Modern Christian wife worship

44 Leadership Quotes And Lessons From War Room The Movie

Lesson number 37:

Husbands Either Serve Their Wives Or Serve Themselves – You cannot do both.  Spoiler Alert – This involves a basin of water and ice cream.

Husbands of course should serve their wives, but he isn’t talking about headship.  Also, Someone appears to be missing in this equation.

Or perhaps this isn’t an oversight.  Bonus quote, from the Q&A at the end of the film:

“We want someone (Priscilla Shirer) who will represent God after the film’s opening.” – Kendrick

I can only hope this is a typo or out of context.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Christian Films, Kendrick Brothers, Priscilla Shirer, Servant Leader, War Room, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

118 Responses to Modern Christian wife worship

  1. Anchorman says:

    Dalrock,
    In the movie, the husband literally confessed his sins to his wife, on his knees and in tears, and begged her forgiveness.*

    How is she not his goddess, at that point?

    Keep in mind, she repeats and makes it clear she is to submit to God alone. Yet, his expatiation must be to his wife. Begging her forgiveness, questioning how she could possibly love him, despite his sinful nature.

    The goddess soothes as he supplicates.

    * I really don’t recall him asking God for forgiveness, but I only watched it once.

  2. Anchorman says:

    At a minimum, there is no “mutual” scene, in any Kendrick movie I watched, in which the wife confesses her sins to the husband and asks forgiveness, especially not on knees and in tears.

  3. Anchorman says:

    At a minimum, there is no “mutual” scene, in any Kendrick movie I watched, in which the wife confesses her sins to the husband and asks forgiveness, especially not on knees and in tears.

    To followup on that point, that’s where this myth that, although the Kendricks’ don’t respect Biblical submission, they do support “mutual submission.” They don’t and the lack of counterpart submission scenes makes it clear.

    Husbands, to the Kendricks, submit to wives.

  4. Weenis says:

    Truly, the problem isn’t that women are not conducting their relationships to men properly

    which is true enough

    But it is that they are not conducting their relationship with God properly. If they were on their face before the Almighty God, they would not have so much pride and rebellion as to hammer their husbands. What is any human relationship, in compared to our relationship with Christ?

    It is all but DUNG, compared to gaining Christ, per Paul in Phillipians. That’s why the apostles didn’t bother with wives. They had their priorities straight.

    Idolatry all around, and bible-believing Christians cannot see it, even some of the finest.

    It really grieves me.

  5. Pingback: Modern Christian wife worship | Neoreactive

  6. BradA says:

    Several of the Apostles were married Weenis. You might want to read a bit more. Paul noted that the other apostles brought their wives with them.

    The standard of being single so an individual can be fully devoted to God is put forth by Paul, but it is not a command.

  7. There’s a throw-away reference to St. Peter’s mother-in-law, right?

  8. Pingback: Modern Christian wife worship | Manosphere.com

  9. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    In my play by play, I tried to give an overview of the dynamics without getting into all the nuances of the dialogue.

     

    The first thing I’ll say is that we already know what to expect, right?   It’s easy.

    In the Kendrick cats movies, two things are a given, which is the gist of damn near everything:

    Male Hyperagency

    Tony had some legitimate issues. He was a thief, he wasn’t very loving to his daughter, and he had a little bitch made attitude, some of which was legitimately directed towards horsey face.   But he wasn’t a monster, and here is the rub for me:

    Tony didn’t do shit to the wife that was all that bad!  If you look at the whole thing, and take things at face value,  you come away with the same things I came up with.   And that is there was a previously shitty dynamic between the two of them that has shaped Tony’s attitude towards horsey.  This was left out, so even though I don’t run with cats who act like him, I can see how his demeanor towards his wife may have evolved.  He was apparently on the hustle (albeit on some shady shit) trying to take care of his family.  Nothing in what was shown there indicated he was all dastardly.  GTFOH.

    Him getting on his knees and asking for forgiveness had me laughing out loud.  Da hell for?  Did he go upside her head?  Did he bang pale face?  Nope!  What did he do to horsey but lose his job?  Okay so he lost his job, but he it was his sin against God which caused that, he didn’t sin against her.  And in all fairness, she didn’t really go ham on him when his folly was exposed.  So that whole forgiveness scene was goofy.  I’m a bit more practical concerning this.

    “Baby I messed up and lost my job.  Thanks for having my back and being cool about it (not acting like a wench, like you usually do).  Then he goes off before the Lord and repents and keeps it moving.  That is how you handle that, Kendric cats.

    I also believe the Kendricks are pandering to the charismatic crowd.  They get all worked up  and dramatic about damn near everything.   I remember when the Lion King came out and all the Pentecostals and Apostolics and Charismatics were all “look at Gawd, won’t he do it, he’s the Gawd of even the cartoon baby lions and beasts of the field.  Do you get the Revelation?  Hal-Lay-Lew-Yah!”   And all of that retarded mess.

    This is the same goofy stuff.

    Female Hypoagency

    Liz had disrespect and attitude all over her up till the point where Ms Clara began admonishing her.  What we don’t know is why.  What was Tony doing that made her behave in such ways?  Work long hours?  Travel a lot?  Give her push-back on the money she was taking to give to her sister and outta work husband?   Surely that isn’t what would make one behave in such a sooty way towards your husband?

    But true to form whatever the hell Tony wasn’t doing required the wife to take up a War Room.

    She didn’t need no damn War Room!  She needed to be apologizing for her janky attitude.  She had two opportunities to show some humility because Tony was baffled at her calm demeanor when a few pieces of bad news came her way.

    She could have said: “I know you’re surprised about my response to everything that’s going on, and I know it’s because you’re used to me being a bitch.  I’m sorry to have left such an impression on you all this time, but I’m committed to being a better wife, and I have your back no matter what”

    This would have done wonders for their relationship, but nooooooooo……

    She also needed a Red Pill Ms. Clara in her life, and they both needed fellowship and accountability.  I get what Ms Clara was trying to do though.  She was just a big charismatic churchian cliche. It was bullshit bingo all day long.

    What the Kendrick brothers did was take some lackluster dynamics and used horsey face being all in her feelings as a alarmist device to create the need for a War Room.  There was no existential dilemma here, in fact there was nothing to see here.

    This was much ado about nothing, upon which the Kendrick brothers piled on a bunch of unscriptural gynocentric tomfoolery and false dilemmas to try to make this movie seem all deep.

    It wasn’t.

  10. bkilbour says:

    Hm… my wife has specifically asks me to call her out when she’s misbehaving, and readily admits and apologizes when I do so. Part of loving your wife as Christ loves the church is to look at how He spoke to the seven churches of Revelation – loving, yes, but correcting as well. These movies must not believe in a Jesus that judges anything though – well, men, but not the church nor women nor pastors.

  11. Scott says:

    It may be wishful thinking but I think the saturation of this kind of stuff is starting to leak out. It’s like Christian culture is a sponge that is full of a liquid that it can’t contain anymore.

    My wife and I share these articles with friends on social media, or just emailing them, texting them, word of mouth. I try to add my own Dalrockian style commentary to each “share.”

    To continue with the analogy, this is the equivalent to pushing ever so slightly on the bloated sponge and the unbiblical liquid of [wife worship/”mutual submission”/”servant leader”] that it cannot contain just pours out. It’s like they know it’s wrong. It’s laid on too thick now not to notice it. They are just waiting for someone to say something. God knows the pulpit minister or priest won’t.

    I can name 5 wives (none of whom I have met personally–they are my wife’s friends from when she was working) who are quantitatively more submissive to their husbands. Not perfect–but seriously contemplating what a little sweetness and deference added might do. The “likes” and the honestly curious questions keep pouring in. (Questions about the mechanics of biblical headship/submission).

    If I thought about it harder, I could name 5 more.

    That’s 10 marriages directly affected by the things you write here, after given a little push by me and Mychael.

  12. Now do you understand what I’ve been saying for years about the Holy Spirit being replaced with the Feminine Imperative?

  13. “Marriage is not based on commitment.” “Marriage Is Based On A Person, Jesus Christ.” My faith is fully in Jesus, and I’m trying to build a house on a rock. But what the hell does that mean?

  14. BradA says:

    Malcom,

    [1Co 9:5 KJV] 5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

  15. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Those comments in the Q & A at the end are a real gold mine if you enjoy Freudian slips. My personal favorite was this (from Priscilla Shirer):

    “You cannot sit in the film and walk out of the theater just thinking, ‘That was a good movie.’ ”

    Don’t worry, I’d certainly never think that!

  16. Damn Crackers says:

    Can we just get it over with and open the temples of Isis again? At least pagan priestesses won’t nag me and tell me I’m worthless.

  17. @Matthew

    What it means is she doesn’t want to be a Godly wife and she doesn’t want to obey God’s Word. She wants to be the head in the relationship and is beating her husband with the churchian Jesus stick.

    Marriage is not a commitment
    Really? Paul said that when you join yourself to a whore you become one flesh with her, but he never said it makes her your wife. So what makes a wife a wife? The commitment of the husband to her and her to him. If your wife is only giving you sex once per month but you’re banging the live-in maid every other night, which one is really your wife? You’re having sex with both of them, they both live under your roof, so why is your wife your wife and the maid not? Because of the “present words of assent” which is commitment. Commitment is the sine qua non of marriage.

    Marriage is based on a person, Jesus Christ.
    No, Salvation is from Christ, not marriage. Marriage is achieved through commitment just as salvation is achieved through Christ.

    My faith is fully in Jesus, and I’m trying to build a house on a rock.
    Then why don’t you obey that God you claim to serve?

    Understand this: within the church divorce is a negative sum game, always bad to some extent, tainting both parties. Therefore, in order for the wife to be holy and righteous (even though she’s filed) the husband must be evil and wicked. The more of a monster he is, the more of a saint she’s perceived to be. The system supports this completely and is biased in favor of the women being the holy and righteous one no matter what she does. The wife really could be a borderline monster and the husband a real saint, but according to the system, they both had their problems. Get it?

  18. someone on the previous post said men need a purpose and women are attracted to that
    NO!!
    if you look at any conservative christian advice
    it is that men need to serve strong career women
    men need to be the helpmeets
    that is true leadership

    it is so so bizarre….

  19. and is that not what happened in the movie anyway?
    she becomes the breadwinner and he supports her!!

  20. Darwinian Arminian says:

    . . . And more quotable goodness from the Q & A (this time from T.C. Stallings, starring as the film’s beastly husband):

    “There are men out there who do love their families.”

    Yes, sort of like the way there were still some citizens of Nazi Germany who didn’t vote for Hitler and thought the camps were a bad thing! The Germans got the American 2nd Armored Divison, and men — well, the men get this movie and the American evangelical church establishment.

    Right now, I envy the Germans.

  21. Weenis says:

    Sorry for my ignorance. In any case, I know that anyone who puts a relationship with another above their relationship and obedience to Jesus Christ is not worthy of Him.

  22. Cane Caldo says:
    Husbands Either Serve Their Wives Or Serve Themselves – You cannot do both. Spoiler Alert – This involves a basin of water and ice cream.

    Husbands of course should serve their wives, but he isn’t talking about headship. Also, Someone appears to be missing in this equation.

    It’s not even true. If it’s true in his household, we must assume that they don’t have sex so much as masturbate in single file.

  23. Exfernal says:

    @Darwinian Arminian
    It could be worse. For some Germans it was Soviets instead of Americans or British.

  24. OKRickety says:

    Submission means knowing when to duck so God can hit your husband.

    I realized what bothers me most about this statement. If God wants to “hit” someone, do you really think He will miss? Perhaps the laughter at the screenings was because everyone subconsciously knows it’s not possible to do it.

  25. Dalrock says:

    @OKRickety

    I realized what bothers me most about this statement. If God wants to “hit” someone, do you really think He will miss? Perhaps the laughter at the screenings was because everyone subconsciously knows it’s not possible to do it.

    They laugh for the same reason they would laugh if the wife hit her husband with a rolling pin. Only in this case, she nods her head and God hits him with one instead.

  26. Anchorman says:


    I realized what bothers me most about this statement. If God wants to “hit” someone, do you really think He will miss? Perhaps the laughter at the screenings was because everyone subconsciously knows it’s not possible to do it.

    No, you see the goddess stands in the way of God. Only when the goddess allows God to interfere does God actually get to interact with her subject. She grants God permission to hit her rebellious devotee.

  27. feeriker says:

    Bonus quote, from the Q&A at the end of the film:

    “We want someone (Priscilla Shirer) who will represent God after the film’s opening.” – Kendrick

    I can only hope this is a typo or out of context.

    I doubt it. Objections to that statement would probably sail right over both brothers’ empty little heads. After all, “God” is a formless abstraction, whereas Diana, er, Priscilla is a goddess in flesh and blood, palpable and full of worldly wisdom for lost men who might otherwise …*GASP*… aspire to be masculine without her divine instruction.

  28. Anchorman says:

    I had a text exchange with my pastor about the movie. He liked it a lot and used it to reshape our Wednesday night prayer meeting in a very positive way. That said, I’ve been vocal about my issues with Kendricks’ movies during our Men’s Breakfasts.

    Me:I was finally able to see “War Room.”

    Pastor: So, what did u think?

    Me: I have had issues with Kendricks’ films in the past. I think they mixed hot and cold in War Room, to use their (and the Bible’s) metaphor.

    They message on prayer was great. The repeated issue with married men are only redeemed when they submit to wives is there again.

    They make it seem as if they endorse “mutual submission” but the wives never show any submission. The husbands completely cave on all fronts and “win” the wife when they give her lots of money (Fireproof) or unabashed submission (kneeling before the wife in tears, begging for forgiveness and perplexed by her godly love of a sinner, etc).

    Not a fan.

    Pastor: I hear you. I thought the storyline was over the top fluff. But it was the prayer message I focused on.

  29. Joe says:

    I might be able to add a little something to this, given that I’m a Christian from the Middle East. It took several generations, but the Maronite Catholic church weaned people off of a casual and very old “side” worship of Aphrodite, expressed in the form of the way they engaged in adoration of the Holy Mother.

    There’s even a village named for Aphrodite in the north of the country. That said, these ARE in large part very sincere, decent, and faithful people who accepted the theological “correction” to the practice, one that they were simply passing on from generation to generation largely out of affection for their ancestors. It was expressed as a sort of prayer meeting the men of a village would hold a few times a year out in nature. It had bows and rituals that no-one really knew the origin of until a few sharp scholars of ancient culture looked into it.

  30. feeriker says:

    No, you see the goddess stands in the way of God. Only when the goddess allows God to interfere does God actually get to interact with her subject. She grants God permission to hit her rebellious devotee.

    And of course the Gospel of Kendrick makes it clear that although God the Father Almighty is Maker of Heaven and Earth, He doesn’t mind being in a submissive role as a divine Luca Brasi for the FI, being at woman’s beck and call as an enforcer whenever she needs one.

  31. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @Anchorman

    “Pastor: I hear you. I thought the storyline was over the top fluff. But it was the prayer message I focused on.”

    Wow, did he just blow you off? The prayer message was ALSO over the top! Lawd Jeezus help yo Pastor. LOL.

  32. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @Joe

    “It had bows and rituals that no-one really knew the origin of until a few sharp scholars of ancient culture looked into it.”

    In looking into it, I hope that included a few sticks of dynamite as well.

  33. Husbands Either Serve Their Wives Or Serve Themselves

    Just WOW!

    Is this supposed to be a paraphrase of you either serve God or serve men? Husbands are to serve God, and one way in which that service is expressed is by lovingly leading their wives, washing and watering them in the Word. Similarly, A wife is only submitting to God, when she is submitting to her husband. Service is another word for worship. The female desire to be as god is fully expressed by such a notion that a man serving God and not her, is being selfish, and concomitantly that a man is practicing righteousness when serving his wife by submitting to and providing her feelings.

  34. TLM says:

    On the movie side you have the Kendricks, on the music side you have For King and Country. These clowns, and I really mean clowns, performed at a service I was attending at the local mega church. The lead singer literally told the crowd’ that you should cherish and worship your women, it’s what god put them here for’. He said some other outrageous crap as well. The head pastor comes out when they’re done and doesn’t correct the singer for the false teaching nonsense he was spewing on stage. Very sad, all too typical these days.

  35. Anchorman says:

    Wow, did he just blow you off? The prayer message was ALSO over the top! Lawd Jeezus help yo Pastor. LOL.

    No, I don’t think so. We have a really good relationship.

    I’ll talk more with him tonight (Weds night prayer meeting), I’m sure. My guess is that he thought they didn’t need to make the husband so terrible for the movie to convey the same message. The prayer message, as expressed by Ms. Clara, was a good one.

    He’s been very solid in the 18 months or so I’ve known him.

  36. Scott says:

    …he thought they didn’t need to make the husband so terrible for the movie to convey the same message.

    This is a good opportunity to discuss with him why it was so over the top. In other words, why did they feel the need to do it that way (again) and why doesn’t anyone notice?

  37. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @Anchorman,

    “My guess is that he thought they didn’t need to make the husband so terrible for the movie to convey the same message.”

    Which has been my point all along. Tony had the glib cocky swagger of a young man, mostly a babe in Christ who was closed off from in-your-face fellowship and accountability (of which they were both in need), but he wasn’t the enemy (as Clara stated) who required his wife fashion a war room and go hooping and a hollering through the house rebuking the hesatan.

    But I diverge in that I didn’t see him worshipping her as much as just being all dramatic about the stuff he did. I’m not looking for the F.I. in that, I’m looking at the Kendric brothers imputing some old drama queen mess into the situation. Is that inspired by the divine feminine crap…sure, when taking their movies in totality.

    Other than that, it’s just not that deep to me..

  38. Anchorman says:

    But I diverge in that I didn’t see him worshipping her as much as just being all dramatic about the stuff he did.

    I think that’s why it’s important to see the collected works of the Kendricks brothers to see it’s not just drama, it’s how they view the husband’s role in marriage.

    Once is a coincidence. Twice is a trend. Three times is doctrine.

  39. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    It’s not even true. If it’s true in his household, we must assume that they don’t have sex so much as masturbate in single file.

    I take it you mean this:

    28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

  40. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @Anchorman..

    “I think that’s why it’s important to see the collected works of the Kendricks brothers to see it’s not just drama, it’s how they view the husband’s role in marriage.

    Once is a coincidence. Twice is a trend. Three times is doctrine.’

    Indeed. While I was compartmentalizing, I was already somewhat leaning towards this, event though I had not seen any other movies but War Room.

    Their agenda indeed seems clear, so I don’t want to minimize the overall concerns about bastardization of the mystery of the marriage covenant and the instructions concerning its care, but I just wanted to add corny and stupid to the list of all the other issues with their movies.🙂

  41. Dalrock says:

    @Anchorman

    Once is a coincidence. Twice is a trend. Three times is doctrine.

    Ha!

    As I mentioned in a previous post, the husband/father in War Room bears a striking resemblance to the husband/father in Flywheel. From Wikipedia:

    Jay Austin (Alex Kendrick) is a car salesman who consistently cheats his customers, even to the point of overcharging his own pastor. He teaches his rotund salesmen, Bernie Meyers (Tracy Goode) and Vince Berkeley (Treavor Lokey), to do likewise. Jay occasionally attends church, but only because his wife Judy (Janet Lee Dapper) wants him to go. He also fakes giving a donation to the church. His relationships with his wife and son (Richie Hunnewell), who both disapprove of his dishonesty, deteriorate.

  42. Dalrock says:

    @Anchorman

    I think that’s why it’s important to see the collected works of the Kendricks brothers to see it’s not just drama, it’s how they view the husband’s role in marriage.

    Given the consistency of contempt for the role of husband and father by modern Christian culture, one thing we should expect is for young men to look for other vocations which are not so deeply disrespected. So far we have been very fortunate here, but for young men who are growing up on a steady diet of Flywheel, Fireproof, Courageous, Mom’s Night Out, War Room, etc, it wouldn’t shock me if we ultimately see fewer young men who aspire to become the Christian punch line when they grow up.

  43. Scott says:

    Given the consistency of contempt for the role of husband and father by modern Christian culture, one thing we can expect is for young men to look for other vocations which are not so deeply disrespected. So far we have been very fortunate here, but for young men who are growing up on a steady diet of Flywheel, Fireproof, Courageous, Mom’s Night Out, War Room, etc, it wouldn’t shock me if we ultimately see fewer young men who aspire to become the Christian punch line when they grow up.

    In the past, when I have brought [stuff like this] up you have advised to basically live right and “let the macro issues work themselves out.” (Zippy has essentially the same position).

    But for those of us with children it always gets me/us back to communal/Amish/Benedict Option style living or becoming weirdo Christians living in catacombs in 50 years.

    My kids see a steady stream of mommy cooking, cleaning the house, taking care of specific tasks I have set her on, daddy being welcomed home like a king, etc and will go into the world and be considered freaks when they look for something similar.

  44. Anchorman says:

    Scott,
    Seems like the choice is hate dad or be hated by the world. Oversimplified and likely exaggerated, but it sure feels that way.

  45. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Yessir. Even an agnostic view of a marriage can tell us that sex (the fullest expression of marriage) serves both husband and wife, and at the same time. His view of serving one or the other in marriage reads like a Cosmo article: “Seven Must-Have Spiritual Tricks to Blow Her Mind!”

  46. The Question says:

    I felt like critiquing some of the other points in that list.

    #3: Good Intentions Without A Good Strategy Leads To Poor Results

    The irony is almost too much to handle.

    #21 Local Churches Are The Best Places Where Your Life Can Be Changed Forever

    Yes, you can go to your local and church, where chances are if you are a single man you will be told to “man up” and marry an aging career gal who just hopped off the carousal expecting her perfect husband to be waiting for her. You can marry her and find her to withhold sex and after a years of nagging divorce you and have you sleep in your car while paying alimony and child support. Based on what these men have told me, your life is definitely “changed forever.”

    Also, I’ve had more questions answered about the Bible on this and at other Manosphere sites than at church.

    #22 Money Can’t Buy You Love, Happiness or Contentment

    Which is why they make feminist films masquerading as Christian that tear down the headship of husbands rather than films that would tell the truth about our society but not sell very well in the Christian market.

    #23 Jesus Is Necessary For Success In Every Area Of Your Life

    Except when a wife needs to submit to her husband in everything. Then Jesus needs to help her have success in getting a good divorce settlement and child custody, as well as a successful handsome eligible bachelor to remarry after she’s found herself while traveling overseas.

    #25 Surrender Is Necessary For Success

    So surrender to that urge to use divorce as a threat-point so your husband will accept your spiritual superiority because you’re closer to God. You can also surrender to your hypergamous desires for a “better” husband than the loser your pastor keeps indicating you married during every “man up” sermon.

    #33 Marriage Is Not Based On Commitment

    Except for the whole “until death do us part” bit and the covenant with God and what Jesus said about “What God has joined together let man not separate.” But other than yet, sure. No commitment anywhere.

    #34 Marriage Is Based On A Person, Jesus Christ

    Marriage is also based on honoring vows instead of claiming a right to change your mind because you weren’t haaaappppy.

    #36 The World Is Dying For More Godly Husbands And Fathers

    Perhaps then we should stop killing every and all incentives for men to be godly husbands and fathers by treating them with respect, not making films in which they are all portrayed as either failures or fools that need female guidance.

  47. David says:

    @Weenis: “Truly, the problem isn’t that women are not conducting their relationships to men properly which is true enough. But it is that they are not conducting their relationship with God properly.”

    Yes. The wife can’t or won’t submit to her husband because she does not trust God. She doesn’t trust God to know better than her, to lead her through her husband, to keep His word, to protect or sustain her if there are occasions when her husband does fail, to extend grace as it has been extended to her, etc. April Cassidy at The Peaceful Wife has grasped this well and hits it hard on her blog to wives.

  48. desiderian says:

    “They laugh for the same reason they would laugh if the wife hit her husband with a rolling pin.”

    There are churches where they wouldn’t laugh because a woman with a rolling pin is sexist. I do not exaggerate.

  49. Marriage is based on a person, Jesus Christ.

    According to Jesus, marriage is only a temporary state for men and women while people are living on earth. There is no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven. Sort of puts a full stop to the soul-mate myth doesn’t it?

  50. desiderian says:

    Scott,

    “My kids see a steady stream of mommy cooking, cleaning the house, taking care of specific tasks I have set her on, daddy being welcomed home like a king, etc and will go into the world and be considered freaks when they look for something similar.”

    That’s not the direction the wind is blowing. If your daughters follow their mother’s example, they will be treasured, and if your sons can hold frame through some token resistance they will be too.

  51. desiderian says:

    Rollo,

    “According to Jesus, marriage is only a temporary state for men and women while people are living on earth. There is no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven.”

    It’s not so clear cut, in scripture or orthodox doctrine. Surely the purpose of marriage, children, have an eternal life of their own in Christ.

  52. Scott says:

    The “soulmate” thing is difficult to square, and desi is right– the scripture and the fathers do illuminate this perfectly. It’s especially difficult for those of us where summarily dismissed from what we believed were valid licit marriages, then remarried and have kids and a life.

  53. bookooball says:

    If you went the Germans right now, you aren’t paying attention.

  54. Scott says:

    Correction– “don’t illuminate”

  55. @Rollo
    You don’t know how many times I’ve heard the “until the Lord steers me otherwise” excuse when it comes to putting off motherhood in Christian circles. It used to make no sense to me, but looking at it through a Red Pill lens makes the desire to be dominated pretty clear. I guess it tips the woman’s hand too much if she were to just come out and say it. It’s a miracle any families stay together at all, the things we do to one another.

  56. Ras al Ghul says:

    Dalrock:

    “Given the consistency of contempt for the role of husband and father by modern Christian culture, one thing we should expect is for young men to look for other vocations which are not so deeply disrespected. So far we have been very fortunate here, but for young men who are growing up on a steady diet of Flywheel, Fireproof, Courageous, Mom’s Night Out, War Room, etc, it wouldn’t shock me if we ultimately see fewer young men who aspire to become the Christian punch line when they grow up.”

    While this has been my impression that young men are not as into getting married, as you point in your previous post a lot of men believe they are different, more Godly, more special (snowflake like) than other men and think it will be different for them and so sign up for their own destruction.

    I used to disagree with TFH’s callous disregard for men in this situation, because most men are so indoctrinated in the lies, they can’t see straight. However, the men that think this way are filled with Pride. And not Pride based on any kind of merit, but the kind of pride based on just flat out thinking they’re better than other men, even when there are no real observable reason to think that way.

  57. enriquesufi@gmail.com says:

    Joe, I’ve always thought that the Catholic Church’s infatuation with Mary was based upon worship of a Godess-head in a sense. They way my Catholic friends talked about Mary was no different than my Pagan/Wiccan friends talked about long-lost Celtic/Wiccan goddesses. Interesting point you make.

  58. feeriker says:

    On the movie side you have the Kendricks, on the music side you have For King and Country. These clowns, and I really mean clowns, performed at a service I was attending at the local mega church. The lead singer literally told the crowd’ that you should cherish and worship your women, it’s what god put them here for’. He said some other outrageous crap as well. The head pastor comes out when they’re done and doesn’t correct the singer for the false teaching nonsense he was spewing on stage. Very sad, all too typical these days.

    WOW, that’s very disconcerting (no pun intended) to hear about FK&C. While I’ve detected nothing overtly BP in their music, I suppose it makes perfect sense that they’d at some point reveal their true colors. The broadcast medium on which most of their music is heard is THOROUGHLY BP-christo-feminist, so maybe it’s an issue of pandering to the hand that delivers your paychecks. As for the megachurch pastor, he probably realized what a fool he’d be to admit that big bucks had been shelled out in order to be fed musically-coated heresy, so he kept his mouth shut in order to save face.

    Oh, and further about FK&C, remember too that they’re Brits, which also probably explains where the dilution of the Christian message comes from.

  59. @Rollo

    According to Jesus, marriage is only a temporary state for men and women while people are living on earth. There is no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven.

    And Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; Luke 20:34-35 NKJV

    Jesus does not say there is no marriage, but no marrying, that is no new unions. The verb gameo and ekgamesko used by Christ could be translated that in the resurrection there is neither taking a wife nor giving away of a daughter to be a wife. Both verbs are active present indicatives. If there was the great divorce and no more marriages the verb would have better clarity if in the in the perfect tense, indicating a past completed action. Further since there was marriage before sin, father and son remain father in son in the resurrection and the use of the metaphor of the wedding supper, there is a legitimate debate whether contemporary marriage is but a type that will pass away or if what God has joined together on earth remains together in eternity. When one considers what Peter means by the term joint heirs or heirs together (1 Peter 3:7) of the kingdom of grace, he seems to mean that the new united or joined couple is the heir rather than both individuals as independent heirs.

    The idea that there is no marriage is in my opinion part of the dualistic view of sex and gender. Dualism whether Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Platonism or neo-platonism, places an emphasis on the radical separation of physical from spiritual, the flawed from the ideal. In Christian thinking it denies the resurrection of the body and has an eternity of disembodied spirits. The christo-feminist looks forward to a perfect time when she is indeed equal to men and no longer the submissive doormat wife. It is Marx’s utopia where there is no hierarchy, no authority and no want. Sex is worldly in the dualistic view as is private property (marriage) and work. We do marriage a disservice when we teach that marriage ceases as soon as we have finally overcome sin. Sin ceases as marriage ceases. Once we are free from the ball and chain then we can be celibate, independent of familial relationships and responsibilities. This dualism is a major philosophical underpinning of marriage 2.0.

  60. Gunner Q says:

    Jonadab-the-Rechabite @ 7:04 pm:
    “Jesus does not say there is no marriage, but no marrying, that is no new unions.”

    Read your verse’s context. The Pharisees’ question was “whose wife will she be?” and Jesus’ answer was functionally, “Your question is meaningless. Things will be different.” There will be no marriage in heaven, preexisting or otherwise, because marriage’s purpose is to illustrate the eventual relationship between Christ and (believing) humanity.

    When the real thing arrives, there’s no more need for the symbols.

    On a pragmatic note, it can’t be Heaven if certain specific marriages are kept intact forever. That would surely be Hell.

  61. Dave says:

    So…
    When will true Christian folks begin to make godly movies? After all, this is America; no one stops anyone from doling whatever they want to do.

    @GunnerQ

    “Jesus does not say there is no marriage, but no marrying, that is no new unions.”

    Mark made your point even clearer:

    When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Mark 12:25.

    We know for a fact that angels don’t marry. They do not age nor die, so the do not need to reproduce to replace their numbers.

  62. Spike says:

    The biggest problem I see with those quotes is that they all are a woman telling a man what to do. Constantly.
    Isn’t this what grates on men in the first place? Isn’t this what embitters them to their wives?
    At first most men happily comply to wifely demands in a good-natured way. Then they find that every concession they make is the thin end of an ever-increasing wedge, a wedge that gets driven right down the middle of their families. And because the bond between children and mothers is biological, it feels ”natural” for the husband to be on the outer end of the wedge.

  63. Dalrock says:

    Dave, the problem isn’t who would make such movies. The problem is who would watch them. Christians love movies that tear down husbands and fathers. A Christian movie that didn’t deliver would flop.

  64. Spike says:

    Scott September 30, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    I think the term “soul mate” is simply another excuse for women to not work at or in a relationship. This is often why women expect men to “psychically” know what they are doing and thinking – he is, after all, her soul mate.
    You can see and feel the pagan influence from this – I can’t even describe it without referring to an occultic adjective.
    The idea of the soul mate is foreign to the New Testament. it actually came from the Greek pagans, especially Plato – who also gave us the notion of “Platonic love” – which men of course will trip over themselves to sign up for!

  65. Solomon says:

    Dalrock, I wonder what they’d think of my book “The Altar”, as a movie…

  66. desiderian says:

    “Dave, the problem isn’t who would make such movies. The problem is who would watch them. Christians love movies that tear down husbands and fathers. A Christian movie that didn’t deliver would flop.”

    Gibson’s Passion didn’t flop, nor did Tolkien’s LotR, which is deeply Christian.

    Mediocre Christians make mediocre art. Always have.

    Great art will find an audience, even among sinners. Especially among sinners.

  67. desiderian says:

    “The biggest problem I see with those quotes is that they all are a woman telling a man what to do. Constantly.”

    This. It is art made by men who have not reached maturity. They are still dominated by their mothers.

    Women leading men is like playing tennis with a vioin. It can be done, but not well, and it’s not what the instrument was designed for.

  68. @ Dave and Gunner

    I would like to answer your rebuttals and avoid being impolite to our host to hijack the comments section. So briefly:

    Gunner: the context is Jesus being asked a question to trap and embarrass him by the Sadducees who did not believe in a resurrection. Typical of Jesus, He does not answer the question posed but goes to the heart of their rebellion, the resurrection. Jesus starts His rebuke in the Matthew account saying to them ” You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” If there is no marriage in the resurrection we would expect to find support in the old testament for that position, for certainly we know the scriptures more fully than the Sadducees.

    Dave: you write “We know for a fact that angels don’t marry. They do not age nor die, so the do not need to reproduce to replace their numbers.” We do? How exactly do we know that? Are you sure that is not tradition based on the ideas of dualism that were prevalent in the the early centuries of the church? To my knowledge the Bible teaches no such thing, at least explicitly. If you know better please relieve me of my ignorance. We do not know how the angles are, we do know that in the age of innocence and prior to marriage God said it was not good that man was alone, and after the institution of marriage all of creation was declared very good.

    It very well could turn out that marriage was just a typology, but there is some substantial weight to the arguments to the contrary that should not be lightly dismissed.

    Oh and yes, hell would be all the more cruel if one could not escape their manipulative dripping faucet of a wife. Imagine the suffering of those who thought they were divorced never being able to escape the presence of their ex.

  69. ray says:

    “Pastor: I hear you. I thought the storyline was over the top fluff. But it was the prayer message I focused on.”

    He focused on the (idolatrous) ‘prayer message’ because that way he could avoid denouncing this neo-goddess-worship, disguised as Christianity and healthy marriage.

    He wouldn’t want to ‘focus’ on the overturning of God’s husband/wife order permeating the movie. That would offend and anger the female parishioners, and he wouldn’t be pastor no mo. Possibly unwelcome in the community, too! :O)

    And . . . he ‘hears you’? That’s the rap of the Transactional Analysis Management school of Christianity. Picture one of the apostles, or OT prophets running that Professional Pastor jive.

    Peter: Well, you know Master, you don’t really have to go through with it…

    Jesus: Oh, I hear you, Peter.

    Lost puppies all around. If some guy claiming to represent Christ responded to one of my questions with ‘I hear you’ he might get slapped.

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    Spike
    I think the term “soul mate” is simply another excuse for women to not work at or in a relationship. This is often why women expect men to “psychically” know what they are doing and thinking – he is, after all, her soul mate.

    Yeah, “soul mate” is the man who Just Gets It without her having to tell him anything. I believe it partly stems from women’s covert communications vs. men’s overt communications style, in part, and of course solipsism as well.

  71. GeminiXcX says:

    I did a bit of a background check on this “Brian Dodd” fella.

    Found this in his website:

    https://briandoddonleadership.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/ladies-how-to-get-your-husbands-to-do-anything-you-want/

    At the botton of this^^ blogpost, there are three links (in blue). I took a look at these two:

    “5 Lies men believe.”
    “8 Proven Ways Husbands Can Make Their Wives Feel Taken Care Of”

    This “man” isn’t a leader at all; he’s an emasculated faggot that his wife keeps around, because he doesn’t ‘rock the boat’ by actually exercising any real authoritative leadership.

    (The fingers-salute picture on the cover of his book is interesting. Guys that follow his marital advice will see their wives giving them the same fingers-salute picture, albeit with one finger less.)

    -GXcX

  72. GeminiXcX says:

    Based on Jude 6, and what happened in Genesis before the flood, angels and sexuality are spoken of with quite a negative connotation. Humans require biological reproduction; but angels are spirits — they defy our laws of existence.

    Angels are all described as the “sons of God”. (Job 1:6). “Male and female (sex distinctions) he created them” (Genesis 5:2) is used only for human creation.

    Angels don’t die from age, but they can be destroyed. 2 Peter 2:4.

    God directly created his human son, Adam, with no sexual acts involved (Luke 3:38). There is no reason that God could not create the entire army of heaven directly, giving each of his spirit sons life, one by one.

    I have read no biblical evidence to support the idea of ‘angel sex’.

    Regards.

    -GXcX

  73. Hank Flanders says:

    GeminiXcX

    Angels are all described as the “sons of God”. (Job 1:6).

    I’ve usually heard people rationalize that the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:2 were actually just other humans, but I’ve had to wonder how that can be true when we see that the “sons of God” are actually the angels (or fallen angels, since Satan was among them) when we look at Job 1:6. Moreover, why are the “sons of God” just being mentioned in verse two of Genesis chapter six when humans had already been shown to have been multiplying in verse one? Also, aren’t humans usually referred to as the “sons of men” in scripture, not as “sons of God?” Why would a woman be called the daughter of a man, while a man would be called a son of God?

  74. Dave says:

    @Jonadab-the-Rechabite:

    Dave: you write “We know for a fact that angels don’t marry. They do not age nor die, so the do not need to reproduce to replace their numbers.”We do? How exactly do we know that?

    We know because Jesus explicitly said so, and there is no hint to the contrary throughout Scripture.
    Here, read it again, this time from Luke:

    The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.. Luke 20:33-36

    Here, Jesus clearly said:
    1. Marriage is among “the children of this world” (i.e. humans)
    2. After resurrection, they won’t marry or die anymore.
    3. #2 qualify them to be like angels.

    ALL those who rise from the dead are single, because all earthly marriages become void at death. That is why you are free to re-marry when/if your spouse dies. The marital vows also bear this out: “…till death do us part…”.

    Relevant Bible passage:

    A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.
    1 Corinthians 7:39

    What is true of the woman is also true of the man. When his wife dies he is free to marry whoever he wills, provided she is a Christian.

    It very well could turn out that marriage was just a typology, but there is some substantial weight to the arguments to the contrary that should not be lightly dismissed.

    Really? Typology indeed. Jesus could not have been clearer in His speech. The statement in Mark and Luke are so clear there is no other sensible interpretation of what the speaker meant. When we read needless meanings into simple, straightforward statements in scripture, we add to His word and stand the risk of being condemned.

    If you feel the teachings of Scripture are diferent, kindly provide the appropriate passages which support your claims.

  75. Dave says:

    Dave, the problem isn’t who would make such movies. The problem is who would watch them. Christians love movies that tear down husbands and fathers. A Christian movie that didn’t deliver would flop.

    Quite the contrary. People are tired of the superficialities of churchianity these days. They want something real. Even the women are now accepting that FI has failed, and are actively distancing themselves from it. I think the tide is changing. All it takes is a bold public stand against culture by a few good men.

  76. mike says:

    One of the reasons a movie wouldn’t sell is because females are primarily the ones organizing all these church events that promote these kinds of movies.

  77. Rico says:

    Public beta supplication even AFTER she divorces him.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-cheshire/an-open-letter-to-my-now-_b_5876984.html

    Ugh. Subtext: I suffer nobly. I will happily be your emotional tampon if you ever need me. I’m such a nice guy that hopefully a reader will see this and want to date me.

    And, worst of all, a clearly self-deluding and self-aggrandizing rationalization of why she left him. Real answer, he’s a fat beta. His take: “We both know I’m not easy to love. I’m beyond driven, don’t sleep much… I have taken more then my fair share of risks…That’s the problem with being married to a person who pursues dreams. You get dragged into adventures you never signed up for.” Yes, she’s leaving you because you’re so driven, exciting, and adventurous! LOL!

    Again, ugh. It’s bad enough to white knight some aging slut on the carousel. It’s far worse to white knight your own wife and the mother of your children when she’s on her way out the door because she wants to go experience sex with a real man. The whole thing is so humiliating. When your wife walks out on you, you have to PUBLICLY THANK her?

    Can you even IMAGINE a woman writing something like this? “I’m so happy for you that you are going off to find yourself. It can’t have been easy living with an anxious, nagging harpy like me, and I wish you endless satisfaction in the arms of your pretty, young secretary. I can’t wait to meet her! I’m sure we’ll be great friends. And if you ever want to just talk–I’ll always be here for you. P.S. I should have done more sit ups!”

  78. Solomon says:

    @GxCx re: Angel sex – it is clear that angels mated with human women to produce the nephilim, the mighty men of great renown. I don’t know anything about angels mating with each other, and it seems that angels are only depicted as male throughout the bible… but in some sense, they are/were capable of sex and breeding with human women. The ones who did this were severely condemned, as it appears to pervert their design badly… but they did it. Genesis 6 and more

  79. Durandel Almiras says:

    According to Jesus, marriage is only a temporary state for men and women while people are living on earth. There is no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven. Sort of puts a full stop to the soul-mate myth doesn’t it? – Rollo Tomassi

    You are correct. The specific passages that deal with this are Matthew 22:24-30; Mark 12:19-25; Luke 20:28-36. Also, Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39-40, and 1 Timothy 5:14 show that the marriage vow breaks upon earthly death.

    @ Desiderian and Jonadab – be careful about proof-texting Scripture. You can’t read one passage and take it out of context of the rest.

  80. Renee Harris says:

    Hi
    I saw the film this week. Tony does repent to god in his kids room. But she( wife) never repents to anyone, thus her prays are not being heard
    If you don’t mind openly non Christian film” I think I love my wife ” is better this latest sermon on .screen If shown a man who choose to love his wife because want to. Much better
    And he have a girlfrind kinda

  81. PokeSalad says:

    Pastor: I hear you.

    That’s the “wink wink, us guys know what’s going on but stay quiet, we have to appease the ladies” code. It’s bull.

    Right up there with “Wanna get a beer? Well, first I gotta check with ‘The Boss’ *nyuck nyuck*’

    The pastor can no more ‘parse’ the ‘good prayer part’ of the movie out of the overall context than he can cherry-pick phrases of the Bible that are to his liking more than others. I bet Mrs. Lincoln focused on the ‘on the other hand, the play was really good’ part, too.

    That’s what Churchians do.

  82. DrTorch says:

    When will true Christian folks begin to make godly movies?

    Working on it. Not my area of expertise, but it is that of an old teammate of mine, and we’ve partnered up on this. We’re working on things w/ virtually no budget right now, shooting 1-2 trailers in a couple of weeks.

    Won’t say any of our scripts are perfect, but I’ve taken a deliberate tack to script the plot and characters much more in-line w/ a RP perspective. Fortunately, my partner has been very willing to adjust things to my concerns.

    Have a lead on funding, but unsure if it’s real or a scam. If anyone has any interest or leads in that regard, glad to talk further.

    I can post more, including links to our FB page, but I’ll defer to the host if that’s acceptable.

  83. Reluctant Neo says:

    A lot of people will see this and similar movies and justify them like this: “Wow, he’s being very Christ-like. He’s washing her feet. Besides, a husband is supposed to sacrifice for his wife and be a servant.”

    Showing love is a lot different than being “nice” as others have pointed out. It involves confronting sin and many other things. But is there a good RP discussion of “..as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her” out there somewhere? I know the current understanding of it is very wrong, I’m just not sure what it actually should look like.

    Is there a parallel for the submission of Christ (to death on the cross) in marriage?

  84. Scott says:

    Showing love is a lot different than being “nice” as others have pointed out. It involves confronting sin and many other things. But is there a good RP discussion of “..as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her” out there somewhere? I know the current understanding of it is very wrong, I’m just not sure what it actually should look like.

    Reluctant Neo–I nominate you for starting it. Do you have a blog?

    No matter well one can establish that it [submission/headship\ is clear biblical teaching the fastest short circuit is this passage.

    I usually say “Ok, fine. If necessary, I will throw myself in front of a train to save her life, but until then, I am in charge.”

    Not sure how else to approach that.

  85. Scott says:

    Just couldn’t stand looking at the mess on my last post:

    No matter how well one can establish that it [submission/headship] is clear biblical teaching the fastest short circuit is this passage.

  86. DrTorch says:

    Showing love is a lot different than being “nice” as others have pointed out. It involves confronting sin and many other things. But is there a good RP discussion of “..as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her” out there somewhere?

    Not sure that it’s truly RP, but Dan Allender’s “Bold Love” at starts off that Christian love is bold and confrontational, not being “nice”.

    I also have a book called “No More Christian Nice Guy” but I never finished it and I’m unsure of the content.

  87. Looking Glass says:

    @Reluctant Neo:

    It’s actually really simple.

    John 15:13 ESV: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.”

    And thus Christ went to the Cross to bear our Sins, something we are incapable of doing. The Lord paid the price I am not capable of paying. That is love.

    However, the Lord is. He is our sovereign and He makes little bones about it.

    Matthew 28:16-20 ESV “16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

    The only way to read Ephesians 5 as moderns do is to reject the Authority of Lord Jesus Christ. That is the necessary logical requirement, which means the person making the argument is rejecting the Lord. That’s putting your soul at risk. Never let that slide.

  88. Anchorman says:

    He wouldn’t want to ‘focus’ on the overturning of God’s husband/wife order permeating the movie. That would offend and anger the female parishioners, and he wouldn’t be pastor no mo. Possibly unwelcome in the community, too! :O)

    And . . . he ‘hears you’? That’s the rap of the Transactional Analysis Management school of Christianity. Picture one of the apostles, or OT prophets running that Professional Pastor jive.

    ray, I understand your skepticism.

    I know the pastor. He’s not that way. I’ve written before that he doesn’t do “Mothers Day” or “Fathers Day” sermons because he focuses the service on worshipping and honoring God alone.

    He didn’t want to focus on the husband/wife issue in the near term because he has, for some time, really wanted to reshape our Wednesday night prayer meeting. He’s relatively new to our church, but a southern pastor for decades in his late 50s, early 60s.

    He came to a northern church and found a lot of things in a rut. He re-energized the mission work and ministry and has turned toward our prayer life.

    Honestly, I don’t doubt he will tackle the husband/wife issue because it is a significant concern. He knows three good men in the congregation (very small service, maybe 25 on a Sunday) were steamrolled by divorce in the last five years. However, he made it clear he wants the church on solid ground before he turns to the other needed areas.

    As far as, “I hear you,” that needs context. He knows my feelings and (I believe) shares my feelings regarding Kendricks’ movies. That may seem dismissive, but it’s really short-hand between two men who have talked about the issues before. I’ve let it be known that I think we need to better prepare single men and husbands for what’s waiting for them. The younger men and the newly married men agreed. He has agreed, but its a small church with a lot of things to fix.

    It wasn’t dismissive. He was just communicating to a man he knows well (me) that we’re on the same page, but he can only eat one bite of an elephant at a time.

  89. Anchorman says:

    To add to my thoughts above, there isn’t a heavily female membership in the church. The women may be a majority, but not a majority of the newer members. They are mainly older women. The younger members tip more towards men. In fact, I can only think of one unmarried mother, but know of three divorced fathers.

  90. PuffyJacket says:

    Yeah, “soul mate” is the man who Just Gets It without her having to tell him anything. I believe it partly stems from women’s covert communications vs. men’s overt communications style, in part, and of course solipsism as well.

    Mathematically the idea of a soul mate is hilarious. If there was only one “right” man for every “right” woman, statistically speaking they would never meet.

  91. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Yet another article about how society fears and opposes “strong women.” From the article:

    There has never been a female equivalent of Hamlet or Willy Loman, the main character in Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, because strong women in lead roles make audiences uncomfortable, one of Britain’s leading theatre directors has said.

    Vicky Featherstone, artistic director at London’s Royal Court also believes both critics and audiences judge female playwrights more harshly than their male counterparts.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/strong-female-roles-make-audiences-uncomfortable-says-leading-director-a6674276.html

  92. Looking Glass says:

    I’m not sure how true this story about pastors is, but I’ve come across this a few things.

    Church gets a new pastor, and because of the dimensions of the stage, he has the piano moved 12 feet. This causes no end to trouble (and other confrontations) with the deacons. In 6 months, they let the pastor go and move the piano back. They hire a new pastor.

    The fired pastor returns one Sunday, a year later, to the church. He notices the piano had been moved, so he goes and asks the new pastor how he managed to pull it off. The pastor says he just moved the piano 1 foot per month.

    In Anchorman’s case, and as is the case in nearly all Churches, the rot is so deep that it’s not about directly dealing with the Husband/Wife issues right off the bat. It’s about actual belief in the Lord. The “Red Pill”, for the Christian, is the completely & utterly logical understanding of Genesis 1-5. It’s literally right there if you’re willing to actually listen to it. Which is why this (and a few other Biblical passages) is the angle of approach you take to changing Churches.

    This is a *long* game. If you’ve dealt with anyone that’s done Middle East missionary work, you should quickly get an appreciation for how much effort has been invested in that for the last several hundred years, yet also how few have come to the Lord. But that doesn’t mean the work isn’t to be done.

    So Anchorman can “do his job” by simply being the force that encourages the direction. Allowing someone to back up the pastor, encourage him and “sharpen” each other. This is flipping the devil’s tactic back upon him. The devil really does most of his work by having people show up and confuse everything.

    Matthew 5:13-16 ESV “13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.

    14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. ”

    You are Salt & Light my friends. Act like it.

  93. Looking Glass says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer:

    Gender-bent characters aren’t relatable or understandable. They are functionally aliens. Of course no one can say that out loud, these days.

  94. Scott says:

    Mathematically the idea of a soul mate is hilarious. If there was only one “right” man for every “right” woman, statistically speaking they would never meet.

    I believe this too. But it’s hard to tell your wife “my soul mate could have been someone living on a different continent 3,000 years ago.”

    Some stuff is just not worth the fight.

  95. Scott says:

    O/T
    I know pretty much every one here hates social media, but this one is pretty funny.

    [D: The link didn’t post for some reason, but it is here.]

  96. Cane Caldo says:

    @Puffy

    Mathematically the idea of a soul mate is hilarious. If there was only one “right” man for every “right” woman, statistically speaking they would never meet.

    Funny. My reason to defenestrate the idea of soul-mates was exactly opposite: I posited there were tens of thousands of women who could be my “soul-mate”. Who could deal with that?

  97. Anchorman says:

    There has never been a female equivalent of Hamlet or Willy Loman, the main character in Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, because strong women in lead roles make audiences uncomfortable, one of Britain’s leading theatre directors has said.

    Is she an idiot?

    How are Hamlet or Willy Loman “strong?” Hamlet was a psychological soupy mess and Willy was a running joke in his own life.

    Audiences have a glowing example of a “female lead” in a play. Vagina Monologues.

    That’s what women pay to see when they want to see a woman take center stage. Men didn’t write it. Men don’t go to see it (well, real men). That’s all woman. Soak it in. See what women write for other women to enjoy.

    Compare that to Hamlet or Death of a Salesman and get back to me when you have a serious issue.

  98. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    I believe this too. But it’s hard to tell your wife “my soul mate could have been someone living on a different continent 3,000 years ago.”

    Some stuff is just not worth the fight.

    Once, when discussing the idea of soul-mates, I did tell my wife there were at least 9,999 more soul-mates for me out there, and I asked her if I should pursue them all. If not all, of which would she approve that I pursue? If the answer was “none”, then can’t we agree that soul-mates aren’t born, but made? She agreed.

    At the time, we were at odds, so that put an end to the discussion. In hindsight, I should have continued, “Good, then would you like to get on with the business of mating my soul? It’s in here…”

  99. BradA says:

    Claiming angels can’t have sex doesn’t fit the early Genesis passage. How did those children become “mighty men” if they were just other humans? What made those offspring special?

    What is written is quite consistent with the idea that angels were not supposed to have sexual relations with those on the earth, but they can. I also tend to believe that the spirits of the Nephilim became the demons we have today, rather than those being fallen angels. Things fit that way much better and in a more logical manner.

    ========

    On the topic of the rest of the discussion: Many of you attribute to maliciousness what is much more easily explained by ignorance. I will go with Occam’s Razor here. A good number of humans who do wrong are just idiots, no negative intent is required.

    Some do clearly end up going malicious, but I am not sure that most of those accused in this thread as doing so to be malicious.

  100. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @Rico

    “Public beta supplication even AFTER she divorces him.”

    I read that article and I was so pissed reading it I said out loud “man, fuck that shit!” But I forgot I had my office door slightly ajar and one of my colleagues peeked in all panicked like “Pedat, what’s going on…you okay?” LOL.

  101. Scott says:

    Once, when discussing the idea of soul-mates, I did tell my wife there were at least 9,999 more soul-mates for me out there, and I asked her if I should pursue them all. If not all, of which would she approve that I pursue? If the answer was “none”, then can’t we agree that soul-mates aren’t born, but made? She agreed.

    At the time, we were at odds, so that put an end to the discussion. In hindsight, I should have continued, “Good, then would you like to get on with the business of mating my soul? It’s in here…”

    This is actually pretty funny.

    Here is the serious version she does accept– that there are literally millions of women that I could probably make a marriage work with–as well as men for her. This is a function of values, personality, etc. These are compatibility issues.

    But, a sort of “after the fact” soul mate idea does have a romantic quality to it that she likes. We are married, and this means that God joined us together and demands that we are to work it out together. What a “romantic” gift from God himself! It is also entirely compatible with one of my favorite Dalrock axioms– “marriage is the moral context to pursue sex and romance.”

  102. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    But, a sort of “after the fact” soul mate idea does have a romantic quality to it that she likes. We are married, and this means that God joined us together and demands that we are to work it out together. What a “romantic” gift from God himself!

    Yes, and it’s not just rhetoric. It’s actually true.

    It is also entirely compatible with one of my favorite Dalrock axioms– “marriage is the moral context to pursue sex and romance.”

    Also true.

  103. Eidolon says:

    Yeesh, this list…

    7. Fathers Set The Tone Of The Household

    Unless the wife doesn’t like that tone, I guess. In practice this just seems to mean “the husband is responsible for anything bad that happens, and the wife is responsible for anything good.”

    9. Excellence Matters – “A man wears his pants around his waist.” – Miss Clara to a teenager doing her yard work.

    Oh good. I’m glad this instruction in how to be a man comes from a woman. It would be crazy for a man to explain to a teenage boy how a man should behave. He’s busy setting the tone!

    10. Great Leaders Focus On What They Can Do. Not What They Can’t – “I can’t do nothin’ but call folks.” – Miss Clara

    Who is she leading exactly? Are we acknowledging that to the extent that the wife follows any leader, it’s another woman and not her husband?

    12. Your Talent Can Take You Where Your Character Cannot Sustain You – Though he was an incredibly talented salesman, Tony was filled with greed and stealing from company.

    Your Beauty Can Take You Where Your Character Cannot Sustain You — Though she was pretty enough to attract an attractive husband, Elizabeth was filled with criticism and frigidity and was unwilling to fulfill her marital obligations.

    22. Money Can’t Buy You Love, Happiness or Contentment – Elizabeth says, “I’d rather have a good marriage than more money.”

    But not enough to be nice, supportive or sexually open to her husband.

    31. A Life Of Prayer Requires Commitment – “When’s the last time you heard of a woman giving up closet space?” – Michael. Who added, “I wished my wife prayed for me like that.”

    It seems like she’s praying about her husband, not for him, in the movie. I wouldn’t call “God please fix my husband so he’s what I want him to be” praying for him, exactly.

    “There are men out there that do love their families.” – T.C. Stallings

    Oddly grudging…kind of sounds like he’s saying “there are men in the production of this movie that do love their families.”

  104. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @Looking Glass

    “The only way to read Ephesians 5 as moderns do is to reject the Authority of Lord Jesus Christ. That is the necessary logical requirement, which means the person making the argument is rejecting the Lord. That’s putting your soul at risk. Never let that slide.”

    I totally agree and I wonder if you’ve been reading my emails and texts…

    ..because recently, with several female associates the topic of submission came up. Two of them were older so-called Christian women who were unmarried but claimed to desire husbands, but they both had the nerve to argue with me about Ephesians 5. I finally wrote this to both of them. It was so impactful, I have it saved in Flashpaste:

    “Any person, especially a so-called Christian woman, who flat out denies the authority of Scripture is not one I can fellowship with in any context, much less consider or even recommend to anyone I know as a suitable partner or wife. Whether you’re willfully in rebellion, a babe, or flat out unconverted is no longer my business. All the best to you on your journey.”

    Too many words, I think, so I may just start sending this:

    It’s sort of how I felt while watching War Room, but I was committed to giving you guys my play-by-play.

  105. tertioptus says:

    @bkilbour Right on! They want to interpret love like a child would. As in love means that you do what I want.

  106. desiderian says:

    Anchorman,

    “he can only eat one bite of an elephant at a time.”

    It’s time.

  107. PuffyJacket says:

    @ Cane

    Funny. My reason to defenestrate the idea of soul-mates was exactly opposite: I posited there were tens of thousands of women who could be my “soul-mate”. Who could deal with that?

    It’s two sides of the same coin, really. The upshot of showing it’s impossible to have only one “soul mate” is that each person therefore must have several.

    Surely God wasn’t so mean as to give us one, and only one “soul mate”. That would be beyond cruel.

  108. Dave says:

    And, why is adultery called “cheating” again? And fornication called “we slept together”?
    Euphemisms are widespread these days, and they should not be allowed to lessen the evil of the activity.

  109. DissidenRight says:

    No, husbands either serve their wives or serve Christ–you cannot do both.

  110. Looking Glass says:

    @Pedat:

    Truthfully, it’s just basic logic applied to the situation. But “basic logic” only works when your assumptions are accurate to the situation. (“If -> Then” statements only work on the condition “If” is, itself, true.) If the Lord is sovereign, then you will work to follow what He has told us to do. If He isn’t, then you’ll just hold onto the bits that serve you.

    You have to actually do the split acceptance when dealing with other humans, but our relationship with God is a wholly different matter. It’s a pretty common way to damn yourself in the process.

  111. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @Looking Glass

    Indeed concerning “split acceptance”… I recently had to have it gracefully pointed out to me, by an astute sister who contributes to our discussions regularly, that women, on their own, simply lack all they need concerning the things of God, so men need to lead them, out of their folly. This isn’t hypoagency, per se, but merely a box that we need to tick when dwelling with them accordingly to knowledge.

    The problem, as we’ve all discovered, is they reject the men of God in their lives, even their brothers and uncles and homeboys, to their own peril.

    I come from a huge family of lifelong church goers and I refuse to discuss the Oracles with most of them, especially the wimmens, and never during the Holidays, lest I lose my appetite altogether.

    #GodLoveEmTheySoDaft are my words of comfort.

  112. GeminiXcX says:

    @Brad A; Solomon

    I concur with both your posts. I was arguing against the concept of ‘angel sex’ with each other, as spirits.

    Regards

    -GXcX

  113. tz says:

    http://www.intothebreach.net/into-the-breach/ Some days I’m embarrased to be Catholic.

  114. craig says:

    tz says: “http://www.intothebreach.net/into-the-breach/ Some days I’m embarrased to be Catholic.”

    I wanted to like Bishop Olmsted’s letter. First, it’s so rare that the Church says or does anything specifically directed to men these days, that a pep talk seems like it ought to be a good thing. Second, Olmsted appears to be one of the good ones who is not actively trying to sell out the faith for worldly esteem. But in the end, the letter never got past “man up, because man’s purpose in life is to suffer” or something like that. As Bogart might have said, “I wouldn’t bring up [that] if I were you: it’s poor salesmanship.”

    This letter might have scored good points in 1955, before the sexual revolution had upended the paradigm of male-female relationships. Today it reads as if only men’s desires and temptations have changed any since then. Would any bishop today even have the ability to write a similar letter about the sexual revolution’s unfettering of women’s base desires and temptations? If he could, would he have the stones to publish it and face the tidal wave of hate that would ensue?

    While the letter has some things that are generically useful for all Christians, it is weakest in the parts aimed specifically at men. Just as one example of the truncated theology of the letter, he asks outright ‘what does it mean to father?’ but never actually answers his own question. Fatherhood is good; we get that. What makes a man a father instead of a baby-daddy? What makes the biblical patriarchs good fathers, when men back then changed no diapers and did no housework, and might have been gone from home for extended periods? A good father has responsibilities, but what makes him different from an employee? Bishop Olmsted flits around the center but never gets there: it’s about authority. What Christians dare not say anymore is that “father” is ultimately equivalent to “author”, the one who conceives and directs a creative action. God is Father because He is Author; it’s His world and we live in it. In all respects He is head of the ‘household’. How can this letter exalt fatherhood and not mention authority as essential to the definition?

  115. Pingback: Christian goddess worship; we are not worthy! | Dalrock

  116. Framboise says:

    “Husbands of course should serve their wives”

    What ??? Does Christ serve his church or is it the church that serves him ?

    The idea of a man serving a woman is the first step to deep emasculation.

    Remember what Abigail said when David proposed her ? She was on her knees , saying Iam ready to SERVE you.

    No man has ever said such a thing to a woman.
    It is a disgrace .

    Notice also that when Jesus washed his disciples’ feet , he was alone with MEN ONLY .
    Never would he have washed a woman’s feet as a man.

    The man serves Christ and the woman serves the man. It is the principle of submission.

  117. Framboise says:

    Another truly demonic so called Christian movie that follows the feminist dollar or euro (maybe it will be in Europe sooner or later ..)

    Money , money , money ..

    Nice place in hell for all those who will have worhsipped the godess on earth , stuck in a devil /female-dominated monogamous marriage.

    [D: Welcome. Please pick one handle and stay with it. Also, please note that as a male space this blog has a somewhat unusual comment policy.]

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