charge to husbands is just flat wrong. What is true is that the charges to husbands get 95% more airtime in today’s bible studies, pulpits, blogs, and family ministries because to give each spouse the treatment the Bible actually gives would be to resist the current – as our host has so ably underscored once again.

  39. I still haven’t had anyone present a path to getting this genie back into the bottle. The only significant option as afar as I can tell is to go expat.

    One thing I can thank Dalrock for is that thanks to his writing on coutrship I have a strictly enforced dutch rule for the first three months of dating. I also don’t date women I go to church with or haven’t known for at least a year. When my seizure killed my sex drive for a time I realized just how much trouble and expense women where. My life got a whole a lot easier. I really can’t imagine finding anyone good enough to get me to reverse course from being MGTOW.

  40. BradA says:

    OT: Relevant photo I saw on Facebook recently. (I don’t spend much time there, but I sometimes see humorous things there on an account I use strictly for gaming.)

    https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/1535025_10152758255018458_5244786290428897869_n.jpg?oh=4f7b32de70bdbf2cf8e3ed909e399577&oe=55FA028C

  41. Kind of relevant, but have you seen these? (Sorry, I’m not sure how to create links…)

    http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2015/05/i-am-not-just-a-christian-wife-i-am-a-christian/

    http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2015/05/on-submission-wedding-showers-and-choosing-a-mate
    (The section on submission)

    The comments are making my heart hurt so much! There are people reaching out for truth and they are being told to stick their IV back in and close their eyes….

  42. Pingback: If you can’t feel the current, you have a...

  43. Thank you for this Dalrock and commentators. You’re doing ministry here, perhaps this is what community and ministry will look like in the future. I am married to a mainline protestant minister but I’ve been coming here to learn and grow for years now.

  44. I have yet to find a man over 50 or so who has any concept of the seriousness of either female rebellion or the economic disaster faced by the majority of the rising generation.

    This again.

    I made the boomer birth cut, I am aware of those things. So, now that you’ve found one will you recognize that the use of hyperbole such as that, coupled with the veneer of stridency you operate under supports another potential piece of hyperbole like ‘Ive never met a Gen Xer who isn’t impetuous”

  45. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Yes, Sheila Gregoire has been completely swept away and her new, profitable, book will help all those who are confused to set things straight. It turns out we’ve been defining submission wrong this whole time! Her lack of faith and feminist ways will not allow her to logically accept the Truth of submitting in everything because that means God might not be Mr. Nice Guy. After all, Mr. Nice Guy will never expose a delicate flower to challenges to her faith!

    But here’s something I want to say, and I may try to work it into a post when my new book comes out.

    There’s an intellectual problem with the idea: we are to submit to our husbands, EXCEPT in cases of abuse and alcoholism and weird sex stuff. Either the Bible is true or it’s not.

    Except that we know that women aren’t supposed to go along with sin.

    So how do we reconcile it?

    I think the problem is that we define submission wrong…

    In order for the Bible to be true. We must redefine the words to fit something more acceptable to women. It’s only logical, isn’t it?

    I see that alcoholism has made the (long) list of lines a husband may never cross. One wonders what other illnesses are cause for dishonorably revoking the vows a wife has made and destroying a covenant.

  46. Honeycomb says:

    Something else that is getting swept away … other than the sexual abuse female teachers are perpetrating on our young men … http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/women-are-buying-more-sex-than-ever-before-new-research-claims-10272103.html

    Somehow this too will be a man’s fault.

  47. Sarah's Daughter says:

    9. However, if my church tells me that I am to follow my husband into ungodly behaviour, I will not listen.

    If my church says that I am to do nothing about something which is seriously jeopardizing our family and his soul (such as porn use, gambling, refusal to work, sexual abuse of our children, etc.), I will seek out a new body of believers that has a complete picture of the gospel’s transformational power in our lives. If necessary, I will even contact civil authorities.

    Also from Shelia. Hmmm, why don’t men want to get married? Might have something to do with what is in that “etc…” – the mighty list of “Thou shan’t evah do!!!” is long and looky there, women are to call in big daddy government if husbands violate any of the “etc…”! I think she also means to say there that big daddy government will be called in to punish a church body if they don’t support the delicate flower whose “etc…” list has been violated.

  48. Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    Looks like there will be many single “Christian” womyn. More than there is now. Saw this yesterday in a store front window. Cat lady board game. Why didn’t I think of that.🙂.
    http://www.amazon.com/Accoutrements-11893-Crazy-Lady-Game/dp/B001J7AIAU

  49. I gotta tear down Shelia’s post. Its maddeningly pathetic in its false dichotomy.

  50. Love that pic Brad

  51. Etc, becomes the SJW laundry list. Firearms? Media choices (games, books, movies) that don’t support feminism? Not measuring up to the speech standards of SJW’s in the home or at church?

    All check. Call the police, it’s time to start straightening this world up for “Social Justice Jesus”.

  52. MarcusD says:

    Not sure where my last comment went, so:

    CAF over the past two weeks:
    http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2015/05/catholic-answers-forum-yet-another.html

    Including:

    The Future of Marriage
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=961814

  53. MarcusD says:

    And, also quite interesting:

  54. Also Empath, with the boomers, their all terrible. Except the ones I like (j/k).

  55. MarcusD says:

    (Never mind, I made my comment on the wrong post. This is where I intended to post my two comments.)

  56. Wife of a (potential) Satanist says:

    How far do you follow your husband? I followed mine out of the church we married in, through several other churches, then out of Christianity, and now he wants me to join the Church of Satan with him. The idea of becoming a Satanist makes him happy, but I’m not sure I want to join. I know they don’t sacrifice babies and don’t actually believe in Satan, but still. There’s something about it that repulses me.

    To make matters worse, it will cost $200 for me to apply for membership. That just isn’t quite the same as the price of a ticket to a movie I don’t want to see but he does.

    [D: On the minuscule chance that you aren’t simply a troll, Cane Caldo has answered your questions in this post.]

  57. >I have yet to find a man over 50 or so who has any concept of the seriousness of either female rebellion or the economic disaster faced by the majority of the rising generation.

    I think most or at least many of the Millennials know exactly what is up. The boys who are not top 10% slaying a different girl every night seem to have no interest in what the “entitled cunts” (aka “girls in the 15-22 age range) have available for them. Not interested in the least.

    Meanwhile, the titanically solipsistic girls seem to think there is no need to prepare a future cuz…global warming and they are right! Except it is debt, not some mythical climate change Trojan horse being pushed to take over the economies of the world with a universal carbon tax. Yet they have no understanding of the level of debt, the unsustainable government entitlement state, or the amount of deep, soul burning hate and anger the boys their age are directing at them. They don’t know because they would have to look up from their I-Phone and pause checking the Likes on their latest selfie. Most of these girls are so unattractive and solipsistic and entitled I can’t believe the Heavens do not open up every day to proclaim their praise. They certainly act like that is what they expect. Good luck with that and let me know how it all worked out for you girls.

  58. Pingback: What current? | Dalrock

  59. Win him?

    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
    (1Pe 3:1-6)

    How bad does it suck being an unhappy feminist ALL the time?

  60. feeriker says:

    I think she also means to say there that big daddy government will be called in to punish a church body if they don’t support the delicate flower whose “etc…” list has been violated.

    You can count on that like you can count on the sun rising each morning.

    One of the key features of North American churchianity is its overt Caesar worship, its willingness –indeed, eagerness— to appeal to Caesar and his legions for solutions to or rescue from any and every conceivable problem or threat, very often not even considering a Scriptural solution. Caesar, for his part, is all too happy to assist – provided certain conditions are met (e.g., the church will cheer on/endorse Caesar’s immoral/unconstitutional wars, refrain from evangelizing openly against homosexuality, gay marriage, the encroaching police state, etc.), conditions that the modernist “church” has no qualms with.

    It’s a tiny price to pay for people who clearly don’t really believe in Scripture anyway.

  61. John Nesteutes says:

    Paul knew this would be a problem, so he wrote a letter to the Corinthians about it.

    A church that doesn’t literally practice 1 Corinthians 11 is in danger of what Dalrock describes.

    Find a fellowship of faithful Christians who obey the scriptures, regardless of how much the culture derides them or tells them they are “oppressive to women”.

  62. Sarah's Daughter says:

    then out of Christianity

    She’s renounced her faith in Jesus Christ. A personal choice that can not be done by force from anyone. It doesn’t matter what she does now. If she wants to join the satanists, she should go for it, if not, she shouldn’t. She is not bound by obedience to God. Though, like gravity, she will experience the consequences of rebellion, but it’s not likely she cares.

    She also chose very poorly in mating but that’s nothing new. And no, no one here believes she’s real. And no one will be fooled by the “the perfect man I married woke up one day a complete nut case” – doesn’t happen like that. Good try though.

  63. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Win him?

    With all of the examples we hear over the years of Christian women in these “situations” isn’t it amusing they can’t comprehend that:

    A) They should become the poster child for the Patriarchy – declaring that women are completely inept at choosing a good husband and need assistance by other men and the subsequent protection those other men then offer.

    or

    B) As a Christian, she is declaring that God’s Word is a lie. That she has been in obedience to the Word and in no way rebellious and it didn’t “Win him”. Therefore God lies and she’s just hopelessly screwed.

  64. Laura says:

    Gunner451: Even if you ultimately get stuck with a custody schedule you don’t like, once your son is of school age, you can volunteer at his school or just go there once a week and have lunch with him.

    Start interviewing attorneys immediately — there are books at the library and articles on the web on how to pick a divorce attorney.

    Try VERY hard to settle out of court, no matter how angry you are. Many people spend a fortune on legal fees only to end up with a custody split and alimony/child support payments that are very similar to what they would have ended up with by settling at the outset.

    If and when you do end up in court, ALWAYS present yourself as a mature, decent individual who is trying to move on with his life, and only wants the best for his son, while wishing the ex-wife well. The same goes for court-ordered mediation, etc. Put your best foot forward, let it be known that you are willing to compromise, NEVER lose your temper, even if your ex-wife loses hers, and always assume that you are being tape-recorded, etc.

    It’s all horribly stressful, but it will eventually end at some point. As Boxer pointed out above, the person who initially “wins” is not necessarily the winner in the long run.

  65. I see that alcoholism has made the (long) list of lines a husband may never cross.

    Once a woman loathes the man she married, the way he chews his food can be an abusive attack on her. So as we’ve discussed before, these attempts to limit the meaning of “all things” in “submit in all things,” as in, “Well, obviously it couldn’t include that,” are meaningless, because the list is entirely open-ended.

    If a woman comes to Ms. Gregoire, or to 99% of Christian marriage counselors, and says, “My husband insists that I do X, even though he knows I hate it, and I’m at wit’s end,” it doesn’t matter in the least what X is. It could be doing orgies with the neighbors, or putting less sugar in the iced tea. The fact that he’s ordering her to do something which he knows (according to her) is causing her distress will be taken as ipso facto proof that he’s being a bad, probably abusive, husband. They will tell her that she has a right (and maybe a duty) to refuse him, and if he doesn’t back off, the right to leave him.

    Some may not go there immediately; some may say, “Is putting less sugar in the tea really so bad?” But once she convinces them that it really is a torment for her, that’ll be it, because it’s her husband’s job to make her happy, and he’s not doing that, regardless of how mild his actual demands are.

  66. l jess says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter
    “I see that alcoholism has made the (long) list of lines a husband may never cross. One wonders what other illnesses are cause for dishonorably revoking the vows a wife has made and destroying a covenant.”
    On of the major ones is “He’s boring/ I am bored” – not being the royal jester can get you terminated.

  67. El says:

    Commented at Sheila’s the following:

    Titus 2 specifically uses the word “obey”, and while I get that Sheila feels the need to push back against what she views as “dangerous teaching”, here she basically tells women to disregard numerous verses of Scripture because of feelings. That is not the Christian way. We are called to ignore our feelings all the time. To obey civil authorities even though the current governmental structure in most of the West is hostile to Christian beliefs. To obey bosses at jobs, to obey those in spiritual leadership over us. And yes, for wives to obey their husbands*.

    *The vast, vast majority of Christians husbands are loving, hard working men not abusers and we shouldn’t treat these discussions as if abusive husbands are the norm. But rather we should treat those cases as the special cases they are and set those cases aside when speaking in general.

    There was a need for some balance over there.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    SeriouslyServing, Sheila Gregoire is well known to Dalrock and his readers.
    The wordpress search function turned up some previous postings by Dalrock:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/?s=gregoire

    If you think about it, the very title of her weblog says it all: To Love, Honor and ..

    And what, Sheila?

  69. Regular Guy says:

    @ Dave

    Your first and second comments took the words right out of my mouth. Feminism in the Church isn’t going anywhere and it will linger until the established Church implodes I’m afraid.

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mark Driscoll is back in the Puget Sound area:
    http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2015/05/17/mark-driscoll-returns-ex-mars-hill-pastor-gets-standing-ovation-at-mill-creek-church/

    It wasn’t all lovebombing, though:

    The demonstrators delivered a different message on leaflets entitled “Mark Driscoll –Unfit for any Pulpit” — contrition. “We believe restoration is possible and we pray regularly for Mark. Putting Mark back in the pulpit as a leader in the Church now is not biblical. It is neither loving to him or to those with whom he has not reconciled.”

  71. @AR………suck up the Social Justice gospel.

  72. BradA says:

    empath,

    Thanks. I should figure out how to embed it here since I think more would see it then and could benefit. I suspect few have clicked through in the 2 places I have posted it.

    I forgot to answer your question about PJM. I have no problem posting there with my account. I don’t reply much, but it works when I do.

    Someone else said:

    I have yet to find a man over 50 or so who has any concept of the seriousness of either female rebellion or the economic disaster faced by the majority of the rising generation.

    I do and I am definitely over 50. The crap will hit the fan at some point, though I have felt some of that coming for literally decades now, so I am hesitant to say how quickly it will happen. “What can’t continue won’t” is a valid phrase to consider though.

  73. BradA says:

    SD,

    I would have to see Scriptural evidence of an inner death with mere words, even severe ones renouncing one’s faith in Christ. Being born again is just that, a new birth. Too many treat salvation as just a set of words and don’t tie them to that rebirth.

    I find it much more consistent that some will get to heaven and have literally nothing, since all their works will burned away, yet they will be saved “as of by fire.” I would need Scriptures proving a further death that I have not found. Deeper discussion than is aimed at here, but something to ponder.

  74. Laura says:

    @Desiderian

    You might be right about men over 50 not understanding how bad things have gotten in the war of the sexes, but I can tell you that just in the past six months or so some of my over-the-age-of-50 relatives finally started to see the big picture of how bad the economy is for the under 35s. Specifically, people who have always believed that any healthy, normal adult without a decent job wasn’t trying hard enough are now able to recognize that jumbo student loans combined with low wages, a poor job market and high rents and high house prices mean that their children/grandchildren cannot afford to get married now, or possibly ever.

  75. @Anon Reader
    Yes, I remember Dalrock’s series on Sheila earlier this year.
    I just thought it was worth pointing out that she seems to be becoming more brazen in text-torturing.

  76. Dale says:

    Dave says:
    May 24, 2015 at 1:56 pm

    >”Pastors who are truly called by God should free themselves from the grip of feminism in the church. If a pastor is financially independent, he is much more likely to preach the truth than one who needs the church to pay his bills. Maybe a new paradigm needs to be established among preachers: never go full time and be sure you are completely financially independent. Keep your day job, and only volunteer as a pastor. I can’t see any other way to free pastors.”

    You are not the only one to point out this very important idea. Even the apostle Paul at least sometimes worked to pay his own way; see 2 Thess 3:10-12. And yet these pastors are so much more important and effective than Paul, that we need to continuously pay them so they can be religious full-time. I wonder how many pastors are aware of the arrogance is shown by this.
    I have been wanting to go into religious service myself… but my idea has been to work hard enough now to save up, pay off all debts, and be at the point where I could take money from the Gospel only half the year.
    Although your idea of the pastor being (completely?) financially independent would obviously give him better freedom in preaching the truth.

    @okrahead at May 24, 2015 at 1:57 pm
    >I would extrapolate from that statement that He issued commandments, and that He expects them to be obeyed.

    Excellent comment. In addition to the passages you gave, Matt 28:18-20 shows Jesus commanding his disciples, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations … teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Sure seems like Jesus is to be the boss of me…

    @gunner451

    Really sorry to hear your wife is apparently aiming for divorce. Really sorry to hear your child will be harmed by the selfishness of others.

    To partially remove the financial temptation for divorce, you may wish to consider:
    1) Getting a line of credit on your home so you can drain whatever equity is there. Giving it to God is the safest place to store it🙂 Matt 6:19-24. You will lose it anyway, so you might as well choose to bless God with it, rather than a rebellious wife.
    2) Change jobs to a minimum wage job. If you are working full time, the judge should not be able to order you to work more. And the sooner you are working the minimum wage job, the less chance of a high “imputed income”. Talk to a divorce lawyer in your state to get the rules on that.
    3) And the best is the option you already mentioned; prayer. But do not think to just pray, and take no preventative action.

    @Sean
    >The pastor stood up and taught for 45 minutes solid on male headship and the submission of all to the proper authorities and more than once mentioned that wives submit to husbands be them Believer or not, full stop.

    Would you mind giving the church name / city? Someone else was able to recommend a Mennonite church near Lethbridge, but that is a few hours away. I also suggest you consider whether you can recommend Dalrock to add your church to the “no divorce” page he has available.

  77. desiderian says:

    Laura,

    I agree that those with eyes to see and struggling offspring often have some inkling of the economic troubles. What is remarkable is that so many whose children are also struggling to start families do not likewise suspect that something is disordered with the gender roles they often continue to blindly promote.

  78. desiderian says:

    “Feminism in the Church isn’t going anywhere and it will linger until the established Church implodes I’m afraid.”

    Be not afraid. It dies with the Boomers. Not that it won’t return again some day.

  79. BradA says:

    I cannot support the “don’t get money from the ministry idea” since Paul did not nor did the early Apostles.

    Paul did work when needed, but clearly advocated that the one who was fully devoted to the Gospel deserved to make money from those he taught. The early Apostles did not go back to fishing, they devoted themselves to studying the Word and prayer.

    Many modern pastors may not be an ideal of that, but telling them they must work full time to support themselves does not fit with what the Scriptures show us, however much hand waving and intellectual justification some give.

    Integrity is not based on where you get your money, it is based on your inner convictions.

  80. BradA says:

    Des,

    Many think that what we have “now” (whatever now is) is the way it will always be. They fail to realize things change AND that God is in charge of His Church. He has a much better brain than we do and can work out far more than seems possible.

  81. desiderian says:

    BradA,

    Many of the mainline denominations now function as de facto ministers’ unions. I’ve seen it from the inside and it’s not pretty. Regeneration will likely require different arrangements.

  82. BC says:

    @ Gunner451: When you interview attorneys, make sure to include the 3 to 5 best, baddest divorce attorneys in the jurisdiction where the divorce will be filed. And pay a small retainer, if possible. Once they have counseled you (and especially if they accepted a retainer), your wife can no longer hire them for her case, which effectively takes the ‘big guns’ out of her arsenal. Also, as soon as you are convinced that divorce is inevitable, get your lawyer to file first. This will let your lawyer choose venue (choose the judge), and may help establish your claim as the initial narrative that she then has to counter instead of the reverse, which is difficult at best.

    I wish you the best of luck at avoiding divorce, but if it becomes unavoidable, play to win, even if ‘winning’ in this case means simply protecting yourself as much as possible and minimizing damages.

  83. Sean says:

    @Dale @ 1019pm

    I am a little bit reticent about giving it out since it creates an internet paper trail but… Calvary Grace in Calgary. Plurality of elders, all male. Reformed theology as like MacArthur and James White.

    The thoughts here about not paying the pastors troubles me. The whole root of tithing comes from the idea of ten houses supporting the preacher. The church I recommended here is still rather new and small, sure, but Theology Matters. Find a church that still believes in inerrancy, male headship, etc. They do exist although perhaps it might require some effort to find it.

  84. Sarah's Daughter says:

    @Brad
    I would have to see Scriptural evidence of an inner death with mere words, even severe ones renouncing one’s faith in Christ.

    It’s not my interest to get into a Scripture debate but as per your request, the Scriptural reference my comment was based on is Matthew 10:33.
    http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-33.htm

    It is my understanding that repentance is needed. It was my hope that in the very small chance that was not a troll, she would respond to something so offensive (someone accusing her of denying Jesus Christ as her Savior) by professing her faith. It is my belief that even trolls aren’t committed enough to do that – as we’ve seen in her lack of response – it’s almost as if something in the spiritual realm happens when you profess faith in Jesus Christ that even an anonymous keyboard warrior doesn’t want to mess with.

  85. desiderian says:

    Sean,

    “ten houses supporting the preacher”

    Ten is fine. A thousand, including those not yet born, and unlikely to be born under the financial burden, not so much.

  86. John Nesteutes says:

    @desiderian,

    Indeed. Something pretty radical will have to happen to shake up the clergy to quit preaching heresy from the pulpit.

    @BradA,

    Like it or not, the largest “denomination” that doesn’t pay its ministers also has the least rot from feminism infecting it. It’s important to look at results.

  87. Sean says:

    And what denomination is this?

  88. John Nesteutes says:

    @Sean

    Plain Anabaptists (conservative Mennonites, conservative Brethren, Amish, Hutterites, Charity-type churches, and so forth.)

  89. feeriker says:

    The demonstrators delivered a different message on leaflets entitled “Mark Driscoll –Unfit for any Pulpit” — contrition. “We believe restoration is possible and we pray regularly for Mark. Putting Mark back in the pulpit as a leader in the Church now is not biblical. It is neither loving to him or to those with whom he has not reconciled.”

    How very “unchurchian” of them.

  90. Laura says:

    @Dale; @gunner451

    Dale, your advice to gunner451 is dangerous. Gunner needs to present himself as a mature, intelligent guy who is sorry the marriage ended, but who is reasonable, flexible, and willing to compromise where possible. Liquidating joint assets and giving the proceeds to charity in order to reduce the ex-wife’s post-divorce standard of living looks VERY VINDICTIVE.

    In today’s economy, quitting a good job and taking a minimum wage job could mean that you are stuck with a reduced income for the rest of your life. The worst-case scenario is that your income is permanently reduced AND the judge imputes income using the prior, higher wages as a baseline. Gunner, if you are working overtime, stop the overtime immediately but keep your present job. Go to a psychologist/psychiatrist for at least one appointment and tell him that you are too stressed out by overtime and the impending divorce and get the psych to urge you to give up overtime. That way, your decision to lower your income is based on medical advice. Don’t tell the psych you are depressed, however, even if you are. Just talk about how stressful it is to know that at any moment you will be served with papers, etc.

  91. Dalrock says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter

    It is my understanding that repentance is needed. It was my hope that in the very small chance that was not a troll, she would respond to something so offensive (someone accusing her of denying Jesus Christ as her Savior) by professing her faith. It is my belief that even trolls aren’t committed enough to do that – as we’ve seen in her lack of response – it’s almost as if something in the spiritual realm happens when you profess faith in Jesus Christ that even an anonymous keyboard warrior doesn’t want to mess with.

    I had her in moderation, and just deleted three of her follow on comments and put her on the blacklist. Her responses were more trolling/provocation, as I expected.

  92. Sean says:

    @John

    However, if I know their theology right, they deny the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus. Rather a non starter.

  93. John Nesteutes says:

    @Sean

    You do not know their theology right. Anabaptists are both Trinitarian and believe in the divinity of Jesus. We would meet all the requirements for holding to an orthodox creed, actually.

    You’re probably thinking of Christadelphians or something like that.

  94. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Feminism in the Church isn’t going anywhere and it will linger until the established Church implodes I’m afraid.”

    desiderian
    Be not afraid. It dies with the Boomers. Not that it won’t return again some day.

    Sheesh, way too optimistic. Feminism is the establishment. It’s the default condition, and not just for aging Boomers trying to figure out how to get tickets to the next Strolling Bones concert, either.

    There are plenty of Gen-X feminists stepping up in the mainline denominations to keep pushing the agenda; women preachers, women teachers, women administrators, further feminization and of course, the current fave, teh Homoganous marriage. Millennials, by the way, support homogamy by large margins. Millennials often don’t consider themselves feminist, perhaps because it’s all they’ve ever known. Dalrock’s sources show that the mean age of marriage keeps increasing – that’s careerism, yougogrrlism, etc. at work, which is feminism.

    Which side is responsible for the notion of “experience your 20’s, then marry in your 30’s? Sharyl Sandburg’s open acceptance of AF-BB as a strategy caused no controversy as far as I can tell. Nobody from any church got up and dared to suggest otherwise.

    Feminism is the norm in churches. It won’t just fade away, it has to be cut out, pushed out, removed.

  95. Anonymous Reader says:

    This is interesting, I’ll post it here and in the newer thread as well. The state Senate in Alabama has passed legislation to just do away with state licenses for marriage. Just abolish it. No idea how that will play out politically, kinda think it will fail in their House, but still it is interesting.

    http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/05/alabama-senate-passes-bill-to-effectively-nullify-all-sides-on-marriage/

  96. John Nesteutes says:

    @AR

    Sharyl Sandburg’s open acceptance of AF-BB as a strategy caused no controversy as far as I can tell. Nobody from any church got up and dared to suggest otherwise.

    Feminism is the norm in churches. It won’t just fade away, it has to be cut out, pushed out, removed.

    Well, not in every single church. Right now is a great time to assess the health of a church by assessing its acceptance of women pursuing career first, then family, or their acceptance of feminism.

    If the church has women in it with short haircuts, you can rest confidently that the church is pozzed. Likewise if the church is full of single mothers or remarried women.

  97. JDG says:

    Sheesh, way too optimistic. Feminism is the establishment. It’s the default condition, and not just for aging Boomers trying to figure out how to get tickets to the next Strolling Bones concert, either.

    Yep! Our environment has been changed to accommodate rebellions and promiscuous women. Much like an ocean or a river is more suitable for fish than a bicycle, so our society, after being flooded in a sea of feminism, is now more suitable for the adulteress and the whore. As a bicycle is going to have a difficult time in a river or an ocean, so is a righteous and just man going to have troubles in a society where feminism is the norm.

  98. thedeti says:

    Gunner 451:

    That’s a tough situation.

    I’d suggest a hybrid of the advice Laura, Dale and BC gave. Do fight to win. Do avoid getting emotional, and do observe the divorce process as dispassionately as you would a business proposition. Take the attitude “this isn’t personal — this is business, only business.”

    Do safeguard the assets and disclose them completely. Do move the liquid assets to accounts you control – and then disclose them if and when there is a divorce filing. The purpose of moving the liquid assets is to try to protect them from waste and dissipation with no chance for an accounting. Do keep your job. Do push for as even a distribution of assets as possible. Do push for no alimony or very limited alimony. Do push to have the marital residence sold, the mortgage)(s) paid off, and the net proceeds distributed 50/50. Do see if you can get primary residential custody of your child.

    Do not conceal anything. Do not pull equity out of the house and give it to charity. Do not work overtime. Do not quit your job; do not change jobs. If you cannot get primary residential custody, get as much residential custody as possible and limit your child support obligations that way if possible.

  99. John Galt says:

    Brad A: “What can’t continue won’t” is a valid phrase to consider though.

    I’ve worked on trading floors in various capacities since 1997. This has taught me to remember that “The market can remain irrational for a lot longer than you can remain solvent.”

    There is a LOT of rot in this country, but the carrying capacity for rot is probably much higher than anyone appreciates. We haven’t seen the crest of the misandry bubble, not by 2020, and probably not by 2050.

  100. greyghost says:

    For those who think the bottom for rot capacity is close take a look at North Korea.

  101. R G says:

    I was worried by the words underlined by gunner451’s wife ( “if your husband is not perfect like Christ you do not have to submit”), but I just ran into this due to another part of the blog: 1st Peter 3 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+3%3A1-2 . I had trouble with the passage earlier, but it seems to be in favor of a wife trying to win over her husband with her submission to both him and God. It and other verse links can be found under Relishing Sin: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/relishing-sin/ . It may seem YEARS too late, but I hope someone can also give him the advice he needs, or more specifically, getting his wife to hear the Word she needs.

  102. JDG says:

    For those who think the bottom for rot capacity is close take a look at North Korea.

    Or the Roman Empire.

  103. Go to a psychologist/psychiatrist for at least one appointment

    And let his wife possibly find out about that and present it in divorce court as evidence that he might be mentally unstable and unfit to parent? Are you insane?

    Gunner needs to present himself as a mature, intelligent guy who is sorry the marriage ended, but who is reasonable, flexible, and willing to compromise where possible.

    In court if it comes to that, sure. But in dealing with his wife now (assuming he wants to stay married), he needs to do exactly the opposite. Once he’s protected himself financially as much as possible (and the thing of paying the best divorce lawyers in town for a consultation so they can’t work for her is a nice touch), he needs to be completely UNreasonable. He needs to convince her that, if she pulls the divorce trigger, there will be no compromise, no Mr. Nice Guy; he will fight her with everything he has, and it won’t stop after the divorce is final. He will make it his mission in life to ruin hers: her reputation, her friendships, her family connections, her job, her standing in the community. He will be a jobless, homeless bum and accept prison rather than let her party with new studs on his dime. There will be no cash and prizes; after the divorce, there will be nothing left of her life except a pile of ashes.

    She needs to be scared — if not for her actual life, then scared because she has no idea what he might do next and how much it might cost her.

    His situation is already “dangerous” and she made it that way. He can’t make it any better by trying to be nice; that will only make her smell blood.

  104. Matamoros says:

    FAL Phil says: The Roman Catholic Church is not truly catholic, but it is truly Roman. You should refer to it as “the Roman Church”, rather than “the Catholic church”.

    The term “Roman Catholic” was coined by protestants, namely Anglicans, who wanted to insist that they were Catholic also. Not.

    The correct historical term is the Catholic Church as found in the creeds – “the one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

  105. Matamoros says:

    The tide turned in the Catholic Church with Pope Benedict XVI. The Novus Ordo old guard is rapidly dying off and the liberals are fighting a desperate rear guard action against the new Priests and the Laity.

    The Church is now promoting the Latin Mass, historic teachings, etc.; but it will be awhile yet before the parishes all feel the impact. Nevertheless, Deo gratias, the tide has turned.

    The age old idiom of the Catholic Church is that the Church buries its enemies, as it is directly founded by Christ as a divine institution. The motto of the Church is semper idem, always the same.

  106. JDG says:

    She needs to be scared — if not for her actual life,

    If women were afraid of the consequences of losing their men (especially via self initiated divorce), things would be immensely better for all involved.

  107. JDG says:

    Strong independent woman = one huge contradiction.

  108. Anonymous Reader says:

    +1,000,000 Cail Corishev’s comments about any mental health professional. Sad to say, he’s right about that being pure dynamite in any family court. I suppose that if one just had to go, then two visit max, pay in cash, no receipt…but really it isn’t worth the risk. Better off in the androsphere, in pseudoanonymity.

    Cail Corishev
    He will make it his mission in life to ruin hers: her reputation, her friendships, her family connections, her job, her standing in the community.

    Men tend to forget just how status conscious women are. Letting a rebellious woman know that kicking her man out will cost her in terms of social standing, especially if she’s churchgoing, could be a decent firewall but only if he’s willing to follow through. Since men often care a whole lot less what people think of them than women do, it’s easy to demonstrate in small ways that “Hey, I don’t care what Mrs. Smith thinks, but you do…”.

    No fear. He must have no fear. Will Mrs. Grundy wrinkle her nose when he lets out just how often Mrs. Perfect refused him in bed by picking a fight? Who cares? Others will hear and her status will drop because while it’s A-OK for women to do that, and even to help each other learn how to do it better, it’s one of those “better left quiet” kind of things. Men will hear it and sigh, “What a bitch!”.
    Lather, rinse, and repeat for anything else: displays of temper, uncontrolled spending, etc.

    Bonus points for those in small towns, since the number of churches she could hop to after he dumps a truckload of truth onto the one they go to is small. Yes, this is cruel. War is cruel, and she’s declared war on her marriage.

    PS: There’s a premise that is buried, that a man should pay no attention to the people his wife associates with. This just plain false, as plenty of men can attest. It makes a great deal of difference, and a man doesn’t have to be a dictator to steer her away from the local peer counsellor at the Federally funded women’s shelter, and towards some ladie’s Bible study or soup kitchen or whatever. Yeah, I know, “What? Isn’t she an adult? Why do I have to manage her?”. Sorry, she’s an adult but she also has a known ingroup-preference for following other women. It’s in the blood, whether you are a 6-24-hour-day creationist or a billions-year-random-evolutionist. I can tell a fine Just So evo-psych story explaining it some time, but not now.

    Women are herd creatures. That’s a feature, not a bug. Bear it in mind, and pay attention to who your woman spends time with both at work and outside.

  109. One thing I’ve learned here that I didn’t know before, thanks especially to the few female commenters, is how fear-driven women are. So when a woman is working up to frivorce, that tells me that she has no fear — not even the rational fear she should have regarding the likely loss of status and the low chance of getting a better man, because she’s unaware of those things. She knows the state will back her up, but she’s also getting a pep talk from friends, TV, and pretty much everyone else telling her there’s nothing to fear — post-divorce life is sure to be awesome.

    So she has no fear, except maybe the fear of being stuck with a man she’s no longer attracted to. He needs to put some of that fear back, by letting her know what it’s really going to be like. Even with the state taking her side on custody and child support, there are plenty of other things for her to fear, if she were aware of them. Make her aware.

  110. Women don’t understand cause and effect well enough reconsider her actions.

    They don’t have to understand it in an economic sense to fear bad things happening if they’re aware of them. If they were unable to recognize consequences enough to fear them, divorce would always have been high, and wouldn’t have risen as the consequences were reduced and hidden.

    The fact that divorce has increased as the cash and prizes have increased shows that women do respond to incentives, so they’ll also respond to disincentives. But the fact that there are unhappy divorcees out there isn’t a clear enough disincentive for the unhaaaappy wife; it’s easily overcome by the pep-talks and a bit of “That won’t happen to me” hamsterizing. She needs to be told, in clear terms, “This will happen to you.”

    No, it won’t stop every frivorce, but it will stop some, and it’s worth a try. It’s sure a damn sight better than being “reasonable and flexible.” You don’t be “reasonable” with someone who’s holding a gun to your head. (In the words of the great Wade Garrett, “A man puts a gun in your face, you got two choices: stand there ‘n die, or kill the m—–f—–.”)

  111. desiderian says:

    “Doesn’t the Bible have an example of a man who worked 7 years to get some ordinary woman, and then worked another 7 years for his sister?”

    Laban played the player there. Nothing to do with feminism.

  112. @Cail
    “The fact that divorce has increased as the cash and prizes have increased shows that women do respond to incentives, so they’ll also respond to disincentives. But the fact that there are unhappy divorcees out there isn’t a clear enough disincentive for the unhaaaappy wife; it’s easily overcome by the pep-talks and a bit of “That won’t happen to me” hamsterizing. She needs to be told, in clear terms, “This will happen to you.””

    From what I’ve seen on certain parenting forums, women are aware that they could end up alone and unhappy. The rhetoric seems to go “it would be better to be unhappy and free, than unhappy and shackled to that horrible man who makes you pick up his dirty socks.”

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    From what I’ve seen on certain parenting forums, women are aware that they could end up alone and unhappy.

    Right, could but might not. Hey, maybe some hunky, millionaire handyman is living in the cottage at the bottom of the garden…divorce porn is very commonly shared between women, in certain situations.

    Science fiction author Robert Heinlein once wrote, “Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalizing animal”. Once a decision has been made, it’s probably easier and easier to rationalize support for it, whether that’s a long term decision like divorce or a “short term” one like cheating “just this one time”.

    When I tended bar, from time to time I’d see men on a weekend with a pale line on their finger where they’d taken off their wedding band. Rationalization. “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” – rationalization (and in the era of Facebook, Twitter, etc. not likely true).

    I’ll say it again: any man in an LTR or especially a marriage needs to pay attention to who is woman is associating with and that explicitly includes forums, Facebook, etc. Because one more time, women are more prone to “herd thinking” than men.

    Dalrock had a fascinating post on divorce as a kind of disease spreading through social networks, with a nifty dot-graph but I can’t seem to pull it up right now.

  114. @AR
    “Science fiction author Robert Heinlein once wrote, “Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalizing animal”. Once a decision has been made, it’s probably easier and easier to rationalize support for it, whether that’s a long term decision like divorce or a “short term” one like cheating “just this one time”. ”

    So true!
    It takes humility to reconsider decisions we’ve already made in light of new information or conviction of the Holy Spirit, rather than just rationalising what we’ve already decided.

    On the herd thing:
    My husband actually suggested I stop visiting aforementioned parenting forums a year or two ago (and I did), as they were making me cynical and dissatisfied with our marriage.

  115. Cane Caldo says:

    @BradA

    I cannot support the “don’t get money from the ministry idea” since Paul did not nor did the early Apostles.

    You are unequivocally correct. Three times the Scriptures say: “You shall not muzzle the ox as it treads out the grain.”

  116. @TFH
    I heard many years ago that the average chocolate bar has about 1/3 of a cockroach in it. Reason being, the cockroaches get into the cocoa and it is too expensive/difficult to get them all out, so they just get ground up with the mixture.
    Probably urban legend, I’d say😉

  117. My husband actually suggested I stop visiting aforementioned parenting forums a year or two ago (and I did), as they were making me cynical and dissatisfied with our marriage.

    Misery loves company. If they are unhappy with their marriages, they must make you unhappy as well.

    From my own life experiences, a bit of cynicism is a good thing as it keeps you from being taken advantage of. However, too much of it destroys your ability to enjoy the company of others and to be a sane functioning member of a family unit. In other words, in your marriage, keep it to a minimum..

  118. Don Quixote says:

    TFH says:
    May 27, 2015 at 2:42 am

    I always wondered what they did when the ox dumped his manure on the very grain he was treading…

    I could be wrong but I always assumed the ox turned the mill-stone. The grain was under the mill-stone and a safe distance from ox.

  119. Don, that would be when grinding it. This was about threshing, separating the grain from the chaff, which at one time was done by walking back and forth over it.

    The answer to TFH’s question is: the ox doesn’t just crap willy-nilly while walking along; he has to stop and lift his tail. Plus, he prefers to do it after a good meal, just like you. So if you wait for him to clear some cap space after his lunch break, and you keep an eye on him while he’s walking and grab a shovel if he stops and starts to lift his tail, you won’t have many accidents.

  120. @feministhater
    “From my own life experiences, a bit of cynicism is a good thing as it keeps you from being taken advantage of. However, too much of it destroys your ability to enjoy the company of others and to be a sane functioning member of a family unit. In other words, in your marriage, keep it to a minimum..”

    This is good advice. My husband and I try to keep the cynicism down, but it is hard when so many from outside the marriage seem determined to drill holes in your trust.
    We have our bank accounts set up so that the bulk of our savings is in my name only (as I am a SAHM, this means we don’t get taxed on the interest). And someone commented to my husband the other day that he’d better be sure I’m not planning to leave him. We were completely shocked, as it was simply a pragmatic decision for us.
    I don’t know how people function in marriages where there is a lack of trust.

  121. Laura says:

    @TFH, @Cail, @Don Quixote

    I saw a photo once of a specially-designed circular barn from the late 18th/early 19th century. The idea was to run horses in a circle over the threshing floor. Apparently horses do not relieve themselves when they are moving, or at least not if they are moving quickly enough. However, the fact that this circular barn was a one-of-a-kind item does lead you to wonder how much cattle urine and poo ended up on the grain during the standard threshing process. It is also possible to thresh by having an adult whip the sheaf of grain against a hard surfaced “threshing floor.” With a whole field full of grain, this would have been an incredibly labor-intensive process.

    As far as gunner451’s situation, I had the impression that he already KNEW that his wife had filed or was about to file. Obviously, if it is still possible to persuade her in any manner to NOT file, or even to POSTPONE filing, that would be to his benefit. A divorce postponed is very often a divorce avoided, and even if the divorce happens eventually, the older the children are at the time of the divorce, the less chance there is of a custody fight.

    It is important for gunner451 to end up with a decent custody split, but what this would be in his situation is unknowable for the rest of us. Gunner works full time, but does his wife? How old is his son? How severe is the son’s autism? Does Gunner’s job involve travel? If Gunner’s work situation will NOT allow him to consider primary custody of a child with autism, which is quite likely, then there is little risk in quietly getting a professional to advise him to give up overtime in order to more or less guarantee that his “imputed income” won’t be calculated with overtime included.

    If he had had more notice of the impending divorce he could have given up overtime a year ago, and it wouldn’t look to the judge as if he were deliberately trying to limit his income, but time is now too short for that. Gunner may not be working any overtime, so the point of this discussion may be moot, but in his situation, to the extent that I understand his situation, I would assume that I would be ending up with secondary custody (every other weekend + dinner every Wednesday + alternate holidays + part of the summer) and I would focus my efforts on getting the court-ordered support down to a level that didn’t require me to be in the harness 80+ hours per week for the next however many years. In a divorce situation, there is plenty of room for things to go wrong no matter how careful you are, and a lot depends on the judge that you get and the jurisdiction that you get divorced in.

    @Gunner451: Try to go down to the courthouse on a Monday morning and get a front row seat for the Ex parte orders and Orders to Show Cause, or whatever they call them in your jurisdiction. You’ll get a good feel for what the judge doesn’t like, how he is likely to rule on certain issues, etc.

  122. Beeker says:

    “Yet, where is even the small organization of grandmas (a politically powerful group) protesting against the unintended consequences of default mother custody? There is none.”

    This exactly. I’ve always been amazed and perplexed as to why there isn’t any significant call to action from women who are grandmothers that have lost, or who have severely restricted, access to their grandchildren due to their sons’ divorce.

    And the same thing goes for false rape accusations. What does a mother think when her own son is falsely accused of rape? Where is the call to action from women who are mothers whose sons have had their lives destroyed or even put in jail due to false accusations? And the same thing for VAWA and false domestic violence accusations.

  123. desiderian says:

    Beeker,

    What do you expect from the Me Generation? Solipsism to the grave.

  124. Dale says:

    @Sean

    Thanks for the recommendation.

    >The thoughts here about not paying the pastors troubles me. The whole root of tithing comes from the idea of ten houses supporting the preacher.

    My personal suggestion was just for part-time payment, based on the example of Paul who both did and did not work while serving. Rather than no support at all.
    I think this would be great to avoid ivory tower syndrome, to avoid the arrogance bred by always being top dog / top authority. Working to support yourself helps cultivate humility, etc.

    John mentioned the Hutterites as an example lacking feminist rot. I think he is likely very correct on that point. The one and only former Hutterite that I know well said that her family left the colony (not all at the same time) because they became Christians. Her colony at least was apparently teaching a works=salvation theology, so they no longer fit in.
    But, that unfortunate (and significant) error does not counter the fact the colony had been very successful in preventing the rebelliousness and pride that comes with feminism.

    @Laura
    I will admit I am not a divorce lawyer. I do think that if a woman knows she will have a comfortable life, post-divorce, she is more likely to do so. Beyond that, not sure what to say, other than I pray for God’s guidance for Gunner and his wife.

  125. John Nesteutes says:

    @Dale

    Some Hutterite colonies are evangelical / have a strong gospel message. Some don’t have a strong evangelical message.

    I decided to quit judging people for “seeking salvation through works”, since most of the people making that accusation are people who have left those communities. Many of them go on to live lives of relative apostasy. I can think of one example off of the top of my head where the woman went on to get a divorce and get remarried, and now runs around giving her “testimony” of how great it is to be freed from a terrible, abusive church hierarchy and her terrible abusive ex-husband.

    My conversations with people who are actually Amish or Hutterite is that they do have a definite experience of salvation – they just thing visible works are important too.

    Faith without works is dead. When the main fruit that the mainline evangelical church has to show is a 55% divorce rate, I think it’s fair that we question whether or not their faith is real.

  126. BradA says:

    Correlation does not prove causation. Just because a few groups of Christians seem to have escaped some of the rot does not mean they are the pinnacle of perfection.

    I will go after what the Scriptures say and conform my life to that, not any structure of man, even a church structure.

    The practice of not having anyone dedicated to the task could be why some of the mentioned groups have had little success beyond their narrow groups.

    It also reminds me of a local grain fed beef farm I am looking at. The family involved is likely in that category and I did not see any beauty, even with my standards. Looked more like the Mormon polygamy photo Boxer posted in another thread, though only one wife in this one. That is fine if they are happy with it, but not the direction I would want to head.

    Success takes risk and they do not take the risks, attempting other methods to clamp down on what must be confronted directly rather than prohibited by rules. It is an attitude of the heart after all, not the law.

  127. John Nesteutes says:

    @BradA

    I realise you don’t like plain Anabaptists, but the brush with which you paint all of them is unfair. We try our best to conform our lives to the scriptures.

    I am all ears for hearing about other groups that have categorically rejected feminism (explictly). We did so in the 1950s and 1960s and continue to do so today. And our basis for doing so was the scriptures.

    We also rejected divorce and rejected its apologists back in the 1950s and 1960s too. The basis, again, was the scriptures.

    As far as looking “beautiful”, there are plenty of attractive plain women (hah) out there. Lots of average women, too. The average guy ends up married off to an average woman. What else do you expect?

  128. John Nesteutes says:

    @BradA

    Success takes risk and they do not take the risks, attempting other methods to clamp down on what must be confronted directly rather than prohibited by rules. It is an attitude of the heart after all, not the law.

    Are you aware of Wisconsin v. Yoder? The Amish took many big time risks in order to secure the right to educate their children instead of having them forced to be in public schools. Without them, we really wouldn’t have legal home schooling today.

    The accusation that plain Anabaptists don’t take risks is categorically unfair. Perhaps you should read about the migrations from Russia to Canada, or the migration from Canada to Mexico (the latter being to secure educational freedom).

    Or perhaps think about the recent Conestoga v. Burwell Supreme Court case. That was also a (very) plain Anabaptist who chose to live by his convictions instead of kowtow to the government’s order to provide his employees with abortifacient contraceptives.

    Or look at the case of Ken Miller, who is still sitting in prison for contempt of court after he helped a formerly-lesbian woman who had a child whilst “married” to a woman, got born again, exited her lesbian relationship, and then had the state pursue her endlessly to try to give visitation and custody to her ex-partner.

    Ken Miller helped her escape to Nicaragua and refused to betray those who helped her. And he was willing to go to prison for it. That’s a lot more than any of us have done to fight gay marriage.

  129. >Scorched Earth Policy: ” He needs to convince her that, if she pulls the divorce trigger, there will be no compromise, no Mr. Nice Guy; he will fight her with everything he has, and it won’t stop after the divorce is final. He will make it his mission in life to ruin hers: her reputation, her friendships, her family connections, her job, her standing in the community. He will be a jobless, homeless bum and accept prison rather than let her party with new studs on his dime. There will be no cash and prizes; after the divorce, there will be nothing left of her life except a pile of ashes.”

    This should be ALL men’s default attitude. I will not work to support a disobedient wife. I will not give a harlot who divorced me a single dime and would make it my mission in life to reduce her to dust if my wife ever pulled the trigger. I have likewise made it clear that sexual denial in marriage is equivalent to breaking the marriage vows and I WILL “cheat” with somebody younger, better looking and tighter if she tries to play that game again.

    Never again will I bow to the feminine imperative no matter how many “God Fearing” men tell me to do so. I say to them, get behind me Satan. God never intended this type of female dominated relationship that we now label Marriage 2.0 with the State enforcing every whim of the wife, and Jesus was NOT talking about the Hell of Marriage 2.0 when he prohibited Divorce.

    Call me unchristian, or call me a man who follows the example of King David (sans the murder), Solomon (sans several THOUSAND of the wives and concubines), or Isaac (sans marrying two sisters). The ability to abandon a shrill harpy was established by Adam in the Talmud- Lilith was the first wife given to Adam and she refused to “lie beneath him.” Sound familiar? What did Adam do? He consigned his ‘wife’ to the deepest pits of Hell and demanded God give him a new wife.

    My wife well knows my Biblical interpretation because this is hardly the place for covert contracts- and we are happily married after more than 25 years.

  130. Laura says:

    @ Dale

    I agree that women are more likely to divorce if they anticipate being able to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. And I have encountered a number of women over the years who simply could NOT be convinced that they were going to be in a desperate financial situation post divorce. You would think that a woman in a marriage in which both the husband and the wife are working full time and still living paycheck to paycheck would understand that for each of them to have to support a separate residence AND pay legal fees would be the final straw, but some women are completely irrational.

  131. feeriker says:

    And someone commented to my husband the other day that he’d better be sure I’m not planning to leave him. We were completely shocked, as it was simply a pragmatic decision for us.

    I don’t know how people function in marriages where there is a lack of trust.

    Alas, trust has become an untenable fool’s luxury in today’s society, as it has been betrayed so often and so thoroughly, even amongst self-described “Christians,” that the word itself now almost automatically engenders a visceral reaction of cynicism and suspicion.

    The person commenting to your husband almost certainly did not mean to imply anything negative about you personally. If it was a man, he has, like many (most?) of us, simply adopted a cautious and defensive posture as second nature, having either been seriously burned himself at least once or having seen male family members or close friends suffer.

    A sad, sad sign of the times. God help us.

  132. And I have encountered a number of women over the years who simply could NOT be convinced that they were going to be in a desperate financial situation post divorce.

    Who tried to convince them? Probably not their husbands; they were probably trying to be “reasonable and flexible.” If a friend or family member tried, that’s great, but that’s one person up against a whole society saying, “Go ahead, you’ll be fine, hunky doctors await!”

    The husband is probably the only one who can hope to drive reality home, because he’s the only one who can say, not, “This could happen to a divorced woman,” but, “This will happen to you because I will make it happen, and let me count the ways.” Not, “Maybe you shouldn’t do that, because X% of divorced women end up worse off financially,” but, “I will make sure you don’t get a dime. No shoe budget, no vacations, no Botox, no husband’s paycheck to cover your student loans.”

    TFH is right: they aren’t good at connecting the dots and drawing the arrows of causation. Someone has to connect the dots for them, and make the picture very clear. And yes, even then, some will refuse to see. Oh well. Can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  133. PokeSalad says:

    If it was a man, he has, like many (most?) of us, simply adopted a cautious and defensive posture as second nature, having either been seriously burned himself at least once or having seen male family members or close friends suffer.

    This^^^. I was severely burned by betrayal, and I will never make that particular mistake again. I have and will continue to make financial arrangements that a) protect myself and b) follow the general dictates of RPP’s ‘burn it down’ philosophy posted above – should something similiar happen again. In a more general sense, I’ve come to realize I will never trust anyone (esp a woman) anywhere close to the degree that I did in my youthful days.

    I’m not a MGTOW, and I’m not bitter about it. My eyes were (painfully) opened, and I am and will continue to adjust to my new reality.

  134. anonymous_ng says:

    @gunner451: For years my ex would every once in a while say that she could take me to court and get more money from me even though I’d determined from the beginning that it was cheaper to throw money at things than to end up in court. The last straw was when she made this pronouncement while I was on vacation. When I returned, the first thing I did was sit down with a lawyer.

    I work two jobs which allowed me to maintain a nice life even while supporting two households. According to the attorney I spoke with, in my state, child support would be based on the highest paying job and could not include the income from the second job. Additionally, he said that there is a set of criteria for the determination of spousal support, but the determination to change it was much different. What justification could she use for requesting more support? That she thought she’d be making more money after five years, but wasn’t? That wasn’t going to fly with the judges even in my liberal suburb.

    On hiring an attorney so as to keep your wife from using them, the advice I heard was to find the attorneys who make a habit of false accusations of domestic violence and abuse of the children and retain them. Be aware that in quite a few places, the attorneys are wise to this ploy and will require a couple thousand dollars in retainer. I’m unsure if you get the retainer back after a time if it’s not used.

    My understanding is that until the divorce has been filed, all the marital assets are freely able to be spent by one or both of the parties. However, money given to a church or charity could be called a fraudulent transfer and called back. Hard assets become part of the marital estate and will be divided. One could make the argument that the best way is to spend the money on a nice vacation except that you might come back to find the locks changed on the house and all your stuff gone.

    No easy answer there.

    Many have asserted here over the years that a scorched Earth announcement can head things off or at least result in a more equitable division of assets and parenting time. I suspect that’s true. I watched a friend go through the ringer with his ex. It seemed like every time he turned around she had him back in court, and he got to pay her lawyer.

    Eventually, she couldn’t handle having the kid around, and now he has virtually all the parenting time. Also, he never had to run the ex down, just let his daughter have time around her mom and she figured out for herself that her mom was nutz.

  135. John Nesteutes says:

    Regarding scorched earth: the only way to effectively execute this is to be someone who has nothing to lose and who fears nothing. Unless and until the average man overcomes his fear of (a) law enforcement, prison, and death and (b) fear of enacting violence against any who stand in his way, he will be unable to execute a scorched earth policy.

    @Laura: The only proven restraint to keep women from divorcing and becoming adulteresses is that they learn and believe the scriptures: “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress” (Rom. 7:3), and “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” (1 Cor. 6:9).

    The reason women divorce and remarry freely is because (a) they have not been taught, or do not believe, the scriptures, and (b) there is no fear of hell. But this is not true of all women. I know plenty of women who surround themselves with people who believe and obey the scriptures, and they will not divorce & remarry under any circumstances. (Or get divorced at all.)

    In short, the problem is that Christian men are marrying women who are not born again and who do not obey the Bible.

    @Bluepillprofessor: Christians aren’t supposed to commit adultery. The fact a wife is in grave sexual sin doesn’t mean the husband is somehow absolved when he goes and commits adultery (which is a crime against the woman’s husband, actually). Nor is he absolved if he commits fornication. Please do not trot out the tired canard that Christian men can take multiple wives, or men can’t commit fornication, or taking concubines is OK. We grow weary of heretics around here.

    If you want to state you aren’t a Christian, that’s fine. Boxer has said so, and I highly respect him. I was once a non-Christian pick-up artist myself.

    Just don’t fool yourself that you are serving any other kingdom than the devil’s. Every fornication is a win for the devil’s kingdom.

  136. Novaseeker says:

    If you retain lawyers and do not use them, they do eventually have to give you back the retainer which has not been used under pretty much all bar rules. The time period, however, may vary by state.

    In all it’s best to understand the specific situation in order to understand the best strategy, and also to craft that with the lawyer in light of what they know about the local judges. Some judges will try to punish someone who follows scorched earth, or who uses up marital assets on vacation or who changes the locks and so on, while other judges will just say it’s a jump ball and not pubish for that. It really varies a lot, because it really depends on the tendencies of the judge in question.

  137. Regular Guy says:

    @ BradA

    “Integrity is not based on where you get your money, it is based on your inner convictions.”

    What you say is true, but what Dave was bringing to attention the temptation of pastors to twist the gospel to pacify a rebellious laity because his means of income is threatened. This isn’t theory, I’m afraid it’s common.

    If a Pastor can serve his congregation and work a full time job, so be it. The majority of Protestant pastors serving in churches serve congregations that can’t support a full time pastor anyway. If anything it will encourage the men of the congregation to take a more active role in the church addressing it’s needs.

    While it is true the Apostles were paid for their service, I’m not convinced this translates to a hard rule to follow in either case of full-time or part-time pastoring.

  138. anonymous_ng says:

    Incidentally, here is an interesting paper on whether attorney fees should be considered dissipation of marital assets. It also give a bit of a primer on the whole idea of dissipation.

    http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=jgspl

  139. PokeSalad says:

    In short, the problem is that Christian men are marrying women who are not born again and who do not obey the Bible.

    Given the current state of affairs, this sounds like the Christian man’s options are a) MGTOW or b) dangerous compromise.

  140. greyghost says:

    Christian/MGTOW now that sounds nice. Nothing more powerful than red pill Christian men. Even Islam couldn’t mess with that.

  141. feeriker says:

    The reason women divorce and remarry freely is because (a) they have not been taught, or do not believe, the scriptures, and (b) there is no fear of hell. But this is not true of all women.

    It is observably true of most women.

    I know plenty of women who surround themselves with people who believe and obey the scriptures, and they will not divorce & remarry under any circumstances. (Or get divorced at all.)

    Until they decide that they DO want to divorce, at which point they “UNsurround” themselves with such people and ‘resurround” themselves with people who will enable them in their decision, to include armed agents of the secular State.

    The only reason that the majority of “Christian” women didn’t frivorce in eras bygone is because the State, in most places, made it impossibly difficult and prohibitively expensive, as well as reinforced the negative stigma of divorce cultivated by the church.

    In other words, the State didn”t serve as a white knight to unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaappy wives. Now that it does, the State can, and regularly DOES assert its authority over the church in matters marital (as it does in ALL things, the church being powerless to stop it).

    Thus if an Anabaptist wife living in an isolated traditional community decided to do a 180 from traditional, submissive wife to a liberated, yougogirlll divorcee, all she has to do is invoke the powers of the Omnipotent State and she WILL get her wish. The State WILL impose Marriage 2.0 conditions, no matter how hard her husband, her church, or her community fights it or shuns her, and regardless of whether or not she and her husband ever obtained a contract with Satan, er, civil marriage license.

    tl;dr: there’s no such thing as a “divorce-free zone” ANYWHERE in the Anglosphere West anymore, wishfully thought out claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

    In short, the problem is that Christian men are marrying women who are not born again and who do not obey the Bible

    No, the problem is that Christian men, most of whom today are completely emasculated and thus incurably blue pill, are gullibly stupid enough to believe that “Christian” women are wired by default to remain steadfast to their convictions rather than succumb to their worst hypergamous urges. For most of human history humankind knew better than to believe in anything so transparently idiotic. Thus the evil patriarchy to prevent the destructive nonsense now running rampant.

    So what did this mean for “Christian” women in the past? Simply this: you might or might not “like” God, or even believe in him, but you’re going to live by his laws. Otherwise, not only will you be defellowshipped/excommunicated, but, if you’re stupid and reckless enough to abandon your husband and family, you’ll find yourself on the street with nothing but the clothes on your back and a bowl to beg with, if you’re lucky.

  142. John Nesteutes says:

    @feeriker

    The reason women divorce and remarry freely is because (a) they have not been taught, or do not believe, the scriptures, and (b) there is no fear of hell. But this is not true of all women.

    It is observably true of most women.

    It is observably true of most men that they are not born again. The road that leads to life is narrow, and few there be that find it.

    I know plenty of women who surround themselves with people who believe and obey the scriptures, and they will not divorce & remarry under any circumstances. (Or get divorced at all.)

    Until they decide that they DO want to divorce, at which point they “UNsurround” themselves with such people and ‘resurround” themselves with people who will enable them in their decision, to include armed agents of the secular State.

    When I say “church” I mean “the church I go to, which believes divorce and remarriage is an excommunicable sin which will result in your being shunned and that will condemn you to hell for eternity until you repent and separate”.

    I literally don’t know a single person who married a girl in the church who is divorced now. There are broken marriages, but they’re all of people who left the church first (and ignored strong counsel not to marry the person). It just plain doesn’t happen. These aren’t made up anecdotes – most people’s families have stayed in the area, and every single family scandal is well known. If I have a given friend at church, I can account for where all their daughters are now. And they’re consistently either still in church here, or in a neighbouring church, (plus a few who left the church and are doing who knows what – none of them got married in the church, no God fearing me would want to go near them!).

    The statistics speak for themselves. The divorce rate amongst plain anabaptists is a fraction of a percent.

    The only reason that the majority of “Christian” women didn’t frivorce in eras bygone is because the State, in most places, made it impossibly difficult and prohibitively expensive, as well as reinforced the negative stigma of divorce cultivated by the church.

    That’s nice. Can we talk about what subsect of society in 2015 still doesn’t frivorce?

    In other words, the State didn”t serve as a white knight to unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaappy wives. Now that it does, the State can, and regularly DOES assert its authority over the church in matters marital (as it does in ALL things, the church being powerless to stop it).

    I see. So the gates of hell will prevail against Christ’s church. Gotcha.

    Thus if an Anabaptist wife living in an isolated traditional community decided to do a 180 from traditional, submissive wife to a liberated, yougogirlll divorcee, all she has to do is invoke the powers of the Omnipotent State and she WILL get her wish. The State WILL impose Marriage 2.0 conditions, no matter how hard her husband, her church, or her community fights it or shuns her, and regardless of whether or not she and her husband ever obtained a contract with Satan, er, civil marriage license.

    First off, we aren’t isolated. We shop at Wal-Mart. I live 15 minutes from BlackBerry’s headquarters. All of us know plenty of worldly people, although we limit our contact with them lest we become like them.

    My point is that women who fear GOD fear him far more than they fear the state, or submit to the state’s wishes. Yes, a rebellious wife could indeed divorce. She could go and find worldly friends to surround herself with. But:

    – She would be excommunicated

    – Her family, mother, sisters, brothers, children would refuse to eat with her

    – Nobody will talk to her without reminding her to repent

    – She knows the truth, learnt it, and knows she is condemning her soul for eternity

    – The path of reconcilation would be hard – and even if she does repent and return to church, her husband might not take her back, especially if she is an adulteress.

    – Repentance & return to church would mean abandonment of all legal suits.

    No, the problem is that Christian men, most of whom today are completely emasculated and thus incurably blue pill, are gullibly stupid enough to believe that “Christian” women are wired by default to remain steadfast to their convictions rather than succumb to their worst hypergamous urges. For most of human history humankind knew better than to believe in anything so transparently idiotic. Thus the evil patriarchy to prevent the destructive nonsense now running rampant.

    We don’t believe that. That’s why we believe in visible outward signs of inward conviction. The most obvious one for women is modesty, uncut hair, and veilings. Women who lack submission to the church and to Christ have trouble doing those things. They usually abandon them once they turn adults, and well so: godly men then can know better than to make the mistake of marrying them.

    So what did this mean for “Christian” women in the past? Simply this: you might or might not “like” God, or even believe in him, but you’re going to live by his laws. Otherwise, not only will you be defellowshipped/excommunicated, but, if you’re stupid and reckless enough to abandon your husband and family, you’ll find yourself on the street with nothing but the clothes on your back and a bowl to beg with, if you’re lucky.

    Godly women fear their souls being lost for eternity far more than they fear poverty.

    And godly women do still exist.

    I am utterly sick and tired of the canard that women can’t be saved, can’t find salvation, and can’t turn away from sin.

  143. John Nesteutes says:

    @feeriker, since you don’t seem to be getting how strong the impetus is not to divorce, let me ask if you ever read Beverly Lewis’s “The Shunning” or if you have a general idea of what shunning amongst the low Amish is like.

    We only shun for serious offences. They include joining the military, being the aggressor in a divorce, or remarrying if you are already a divorced person. (Since those things can be easily judged in public and not based on hearsay.)

    If someone does those things, they are out, they are not a brother or sister, they are not to be tolerated in our body. They are to be turned over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh that their soul might be saved.

    It is no wonder that the rest of Christendom is always busy talking about how evil and terrible shunning is. As if dying in one’s sins is worse.

    My experience is that most of the shunned do eventually repent and come back. They may never have an easy life on earth, but their souls will be saved for eternity.

  144. A Regular Guy says:

    @ Beeker

    “This exactly. I’ve always been amazed and perplexed as to why there isn’t any significant call to action from women who are grandmothers that have lost, or who have severely restricted, access to their grandchildren due to their sons’ divorce.

    And the same thing goes for false rape accusations. What does a mother think when her own son is falsely accused of rape? Where is the call to action from women who are mothers whose sons have had their lives destroyed or even put in jail due to false accusations? And the same thing for VAWA and false domestic violence accusations.”

    Because Frauen uber alle!. No, seriously.

  145. John Nesteutes says:

    @A Regular Guy

    There are plenty of women concerned about these things – their voices obviously aren’t going to be amplified by the feminist movement. More likely they will be castigated as traitors.

    In any event, we really shouldn’t be relying on women to do a men’s jobs for them. Men allowed feminism to happen, and now it’s up to men to stop it.

  146. easttexasfatboy says:

    There’s no real stopping feminists at this time. They control the vote and the judicial system. Only a systemic reset will stop this. These are the last days as we know it. It’s going to get much worse.

  147. When I say “church” I mean “the church I go to, which believes divorce and remarriage is an excommunicable sin which will result in your being shunned and that will condemn you to hell for eternity until you repent and separate”.

    Right. So it’s not just their belief in scripture that keeps them from divorcing, but also the shunning. In your community, there are immediate consequences of the type that matter greatly to women, just as there used to be in America in general. While a wife in your community has the same legal right to divorce as any other woman in the nation, the effect on her life would be much more painful, and she knows that. So she’s in a very different boat than a woman in a less insular and more “tolerant” church, even if that woman’s faith and belief in scripture is just as strong.

    It seems to me that nearly every wife, no matter how generally happy with her marriage, is going to have a day when she thinks, “Crap, what have I done?” That’s just life; there are bad days and days when you’d just like to start over. At that moment, it’s only natural that a woman in a country where divorce is legal is going to think, at least for a split second, “What if I just left?” Her immediate reaction to that thought is going to be based on a lot of things, but I think the biggest one is fear — how much she fears being shunned, fears being alone, fears being broke, etc.

    Now, her faith comes into it too, but that’s more based on reason, so it won’t have the immediate emotional impact of fear. If the fear is there, she’ll abandon the idea quickly, and her faith will confirm her in that. The next day is better and she forgets about it. But if she has nothing to fear (or thinks she doesn’t), then her emotional desire to escape will begin to battle with her faith, and that’s a battle she might not win.

    It’s like being on a diet and trying not to eat the potato chips you know are in the cabinet. In your community’s kitchen, the potato chips are treated with a poison that causes severe stomach cramps, so it’s a lot easier to resist them.

  148. John Nesteutes says:

    @easttexasfatboy

    Indeed it will get a lot worse. That’s why Christians should be prepared for persecution as they continue to preach the gospel (and the whole gospel). Christianity didn’t start off controlling the votes or the judicial system, and it will persist just fine in the future without controlling those things.

    Neither the gates of hell nor feminism will prevail against the church.

    @Cail Corishev

    Whereas in mainstream society, there is a Greek chorus of people offering economy size bags of potato chips for free, and living inside your house.

    Thus my conclusion that sensible women do things like live without TVs, avoid being around “worldly” women too much, surround themselves with sensible, older women and spend their time with them, and heavily police who they let their daughters be around what they let influence them.

    The reasoning for this is just a general sense that women who do those things end up with unhappy marriages and some of them end up divorced. And godly women don’t want that. So they avoid the things they see leading up to divorce.

  149. OKRickety says:

    Cail Corishev said:

    So it’s not just their belief in scripture that keeps them from divorcing, but also the shunning. In your community, there are immediate consequences of the type that matter greatly to women, just as there used to be in America in general.

    I am becoming more and more convinced that the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17 is of paramount importance in the health of the bride of Christ, the church. I choose to refer to this passage as being about “Christian discipline and restoration”, not “church discipline and excommunication”. I do this, not because excommunication has strong negative connotations to most people, but because the focus of the passage is disciplining the sinning believer with the goal of restoring them to the body. I believe that shunning is the Anabaptist version of excommunication (at least for Mennonites and Amish), and the word shunning also has significant negative connotations.

    I think most people, including churchians, focus on the extreme case of excommunication, considering it to be unloving, and consequently avoid any attempt at discipline because it might go to that extreme. On the contrary, I think regular teaching and practice of Jesus’ teaching on discipline and restoration would demonstrate true love for God and true Christian love for the other members of the body of Christ, thus strengthening the church and enabling it to be healthy and grow as God desires. Instead, the churchians of today usually accept and sometimes even condone the sins of those attending. Unfortunately, this is all too familiar to me from my own frivorce experience 3 years ago.

    Other than most, or all, of the Anabaptist variants, I do not know of any other Christian denominations or groups that regularly or significantly practice Christian discipline and restoration or excommunication. Does anyone know of others who do?

  150. Dale says:

    @John

    >When the main fruit that the mainline evangelical church has to show is a 55% divorce rate, I think it’s fair that we question whether or not their faith is real.

    LOL. Sadly, your question is all too fair. I have heard it is “only” 38%, but either number is far too high, and what SHOULD be considered as an absolute fail.

  151. BradA says:

    Regular Guy,

    A pastor can twist his teachings for many reasons, including the praise of men. How are you going to eliminate that one?

    The Scriptures Cane noted (not muzzling the Ox) applies and indicates those who focus solely on the Gospel should earn their living of the Gospel. Naively thinking that having an outside job will make a man immune from pressure is more than a bit naive. Men of character are men of character. They know God is the source of their income, not man, wherever it comes from.

  152. BradA says:

    John,

    I realise you don’t like plain Anabaptists, but the brush with which you paint all of them is unfair. We try our best to conform our lives to the scriptures.

    I wouldn’t want to marry the women in that area I have seen, that is true, though I am definitely not seeking anyone to marry. My problem here is that you exalt them as perfection when they remain human. That is my point.

    I would disagree with their legalism, but I will let God deal with them on that just as He deals with my challenges.

  153. Sean says:

    @Dale

    You’re welcome. I’d love to see you there one Sunday. It’s a really young congregation in that the pews are filled with children. There’re likely almost 20 just amongst the five elders. Fruitful and multiply indeed. Perhaps Dalrock can dig my email out of my posts if you so desire and you’re here in Alberta.

    @John

    While I realize you’re making a point, sending people to Beverly Lewis churchian chicklit is likely not quite what you’re wanting to project. I also agree with you that shunning and consequences of actions need to be more pronounced in Christian society. I suspect its decline is likely tied proportionally to the increase of feminization of the Church.

  154. l jess says:

    “Sean says:
    May 26, 2015 at 11:25 am
    @John

    However, if I know their theology right, they deny the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus. Rather a non starter.”

    Please search your bible for the trinity – you may find that you can not find it. There is only one God and even his son Jesus Christ acknowledges him as the supreme God,

  155. l jess says:

    Question? Scriptures tells us that a divorced woman (unless a victim of unfaithful husband) is not to be bothered with ever again as any future sexual relations mark her as an adultress and bars her from God’s kingdom. Why is this totally ignored as it seems to me to be the message from God saying – Do not mess up because there is no second/third chance in this matter. Women would have to think long and hard choosing the divorce route because doors would be closing for them.

  156. Sean says:

    @ I Jess

    In the off chance you’re not a troll, perhaps one should read the Gospel of John verses 1 thru 6 inclusive, Genesis 1:26, etc. There is only one God, I agree, however, He’s three parts at once.

  157. Gunner Q says:

    OKRickety @ May 27, 2015 at 11:12 pm:
    “Other than most, or all, of the Anabaptist variants, I do not know of any other Christian denominations or groups that regularly or significantly practice Christian discipline and restoration or excommunication. Does anyone know of others who do?”

    All churches are willing to exclude disobedient members. Every organization in America has the right to do so and it’s a necessary part of maintaining a coherent group identity. You may not see it practiced because these days, it’s the godly people being pushed out and they tend to leave voluntarily and quietly.

    The type of discipline/shunning you speak of is a function of gov’t because it’s a form of punishment. The Anabaptist types mix religion and gov’t (even if they claim otherwise) which is a major reason they don’t have the instability of most Christianity. In America, these functions were separated for excellent historical reasons. For example, if you think Churchian pastors are bad today then imagine if they were also the mayor of your town capable of punishing you for not accepting your wife’s headship. That’s the downside of having religious communities, state religions and such so read up on Western history before deciding this is the solution you want.

    I suspect mixing religion and gov’t is also a reason why Communists accept the Anabaptists. They’ve always liked the idea of using religion as an arm of the State so perhaps they see the Amish-type communities as an experiment in social control. I’ve long wondered if this is why our Elites are uplifting Islam, in the hope of using it as the New World Order’s preferred religion.

  158. Regular Guy says:

    @ l jess

    The reason it is totally ignored by mainstream Protestants is because these congregations (Pastors AND Laity) set women up as false idols and would rather please women than please God.

  159. Gunner Q says:

    @seth @9:32am,

    I don’t think this is the blog you’re looking for.

    [D: Indeed.]

  160. feeriker says:

    All churches are willing to exclude disobedient members.

    Indeed, and churchian corporations do so regularly to members who dare to point out how unbiblical their doctrines and practices are.

  161. BradA says:

    A strong church will face serious challenges today since people have so many options of where to belong, not just in church. That means any kind of shamming, shunning, etc. has its limits since people no longer strongly value specific associations.

    I have not seen this addressed in a lot of the denigration of current churches. It is quite true many are far too squishy, but I would argue that a significant part of that is the culture in which they operate.

    How many organizations can be completely exclusionary and remain successful?

  162. feeriker says:

    It is quite true many are far too squishy, but I would argue that a significant part of that is the culture in which they operate.

    Here’s a practical question, one that churchians react to like a vampire reacts to the presence of a silver cross: if the culture has so profoundly influenced/infected the church to the point where it’s indistinguishable from the world, what point is there to its existance?

    If the salt in my shaker tastes like sand, why not just douse my food with sand? Or better yet, why not just forget about seasoning altogether?

  163. OKRickety says:

    I want to focus on the positive aspects of Christian discipline and restoration/excommunication. I agree it is necessary for maintaining a coherent group identity. More importantly, I think it would ensure that the body of believers (the church) would be healthy.

    As BradA stated, “I have not seen this addressed in a lot of the denigration of current churches.” Nor have I. I do not believe that it is currently taught and practiced in many churches in the USA. I recognize that it would be difficult to implement because of our Western culture and its values. Is that reason to ignore it?

    Of course, excommunication/shunning requires government by the church (entirely Biblical in my opinion), not the civil government. Naturally, churchian leaders will abuse it. That is not a reason to ignore it. If it isn’t helpful, why would Jesus teach it?

    I wonder if John Nesteutes would argue that his community is completely exclusionary and remains successful. He often extols its low divorce rate. As to shunning, he said “We only shun for serious offences. They include … being the aggressor in a divorce, …. It seems reasonable to suppose that the practice of shunning for divorce reduces the divorce rate.

    Jesus taught discipline and restoration/excommunication. What better reason can there be to do it?

    Again, does anyone know of Christian (not churchian) groups who follow this scripture, using it as Jesus intended?

  164. BradA says:

    Feeriker,

    if the culture has so profoundly influenced/infected the church to the point where it’s indistinguishable from the world, what point is there to its existance?

    It has no point, which is why Jesus commanded us to always be salt and light, implying a conscious decision to restore ourselves (with His help) if we stray.

    That doesn’t mean we will ever be perfect in our actions though, which is why we have the “repent provision” in 2 John. (“If we confess our sins….”)

    We should not justify non-compliance with God’s will and ways, but neither should be surprised when we are not precisely on track with them. It is a lifetime walk, not an endpoint.

  165. easttexasfatboy says:

    The only group I’m familiar with is Jehovah’s Witnesses, from years ago. My ex was heavily involved with that, but turned out to be a black feminist. It was a real mess. They were afraid to deal with her. They call it disfellowshipping. Shunning, by another term. Anyways, they had problems with feminists, and didn’t know how to deal with rebellious women. I had serious problems with certain teachings, and wasn’t fixing to change.

    Insofar as divorce, Witness women are taught to leave their husbands if he doesn’t become a witness. That’s a plain fact. Aspects of cult like mind control. Yep, if a man fights back, he could end up facing serious legal talent. That didn’t prove to be a fact In our divorce, but there has been a comical footnote……after all was said and done, I no longer had a desire for a wife. I went my own way……she wasn’t able to obtain a scriptural divorce. And I’m not going to commit adultery. So, she can’t remarry. She really wants children, but can’t remarry. Ever so often, she asks me if I’ve committed adultery. Nope. They tell those women that it’s best not to be married to a worldly man.

  166. John Nesteutes says:

    @Gunner Q

    What is the source for your libel that the Communists accepted the Anabaptists? The Bolshevists murdered them en masse. Those who got stuck behind went into hiding and didn’t come out of hiding until after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Most of them have since migrated to Germany (they are the Russlandeutsche.)

  167. John Nesteutes says:

    @BradA

    John,

    I wouldn’t want to marry the women in that area I have seen, that is true, though I am definitely not seeking anyone to marry. My problem here is that you exalt them as perfection when they remain human. That is my point.

    I would disagree with their legalism, but I will let God deal with them on that just as He deals with my challenges.

    I don’t think that the women are perfect at all. I think that the system restrains female misbehaviour, and enables women to exercise the moral agency they do have to choose to conform to the group’s boundaries and guidelines. I think the system is a good example of one that works for raising godly Christian women.

    At the risk of sounding defensive, we are not legalists – we don’t believe salvation comes via works. We do believe in a lot of boundaries, fences, and that visible signs of misbehaviour are a problem.

    @Dale While I realize you’re making a point, sending people to Beverly Lewis churchian chicklit is likely not quite what you’re wanting to project. I also agree with you that shunning and consequences of actions need to be more pronounced in Christian society. I suspect its decline is likely tied proportionally to the increase of feminization of the Church.

    @Gunner Q: Nobody is forced to stay in an Anabaptist community. You’re welcome to leave anytime you want. If you don’t play by the rules, you will be forced to leave, although not with violent force. You will be withdrawn from voluntary friendship. And I don’t see what’s wrong with that. I don’t see why a church should gladly welcome unrepentant adulteresses into its community life.

    This is a big difference between Anabaptists and cults. Sociologists do not consider Anabaptist communities to be cults.

    @Brad A: How many organizations can be completely exclusionary and remain successful?

    The completely exclusionary ones grow by their own birth rate. They tend to be successful since people like having a solid identity and culture. I would never in a million years propose anyone become Old Order Amish, yet they grow like crazy, and their young people voluntary join the church in their 20s and then have dozens of kids. They are the subject of plenty of academic study. Their numbers double every 25 years according to the latest research. I’m not sure if that’s “successful”. I personally like living with deodorant and air conditioning.

    The less-exclusionary ones will drift over time as they get influenced by ideas from the outside.

    Ones that don’t do any boundary maintenance at all will end up identical to the mainstream culture. We have a consensus here that our mainstream culture is bad, so some kind of boundary is a good thing.

  168. John Nesteutes says:

    @Dale

    While I realize you’re making a point, sending people to Beverly Lewis churchian chicklit is likely not quite what you’re wanting to project. I also agree with you that shunning and consequences of actions need to be more pronounced in Christian society. I suspect its decline is likely tied proportionally to the increase of feminization of the Church.

    I simply cited Beverly Lewis’s book since most people are familiar with it and it does describe shunning fairly accurately, although the rest of the book is quite inaccurate. (And of course the author is very anti-shunning herself.)

    I hope we can have the maturity to cite examples from the mainstream culture, like chicklit, without being accused of crimethink.

  169. OKRickety says:

    easttexasfatboy said

    The only group I’m familiar with is Jehovah’s Witnesses, from years ago. My ex was heavily involved with that, but turned out to be a black feminist. It was a real mess. They were afraid to deal with her. They call it disfellowshipping. Shunning, by another term.

    There is debate as to whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian or not. Many also consider them to be a cult. I’ll consider them an outlier at best.

    I think there are various churches who, at least on paper, believe in Christian discipline and restoration or excommunication. Actually finding one who truly practices this seems to be difficult to do. Of course, it may be that the practice almost always results in restoration as would be desired, rather than being taken to the church and followed by excommunication. I would expect that some readers would be familiar with instances of this from personal experiences of their own or their family or friends.

    I forgot earlier, but many readers will remember that Jenny Erikson was excommunicated by her church. I think this was likely a United Reformed Church but I cannot verify. By the way, I said earlier that excommunication would be considered unloving by many. Jenny’s response to her excommunication? “Where is the love, people?

  170. Dale says:

    l jess says:
    May 28, 2015 at 5:07 am
    >Please search your bible for the trinity – you may find that you can not find it.

    Jesus also is part of the one God. See:
    John 1:1-3, 14 and 18. 1-2 show at least two entities are God, 14 shows who is the second part. Verse 18 also shows at least two entities are God.
    Titus 1:1-4 (what two entities are both referred to as Saviour)?
    John 5:16-18. His opponents understood he was presenting himself as God.
    Passages such as Matt 28:16-20 show Jesus being worshipped, which is for God alone (Paul (?) gave an example of refusing worship (Don’t do it! I am a man like you) but I cannot find it now.)
    Matt 28:18-20 can be claimed to show the Trinity, although it is weak for this, as it is claimed that this clause (in the name of the F, S, HS) was added to the original which did not have it. I cannot prove/disprove the claim.
    Gen 1 and others talk about the “Spirit of God”.

    @John N

    >@Dale While I realize you’re making a point… churchian chicklit

    You got me confused with Sean🙂 He is the one who made the comments you were considering.

    >I don’t see why a church should gladly welcome unrepentant adulteresses into its community life.

    This is an excellently articulated point. Why do we ignore blatant sin?

  171. BradA says:

    John,

    I was thinking of the attractiveness of the females, not other things, at least in one context.

    I am not sure that Amish growth is significant in the overall scheme of things. I would agree with you that a lack of deodorant and other modern things makes their lifestyle have absolutely no appeal to me.

    I have heard even they are losing numbers of the next generation. They may keep some, but the early adult years are not pleasant for all in that culture and some sow horribly wild oats along the way. That is not a good thing, if accurate.

    My comment about perfection was about you characterization of Anabaptists and their practices, not their women. I think that all things are a product of their society, as you noted in the later quote. We err when we take things out of that context.

    Even the Amish are influenced by the overall culture. Not as much as many, but their lives would be much different without it. This is independent of the value of such influence.

    Belonging to a long standing group is not a feature of modern society. Most will not stay for the long run if they part ways, even in Anabaptists or wherever. They would no longer be part of that original group, but so many options exist that banishment is not the threat it might have been in the more distant past.

  172. John Nesteutes says:

    @OKRickety, yes, she went to a URCNA affiliated church. Generally not a bad place. You can sure that her excommunication will serve as a warning to the next woman who starts wistfully thinking about a frivolous divorce. Nobody wants to be her.

    @Dale, the main reason the average church (or even a small group) ignores blatant sin is fear of losing members, losing friendships, and, if the pastor is paid, the pastor is fearful of losing his job or losing his pay. (Legitimate fears.) It’s going to take a time of purification for these fears to go away.

    @BradA, I don’t think plain Anabaptist practices are perfect, but I do think they are good, and are definitely a model worth examining and emulating. I don’t really expect large numbers of people to join us. I do think we can make an effective witness that, no, divorce & remarriage does not need to be broadly accepted, and this is what it looks like when it’s not accepted.

    As far as the attractiveness of the females go… there are plenty of pretty girls out there, but they aren’t really visible from the “outside”. The reasons for that should be obvious.

  173. JF says:

    Translation of Creative Dude’s thought process: Her tingles are more important than the Word of God.

  174. Pingback: Did he take notes? | Dalrock

  175. Alex says:

    I’m super late to this conversation, but couldn’t find a better place to post.

    I have been consistently appalled by the feminist culture in the church, not just accepted but often outright abetted. I have looked for churches that hold to orthodoxy, but the cultural grip seems too strong in my area (liberal, west coast community). This brings me to the question of my tithe. I give quite a bit of money to my church out of the biblical obligation to surrender the first fruits. This has been a blessing in my financial life. However, I can’t help but wonder if I am inadvertently supporting a church movement that works against God’s kingdom. If so, to whom do I tithe? Curious if anyone else struggles with this question.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s