Women’s Studies, complementarian style

I shouldn’t have been surprised to learn that there is a Women’s Studies professor on the CBMW Council:

Mary Kassian, M.C.A.O.T.

Homemaker, Author, Women’s Ministry Consultant
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Distinguished Professor of Women’s Studies, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Louisville, KY

For an idea of just what a complementarian Women’s Studies professor is like, here is a video of Professor Kassian discussing the importance of escaping the repression of the 1950s, as well as her feminist past. Kassian features this video in a blog post titled Kissing Traditionalism Good-bye.  You can watch the video below or from her blog, but either way I suggest clicking on her blog to see the girlpower image she prefaced this with.  Kassian is the one in red on the left:

The unspoken premise of the discussion is that Christians got it all wrong for nineteen and a half centuries, and then the 1960s (and NOW) came along and enlightened Christianity regarding the problem that has no name.  I’m guessing they intended for the title “women’s studies” to be ironic, but it is clear that what they are selling is at best feminism light.

Kassian isn’t the only close connection between the CBMW leadership and Baptist women’s studies programs.  CBMW founders Paige and Dorothy Paterson drove the creation of women’s studies programs at two other Baptist seminaries:

[Dorothy] Patterson, along with her husband, were instrumental in establishing women’s studies programs at Southwestern and at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, where Paige Patterson was president until his election at Southwestern in 2003.

Dorothy Patterson was the only woman in the founding of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

This entry was posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Dorothy Patterson, Mary Kassian, Moxie, The Real Feminists, Turning a blind eye, Women's Studies. Bookmark the permalink.

173 Responses to Women’s Studies, complementarian style

  1. Pingback: Women’s Studies, complementarian style | Manosphere.com

  2. enrique says:

    It proves a larger point Dalrock, women spend WAY TOO MUCH TIME naval gazing. Sheesh, if men even spent 1/10th of this amount of time in their days, weeks, months, years and life, doing so-called “introspection” let alone the outro-spection (cultural criticism) women do. It’s one big talk fest about feelings. Like men don’t have issues, and have led some life of leisure.

    And in the West, which means basically all of the White world, there is so much mental masturbation about 1st World problems, it’s nauseating. These women live like QUEENS compared to the rest of history, male or female.

    And what’s up with your girl’s hairdo? Goodness woman, spend a few minutes taming that crow’s nest of hair you got.

  3. Pingback: Women’s Studies, complementarian style | Neoreactive

  4. Bruce says:

    I think small, “fundie” churches are the way to go. If you’re Baptist, independent or confessional Baptists, if you’re Catholic, the SSPX, etc. Large Christian churches and organizations are almost universally liberal and modernist. Avoid anything with the word “Council” in its title.

  5. Still think church culture and doctrine haven’t been assimilated by the Feminine Imperative?

    Hi Insanity!

  6. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Gents, it’s becoming obvious by now that Bible knowledge is the only way to go. Read the Bible for yourself. The thing about the churches is this……..pastors are always going to side with the women. That’s where the money comes from. Deep down, I suspect most pastors are envious of successful men, and try to take them down a notch. If they can destroy the marriage of a successful man, well, that’s how they feed their ego.

    It’s plain to see that marriage is a suckers bet. MGTOW is growing. And, no, I don’t care about children in the future. They would just be hostages for my economic rape. Womens studies? Ain’t that just real trendy?

  7. Hank Flanders says:

    Well, they talked a lot, but they didn’t say anything. Exactly how are they “kissing traditionalism goodbye” (other than by not being a June Cleaver clone)? This video and that blog post are rather sparse on details. Maybe that’s by design.

  8. mike says:

    It sure takes a lot of explanation for women to rationalize why they don’t respect their husbands in a two income household. And, once again, these people always have financial interests in pushing the imperative.

  9. Chris says:

    “MGTOW is growing. And, no, I don’t care about children in the future. They would just be hostages for my economic rape. Womens studies? Ain’t that just real trendy?”

    This sums up my mentality for the majority of my adult life. Consequently, I’ve been very interested in the Shakers in recent months.

  10. Novaseeker says:

    A couple of ideas.

    One is that it seems at least possible that at least some of the CBMW people have experienced a kind of double-agent Trojan horse. In other words, it isn’t beyond imagination that the initial idea was to create a kind of “Christian equivalent” to women’s studies as a counter to the secular women’s studies departments. However, the problem is that once this is up and running, of course it becomes the locus of all kinds of feminist dissembling due to the massive impact of the culture on the church as well as everywhere else. So what may have in part been intended as a kind of Trojan horse including a non-feminist core instead became captive to feminism and so became a Trojan horse in reverse, if you will. It’s the problem when you try to bring in a “little bit” of a gargantuan force such as feminism.

    ===

    On a broader level, what you see here is the classic problem of American (and Anglo-Western in general) conservatism – it wants a “middle ground” between the “extremes” of feminism and traditionalism. Kind of a “third way”, which is ‘faithful’ but not ‘hidebound’. This is because it wants to appeal to the mainstream, rather than alienate itself from it by appearing to be too far out of step with what “normal people do”. In understanding this, we can see clearly its utter uselessness at the same time – it cannot possibly be the source of any cultural, or even personal, programme of change or renewal when it is tethered to a mainstream that is being constantly driven to the progressive left. These people are quite literally being taken along for a ride, and are happy to be in that position because it is less alienating to the people they are “trying to reach” than would be the case if they were standing their ground with the traditionals.

    A key example in this specific video is the discussion of what complementarianism is. Listen to her definition of “complementarianism” – men and women are different, and that’s it. Expressly says that there are no specific “roles” or implications of that, other than what you work out yourselves, in your own circumstances, and “working together to make a balanced whole”. This is really just mainstream-ism packaged in Christianese. The mainstream perfectly accepts that men and women are different, it just rejects that these differences imply certain specific roles in the context of a marriage – everyone can work that out for themselves, as long as they acknowledge that men and women are in some substantial way different. In placing themselves comfortably within this mainstream, they think that they are helping to stay relevant to regular people, over and against the LGBTQQBGYGWTFBBQ onslaught, but the reality is that they are just leading people further and further away from what the church has always taught in these areas, and towards a kind of “do it yourself” system which has its roots in secular contemporary mainstream individualism more than it does any kind of Christian tradition, belief or praxis.

    Catholics have this same division: traditionalists (ones who follow the old ways), neo-Catholics (conservative maintreamers who see trads as hidebound and irrelevant for contemporary culture, “lacking creativity in taking on current challenges in ways that make sense to people today” and so on, all of which usually involves some kind of form over substance or vice versa as the context may require), and lefties/progressives. In Orthodoxy, the groups are less pronounced (our setting is much more dominated by traditionalism than most of Catholicism is), but they are still there. I think in any grouping in the US you will see this kind of distribution, and it’s also starting to come out of the closet politically as well – there is a separation happening, and true colors are being shown. The mainstream conservatives are like the women in this video, while the traditionalists are loathed by both them and the left. This is a growing social conflict, and I expect that the ones in the middle will be the dwindling group as time goes along.

  11. greyghost says:

    Imagine the sap that marries one of these women. Or even one of the kids from that bible study class.
    Good luck Hank there’s plenty of good women out there for you. That church is putting them out ready for the world to help you past your inadequacies. Praise the Lord

  12. Looking Glass says:

    2000 Years and Paul still addresses the problem quite easily.

    2 Timothy 3:1-7 (ESV)

    “But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. “

  13. Average White Male says:

    The culture informs the Bible? What good is the Bible then? Who allowed these women to teach?

  14. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    Well, well; lookee there; Southern Baptists now have ‘Women’s Studies’ at their seminaries; typical… Anyone who still thinks SoBaps are truly trads is an idiot.

  15. Dalrock says:

    Excellent analysis Novaseeker (as usual).

    A key example in this specific video is the discussion of what complementarianism is. Listen to her definition of “complementarianism” – men and women are different, and that’s it. Expressly says that there are no specific “roles” or implications of that, other than what you work out yourselves, in your own circumstances, and “working together to make a balanced whole”. This is really just mainstream-ism packaged in Christianese. The mainstream perfectly accepts that men and women are different, it just rejects that these differences imply certain specific roles in the context of a marriage – everyone can work that out for themselves, as long as they acknowledge that men and women are in some substantial way different.

    This is true, but there is one difference. Complementarians add in a massive dose of chivalry. They don’t want any restrictions on women, but they are downright excited about the idea of men being sacrificed for women. Men protecting women and coming out unscathed? Yawn, sure. Men being killed or severly injured protecting or trying to protect women? That’s what I’m talkin’ about! This allows them to position themselves as something like traditional while being entirely nonthreatening to feminism. It also allows them to position themselves as the only real man in the room*. It is cowardice disguised as courage, and as such you can’t argue with the appeal.

    *It should be no surprise that Driscoll’s closest mentor was John Piper.

  16. Will S. says:

    And the CBMW are clearly by no means traditionalists in any meaningful sense of the word, either.

  17. ljess says:

    There is leeway in the power of a woman – read proverbs 31 – She was a capable person who was able to be a small business owner – She also was respected because of her family life – Today’s version have no clue – woman’s studies puts it fair into the middle of the satanic feminist movement, They are in for a very big disappointment when God rejects them because they do not follow him – Christian men also have issues to deal with – Never marry a divorcee (unless she was the victim of adultery) – Stay clear of single mothers who had a life of disrespecting God’s word. Gods may forgive them if they repent but he does not say that the consequences of sin go away. Christian men need to stay away from fornication – Do not throw away your good standing before God because of a woman.

  18. Novaseeker says:

    Dalrock —

    That’s a good point. That’s the one “inherent sex role” that these people will admit to, and runs entirely in one direction, of course.

  19. PokeSalad says:

    So what may have in part been intended as a kind of Trojan horse including a non-feminist core instead became captive to feminism and so became a Trojan horse in reverse, if you will.

    O’Sullivan’s Law: Any organization not expressly right-wing becomes left-wing over time.

  20. Jim says:

    “I shouldn’t have been surprised to learn that there is a Women’s Studies professor on the CBMW Council”

    No you shouldn’t have. Christ in longer the head of the church for these people. Team Vagina is. What a bunch of self-centered cunts. These so-called churches have never and will never get one red cent of my income. Ever.

  21. Opus says:

    Would it just not be a lot simpler if they outed themselves and simply ditched The Bible: because that is the end result of their – as they spin it – wanting to escape the 1950s. I recall the 1950s and I greatly resent the idea that the 1950s were somehow oppressive to women (but not to men): at least whenever I came home, either from playing in the road or later from school, I knew that my Mother would be there: no Kindergarten, Nannies or Social Workers; and I only saw my Father on Sundays because he was working in what must have been mind-numbing work, six days a week; too poor for a motor car, thus commuting by Omnibus. If those women are Christians, then (even were I a believer) I would wish to disassociate myself from their self-serving rhetoric: they are not a good advertisement for your Faith. Christians have never had it easy, assayed by both external forces and internal temptation and it seems to me ironic that at a time when women (as you can see from their couture and bouffant hair) have a life – and partly because they are American – easier than ever a woman or man had in the history of The Faith that they should find it harder than ever to live up to their asserted beliefs. Needles and Camel’s eyes comes to mind for truly it would appear the poor are blessed.

    What by the way is a Homemaker? Is it the new word for single mother? Is it the new name for Divorcees? Should I as a single male add that as one of my accomplishments.

  22. Thanks for the laugh, Dalrock. Much appreciated!

  23. Novaseeker says:

    Would it just not be a lot simpler if they outed themselves and simply ditched The Bible:

    Wouldn’t do, because they want to be considered (and consider themselves) as righteous in the eyes of God.

    As they define it, of course, but that’s a bigger issue.

  24. It’s not really about us.. it’s about him..

    Yet, all they talk about is themselves.. Funny that.

  25. I think we can boil down their position to… women must be able to do everything they want without consequences and men must be forced to pick up the pieces and roll with it. Otherwise, oppression of women. Yeah, no. They can keep it.

  26. AmicusC says:

    Agree Nova. and this is what causes so many young men to leave the church. I am still catholic but have no desire to go to church to hear the same bs I hear everywhere else.

  27. I recall the 1950s and I greatly resent the idea that the 1950s were somehow oppressive to women (but not to men): at least whenever I came home, either from playing in the road or later from school, I knew that my Mother would be there: no Kindergarten, Nannies or Social Workers; and I only saw my Father on Sundays because he was working in what must have been mind-numbing work, six days a week; too poor for a motor car, thus commuting by Omnibus.

    Most definitely, these femdikes have no idea what oppression actually is. Anytime throughout history, the average man has been treated far worse than the average women and been expected to do so much more, even to his death.

  28. Opus says:

    @Novaseeker

    In other words it is all about posturing. In that respect the difference between England and America is here instructive: in England people who bang on about religion are seen as ‘nutters’; you can attend church especially at Xmas and Easter, or its more minimal cousin Christening, marriages and Funerals, if you like like but it is bad form to talk about your beliefs publicly; for then one becomes suspect, as if religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel. It appears to me that in America, the adoption of Christianity – note your present President’s avowal of his Christianity – is seen as being on a par – as it is over here – with being involved in Charitable work: with an area the size of New York State and a population only 50% higher than California we have – no less than 170,000 registered charities! Charities like the RSPCC – much criticised by certain Manospherians – of course have their Women’s Studies Professors, indeed little else.

  29. The Question says:

    @Opus says:
    “Would it just not be a lot simpler if they outed themselves and simply ditched The Bible: because that is the end result of their – as they spin it – wanting to escape the 1950s.”

    The reason they don’t is because the Bible is an incredibly powerful tool or weapon to use to control people when you twist it so that you are always in the position of spiritual and moral authority and it always means what fits your agenda, i.e. you are acting as a self-appointed pope issuing ex cathedra pronouncements as to what someone else must do if they are to be a part of the faith. As Rollo Tomassi has pointed out repeatedly here, they have replaced the Holy Spirit with the FI and made it so that to rebel against the FI is to rebel against God himself. Without the pretense of the Bible, all you have is the FI, and even that is too much for the AFC in church. That’s why so many church men remain stuck within the FI frame because it has been so engrained into their heads that Christianity and the FI are one and the same that to reject one requires rejecting the other.

    As for the 1950s, they treat it like an all-you-can-eat buffet. They pick out the parts of the 1950s, that serve the FI, such as a dutiful, hard-working, loyal beta provider husband who offers financial security and a home and two cars, while leaving out any aspects of it that places any kind of restrictions on women in any way whatsoever.

    One day I hope men will reply to commands to “man up” with “This isn’t the 1950s anymore!” Or, my preferred quip, “You just want me sex-starved, overworked, and in the garage.”

  30. m11nine says:

    On Nancy Leigh DeMoss, the other speaker here:

    There was a discussion at Dalrock (I think) a couple months ago on the Prov.7 woman, and ironically Nancy was doing a Prov.7 podcast that my wife subscribes to (we share icloud accounts so they also appear on my phone.) So I gave it a listen, “not that there’s anything wrong with that”.

    https://www.reviveourhearts.com/radio/revive-our-hearts/long-view-relationships/

    Anyway, in discussing the affair offer and enticement made by the Proverbs wife to the man on the street, Nancy says, in the transcript linked,

    “This foolish woman and this young man have not become sexually intimate yet. They have not done any immoral act, but they are well on the way. They’re being set up for moral failure by this lifestyle that is willing to sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate.”

    I could hardly believe what I was hearing, because the way I hear that, its basically excusing anything prior to becoming physically connected with their respective organs. Lost some respect to N.L.D. that day. The following quote was just before that,

    “She’s offering to this man who is not her husband something that is not hers to give. She’s offering him herself—her body, her heart, her affection, her admiration—and all of that belongs to someone else. It belongs to her husband. First Corinthians 7 says that the wife’s body does not belong to herself, and the husband’s body is not his own (v. 4). The husband’s body belongs to his wife, and for the woman who is married, her body belongs to her husband.”

    If a wife offers her body (what she just called “her husband’s body”), and her husband’s bed to someone else, she, at the least, has committed an “immoral act”. At what point, Nancy, does this become a moral failure? Just the tip?

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hank Flanders
    This video and that blog post are rather sparse on details. Maybe that’s by design.

    Ambiguity and plausible deniability are features of the female reproductive strategy, and therefore tend to permeate female discourse.

    Allow me to sum up the vid: “I eat my cake and yet I have it, too, and that’s Complementarianism in practice”.

    Novaseeker:
    This is really just mainstream-ism packaged in Christianese.

    Yes, that’s how conservative feminists generally speak and act. Bear in mind that the positions in this video weren’t considered “conservative” 25 years ago, they were in fact standard 2nd wave feminism, gender-equity version. So once again we see the “sea anchor” effect Dalrock described a couple of years back – “traditional” “conservative” etc. are really liberal with lag of 1 generation.

    Dalrock
    Complementarians add in a massive dose of chivalry. They don’t want any restrictions on women, but they are downright excited about the idea of men being sacrificed for women.

    That’s their neo-Victorianism peeking out. I spent a little time on John Piper’s site. It’s as if no time has passed since 1960-something, it’s like a fly in amber. This makes it difficult to even attempt to interact with such people – someone who is still struggling to come to grips with 2nd stage feminism of the 1980’s variety has utterly no clue what the marriage market place looks like in a world where women under 30 have constant validation / affirmation via social media, for example. Someone who thinks of “college” as it was circa 1985 has zero clue what it looks like now, with “yes means yes until it doesn’t” codes, speech codes, triggering codes, and so forth.

    The CBMW is a dinosaur. Ditto Piper. They are like horse-and-buggy drivers who can’t understand what all these machines called “cars” are doing on their roads.

  32. Novaseeker says:

    In other words it is all about posturing.

    To some extent, yes, and I take your point about the comparison between charitable work and “respectable” Christianity in the US, but in reality the difference is deeper. Many, many more people in the US are personally convicted that their approach (whether traditional, these guys, or secular progressive/SJW) is the truly righteous one — they are not posturing, they are truly believing that they have *moral* authority, including in many cases the authority to dictate to the society in general, or at least some subset of it. These are true believers, even if, as in the case of the secular progressives, they do not believe in God, they do believe in their moral system, and its inherent (and in their eyes obvious) morality.

    There are cynical power grabbers everywhere, including here. But most of them are true believers who are driven by the conviction that their approach is the most moral one. This is an inherent characteristic of the US, running side by side with the rampant individualist tendencies, in a kind of never ending tension.

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    Never marry a divorcee (unless she was the victim of adultery)

    Not to threadjack, but…
    That would depend entirely on her definition of “adultery”. Exhibit A: Fireproof, where a man using porn = “adultery” but a woman setting herself up for an affair with a doctor = “something else”.
    I do not personally know of any divorces that stemmed solely from male use of porn, but it won’t surprise me when I run across one.

  34. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker to Opus
    There are cynical power grabbers everywhere, including here. But most of them are true believers who are driven by the conviction that their approach is the most moral one. This is an inherent characteristic of the US, running side by side with the rampant individualist tendencies, in a kind of never ending tension.

    Look, the history of the churches in the US is just different from the history of the church / churches in England. Many of the various flavo(u)rs of English dissident actively left that island and moved to the colonies in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, leaving behind the Church of England. It isn’t just the difference between forms – high church vs. low church, Anglican vs. Methodist / Baptist / etc. but that’s where it begins.

    Groups like the CBMW, Piper’s followers, etc. truly believe they are fully understanding the Bible. They aren’t faking it. It’s just that they don’t read the fine manual all the way through, and they tend to gloss over parts they don’t like (this appears to be human nature…). Plus, to add just a whiff of cynicism, they make money off of what they do, and thus their income depends in part on not fully understanding what certain parts of the Bible actually say.

  35. bkilbour says:

    @Opus
    Mainstream churches abandoning the Bible? Well, only if they can get a complete copy of the “Gospel of Eve.” The Borborite Gnostic women used it as a justification to ritualistically eat the semen of the head male; it was literally a cult of hypergamy, with a semi-Christian facade.

  36. jeff says:

    Rollo,

    LMAO!!! I have know many pastors in prominent churches who will say feminism has entered The Church, but will not admit has entered Their Church OR Their Pulpit.

    7:30 she doesn’t say shit, just babbles like a true modern idiot like the president.

  37. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Why all the hate for June Cleaver? She’s an attractive woman that happily respects a good husband, raises his children and devotes herself to helping him build their home. I can understand feminists shrieking over what a horrible fate that is to be stuck in, but so-called conservative Christians?

    I propose that prospective and existing Christian husbands should seek to liberate themselves from the traditionalism of the past by shedding the old and inconvenient constraints of their role — just as the ladies have! What constraints specifically? Let’s start with the idea of faithfulness. Sex is a strong desire for a man, and modern Christian wives show little inclination to provide it regularly, despite instruction from the Bible itself that they should do so. Thus there should be no problem with a husband keeping a few in rotation on the side for when his partner just isn’t “in the mood.” And this business of the husband “giving up himself up” for the wife as Christ did the church; why should that be necessary? My life is quite valuable to me, and she does claim that she’s “a strong woman.” I’m sure she can handle herself in a dire situation — and if not, well, she’s replaceable!

    If the wives don’t want to be burdened by being June, they shouldn’t be bothered when the husbands are no longer playing Ward.

  38. Dave says:

    Well, they talked a lot, but they didn’t say anything. Exactly how are they “kissing traditionalism goodbye” (other than by not being a June Cleaver clone)? This video and that blog post are rather sparse on details. Maybe that’s by design.

    Exactly. I was waiting for the punchline also, but none came. Typical women’s chatter. Travel from Maryland to New York by way of California.

  39. Opus says:

    @Novaseeker

    That is very interesting and a nuance that I would not otherwise have been attuned to.

    If I may say something more about the 1950s: it is interesting that that decade (as The Question acknowledges) comes in from the Feminist for a lot of flack yet – again on my side of the pond – consider this little speech from Prime Minister Major shortly after he assumed that position in 1991. He is seen as evoking the 1950s and as a better time and place:

    “Fifty years on from now England will still be the country of long shadows on village greens, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers [Pools being the predecessor to The Lottery] and old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist [he there quotes from Orwell] and if we get our way Shakespeare will still be read even in schools”.

    Whether one thinks Major was insufficiently prescient or whether one thinks he was dissembling, he was drawing on a romanticised view of the past that would appeal to his audience – Eurosceptics. Would an American President feel happy in using such images?

  40. feeriker says:

    Distinguished Professor of Women’s Studies, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
    Louisville, KY

    This just supports my assertion that seminaries/Bible colleges are a very big part of the problem, not in any way better than/different from secular institutions of higher indoctrination that seek to destroy Christian culture.

  41. enrique says:

    Anon, well put. Every time I happen across Focus on the Family or Family Life Today, when I’m driving and bored, I hear some middle-aged harpy pushing the feminine imperative, and you can just PICTURE as she laughs and her cucked husband has the other mic in the studio, that she looks like some big-haired, turtleneck-sweater-wearing prude that withholds sex from her 40-year old husband and goes on about “what we need now are real men”.

    Whenever she/they talk about women’s roles, it’s essentially the converse of TradCon’s servant-leadership…something like, “Supportive-Field Marshal.” Glad I don’t go to church, I can only imagine how it is nowdays for younger guys.

  42. feeriker says:

    Gents, it’s becoming obvious by now that Bible knowledge is the only way to go. Read the Bible for yourself.

    That sort of heretical behavior will get you expelled from many a cultist indoctrination center masquerading as a BC/seminary/”Christian” college. Bob Jones “University” (*smirk*) and Pensacola “Christian College” are two examples that readily come to mind. I’m sure others on the ecclesio-Marxist end of the churchian indoctrination spectrum are expert practioners of this sort of spiritual-academic persecution as well.

    Critical thought and independent analysis of Scripture –which puts the student at risk of understanding it for what it clearly and plainly says, minus the modernist filter is the new cardinal sin of sins in “Christian” academia.

  43. Novaseeker says:

    Would an American President feel happy in using such images?

    Probably not in 2015, but I doubt a Tory would in 2015 as well. Reagan did make explicit references to revival of what came before after the 60s-70s, in whose wake he came, and GWB, while less floral in his rhetoric, also evoked similar ideas (which were much more polarizing in the noughts than they were in the early 1980s).

  44. gdgm+ says:

    Article that references both Kassian and DeMoss:

    will the real complementarian please stand up?

  45. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Plus, to add just a whiff of cynicism, they make money off of what they do, and thus their income depends in part on not fully understanding what certain parts of the Bible actually say.

    I think the financial incentive is there, but I don’t think it is the naked driving force. My guess is it is much more like the way conservative SCOTUS justices tend to become corrupted by the DC cocktail circuit. They want to be liked by the cool crowd, and end up adjusting their positions accordingly. In this case going along with the cool crowd has the added benefit of making the women around them happy, what Empath calls the lift.

    All three forces are in alignment pushing them where they ended up. Financial/career success, being liked by the cool crowd, and getting the lift. Choosing the easy path that makes you successful, popular, and feels good, is an obvious choice over the hard path that does the opposite. The temptation is huge.

  46. Dalrock, I don’t see a damned thing different from out and out third-wave here with a little extra female privilege for themselves. They expect their chivalry without responsibility, except framed as it is in their dopey discussion, they get to dodge the usual criticism of “regular radical” feminists that would normally come to them claiming “Godly” women have no right to trample their turf. Feminists are disparaging of religion in general because the very whisper of a notion of “Leadership” by a man is anathema. But listening to these harpies, I’d wager even third-wave radical feminists would love to return to where THESE women are, receive the chivalry from men that radical feminists have eschewed the past forty years, but accept no responsibility in return, no giveback. And I’d bet my ass lots of women that are stay-at-homes living on their husbands’ pay sit and embrace this shit with the warmest of hearts. These here “religious and Godly” women fit right in to the feminist agenda all the way. It promotes sloth and lack of responsibility of a woman toward her husband on an “as-felt” basis.

    Next year, these minions of the Left will sit and discuss how women really bear no responsibility toward fidelity and the three of them will sit and talk themselves into it and spread the newfound wisdom from a Women’s Studies professor (who I happen to consider an infiltrator into the hearts and minds of weak, impressionable Christian women). Professor Kassian holds these two women in the palm of her hand. They are so enthralled, she could talk the other two into a viewpoint that they could get naked and pleasure themselves on stage if that’s what the good professor wanted. And so I ask of the good Professor Kassian, which came first, Women’s Studies? Or her affiliation with churches? She sounds like an agent of the left infiltrating Christian women’s minds, notions and morals. In any case, she’s undermining Christian relationships. And being lazy creatures, Kassian’s words will be embraced and will become the new instruction in sermons throughout the Christian world.

    Hey, what do I care, I date Brazilian, so far, untouched by Third-Wave Feminist Christianity.

  47. Novaseeker says:

    Article that references both Kassian and DeMoss:

    will the real complementarian please stand up?

    Another indication of just how widespread these misguided ideas of “soft” (i.e., meaningless) complementarianism are. If everything is to be worked out individually under the rubric of mutual submission as the “more enduring relationship”, then there is no point to complementarianism. Basically it is saying “egalitarianism is the broader relationship among Christians, and the relationship you have with your spouse before you marry and after you die, so it’s also the broader context of your relationship while you are married” — which basically amounts to complementarianism meaning that men and women are different, but what that means in a given relationship, or even in a given culture or point in history, is up for grabs.

    The flimsiness of this is obvious. It certainly isn’t in accord with the Christian tradition in any meaningful sense.

  48. Anonymous Reader says:

    …which basically amounts to complementarianism meaning that men and women are different, but what that means in a given relationship, or even in a given culture or point in history, is up for grabs.

    Pretty much. Or to put it another, more elegant, way:

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

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

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

    ― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

  49. Peter Blood says:

    Every time you lift a rock, you find more of the same. It’s pozzed all the way down.

  50. LeeLee says:

    Dalrock, I want to understand but I am not understanding what you found wrong about the video? There was one thing that really bothered me about it, which is that they completely skirted the issue of submission and headship in defining what a complementarian is. That is a major issue. But that video seemed pretty uncontroversial otherwise? And clicking on the link about the women’s studies programs it sounds like they teach women how to refute feminism and understand Biblical roles, maybe more like they’re taking back women’s studies and making it right?

    The video sounded a lot like what I hear in my church, which is a very strong complementarian, build up the men kind of church. Women are encouraged to not become passive in the face of the men receiving more time and resources and emphasis for their personal development as leaders, and by that the leaders mean — women, don’t think you don’t have a responsibility to learn theology for yourself and bring your gifts to the church to help with the mission. At the same time submission is taught and women are absolutely not allowed to teach men.

    Maybe I’m not hearing it in the same way as you because I’ve heard this many times before, but from men who have personally encouraged me to be submissive to my husband while encouraging me to develop my gifts so I’ve never considered these messages contradictory. But like I said, I do want to understand more so if someone can explain more in depth about the video?

  51. Regular Guy says:

    What do the following have in common?

    – Homosexual Marriage
    – A Women’s Studies program in a Christian Seminary
    – A Mechanic that doesn’t get his hands dirty
    – Rape Culture
    – A fiscally conservative Democrat

    They are figments of someone’s imagination.

  52. Novaseeker says:

    There was one thing that really bothered me about it, which is that they completely skirted the issue of submission and headship in defining what a complementarian is. That is a major issue.

    Yes, that’s the core problem. That’s kind of the core issue about what complementarianism is, in brass tacks, as compared with egalitarianism, and it was not only side-stepped, but indirectly dissed by repeated talk about how complementarianism doesn’t mean anything specific about roles, just about making sure both are contributing in their unique way to make a unified whole. That’s very, very far away from what complementarianism is, and is really pretty much the same as egalitarianism.

  53. Opus says:

    So I did so far as I could a little bit of research (the accent should be on the second syllable not the first, Americans) on Mary Kassian and in the light of Anon Reader’s helpful explanations. She does not claim to be theologically trained despite her distinguished professorship (unless MCAOT – which I cannot otherwise trace represents a theological training). She is apart from being a wife, a Women’s Studies expert, and obviously we do not think much of that. The wiggle room seems to be in Titus 2 which concerns an older woman (never read it and would not claim theological skill to properly interpret if I had). She asserts however that within the last few years we have at last come to understand that headship can be taken by either sex (she of course says Gender not Sex) – as if a Literary scholar had recently grasped that, after all, Hamlet far from being indecisive was one kick-ass Prince and Othello far from being paranoid and jealous was entirely justified in his belief that his wife was cucking him. Happily you will note people believe more in Shakespeare than they do in The Bible and thus you do not get endless rewrites with ‘Gender Neutral’ – sic erat – language to achieve the desired result.

    As I have mentioned before the only people in England who are either listened to or taken seriously on the subject of religion are the Archbishops of Canterbury and York; and they never say anything theologically controversial, but then we have not (until this year) had any Women Bishops. Perhaps that is all about to change, and though I agree with Novaseeker that a speech such as Major’s would not now seem likely from a Tory politician I rather doubt that the sort of thing Kassian would say would, were it to come form a newly-made female Bishop, be well received – lots of red-ticks at The Mail, I would say.

  54. Dalrock says:

    @LeeLee

    Dalrock, I want to understand but I am not understanding what you found wrong about the video? There was one thing that really bothered me about it, which is that they completely skirted the issue of submission and headship in defining what a complementarian is.

    I plan on writing a follow up post on Kassian’s teaching on submission. Basically, she spends 90% of her time and effort teaching women not to submit. My primary objection to the video is what I laid out in the OP. The frame is that for 19 and a half centuries Christians didn’t understand biblical gender roles. Then, along came the 1960s, NOW, and Friedan, and now we know what it should look like; Thank God for the 1960s.

    But that video seemed pretty uncontroversial otherwise? And clicking on the link about the women’s studies programs it sounds like they teach women how to refute feminism and understand Biblical roles, maybe more like they’re taking back women’s studies and making it right?

    The video sounded a lot like what I hear in my church, which is a very strong complementarian, build up the men kind of church.

    Yes. Exactly. It isn’t controversial at all in our feminist age. That is the point. It is modern feminised Christianity, with the thinest possible veneer of biblical roles. As Novaseeker pointed out, they boldly state that men and women are not identical, and stop there.

    Women are encouraged to not become passive in the face of the men receiving more time and resources and emphasis for their personal development as leaders, and by that the leaders mean — women, don’t think you don’t have a responsibility to learn theology for yourself and bring your gifts to the church to help with the mission.

    Think about how different this modern message is than what Paul wrote to in the NT.

    34 Let your[d] women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

    — 1 Cor 14:34-35

    11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

    –1 Tim 2:11-15

    Peter and Paul repeatedly reminded Christian wives to submit to their husbands, and to turn to their husbands for theological instruction. Modern Cristians repeatedly warn Christian wives not to be “passive”, “doormats”, etc. and get out there and start their own ministry (so long as they technically aren’t teaching men, wink wink). One message is biblical, the other is feminism dressed up as Christianity.

    The problem is as you point out it strikes the listener as being counter cultural, even though it is anything but. It lulls the listener into believing they are fighting the culture and staying true to the Bible when it is the opposite.

  55. Gunner Q says:

    Novaseeker @ 11:01 am:
    “So what may have in part been intended as a kind of Trojan horse including a non-feminist core instead became captive to feminism and so became a Trojan horse in reverse, if you will.”

    That theory presumes the Southern Baptist Baby Boomers responsible for creating the Womens’ Department were aware of feminism’s threat to Christianity, tried to push back by copying feminist tactics instead of thumping the Bible and meanwhile did not defend or warn their own organization.

    Christians can’t use our enemies’ strategies. We are not permitted to lie, deceive and betray in order to advance our cause whereas they dare not tell the truth and keep their vows. Hence O’Sullivan’s Law, restated: any organization that does not explicitly enforce truth & honesty will inevitably fall to treachery.

  56. This is far more sinister than submission and usurpation of the church by the FI.

    This is entirely a different religion. A post Christian religion based on reductionist materialism and moral relativism, even their christ ceases to be the logos incarnate and becomes a SJW par excellence.

    In the post modern closed system universe moral truths are no longer universal concepts , the moral law is subject to individual freedom.

    Appealing to scripture or authority is pointless as it makes a frame of reference that these people simply do not recognise, we are simply arguing past each other.

  57. Opus says:

    “they boldly state that men and women” – it jumped out at me. I am turning into a Grammar Nazi, but the use of the adverb Boldly before the verb – in this case, State – is now part of common culture (though not I think the KJV). I have always felt, nevertheless, that splitting an infinitive added force to the sentence and Fowler and Fowler could see no objection (so I recall).

  58. LeeLee says:

    @Dalrock, Okay, I hear what you and Novaseeker are saying, and I do share your concerns very much. The fact that they so obscured the heart of Biblical gender roles while somehow also talking about them extensively is a problem and very concerning.

    Here is the part I am still confused about though: I think that what my church would say to your use of those verses is that *we agree* inasmuch as we think it’s unbiblical, inappropriate and unhealthy for women to be teachers of men or to have any authority over men, and because of this all preaching or teaching roles, and the roles of pastor and elder are strictly for men.

    But what I have always been taught and see a lot of Biblical precedence for is that women, being as much members of the body of Christ as men, have been gifted with roles in the body just like men — roles like evangelist, missionary, mercy ministry, etc. And that Paul named a lot of women who served alongside of him in ministry: Priscilla, Euodia and Syntyche and others, so clearly he wasn’t against women in ministry. And so in my church women are encouraged, with an eye towards spreading the gospel in our city, to understand what our gifts are and develop them, while putting our husbands and then our children first.

    So for example, I’ve always been encouraged by my pastor and other leaders that they see me as an Evangelist. So when I was a new mom a few years ago, they encouraged me and assisted me in starting a new mom’s group to reach out to unsaved stay at home moms in our area. But I needed to be equipped theologically also to be able to explain the gospel to these women and help disciple the few who eventually showed interest in a relationship with Jesus. When I hear NLD and Kassian talking, that’s the kind of thing I hear them encouraging and I’m confused about why that might be wrong from a Biblical standpoint? Or if you are even saying that that is wrong.

    I know of some people who came out of a church where women literally did not speak in the church building, wore hats and weren’t allowed to ask questions. If they weren’t married, they had to write their questions down on a piece of paper and silently hand them to an elder after the service. Is that the type of situation you would see as more Biblical?

  59. Dalrock says:

    I had to look that up Opus (thank you). It seems the consensus agrees with you, and that splitting infinitives, even unknowingly splitting infinitives, is permitted. I would add in addition to my defense that the intended irony would not be as well conveyed had I written that they “state boldly that men and women are not identical”.

  60. RedPillPaul says:

    “This suppressive idea” that maybe was summed up by June Cleaver in 1950s

    Quite bluntly, the “suppressive idea” is a God ordained woman’s lot in life. There is so much “pain” in this world because women absolutely refuse to believe this “suppressive idea” is their best natural state to be in given that perfection was forfeited.

    I really want to get the idea out to Christian men that a lot of understanding can be gleaned from Genesis chapter 3.

    What caused man to sin? His nature/ His desire to be with his woman at all cost, or he listened to his wife and ate the forbidden fruit (he knew to eat was to die but would rather die with her than live with out her)
    What caused woman to sin? Her nature of being more easily deceived relative to man and her desire for power (hence the serpent started his attack of deceit with Eve rather then Adam.

    Look at what was said to her (Genesis 3:5) For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, AND YOU WILL BE LIKE GOD, knowing good and evil.”

    She lives in a perfect paradise and what does her in? She was tempted with power, she would “BE LIKE GOD”. Hypergamy and all that, is a woman’s quest for power.

    What was man’s problem? He couldn’t stand being without woman. It was God himself who acknowledged “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (Genesis 2:18) and so he brought all animals before Adam to name them. No suitable helper was found to Adam’s satisfaction so God made woman out of his body.

    Lets put this aside for a moment as I would like to point out that God is a God of Justice and sometimes, he is poetic with it.

    Look at the punishments given to both man and woman. To woman God said
    ““I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labor you will give birth to children.
    Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

    Look at Genesis 4 after Cain and Able’s sacrifice and before Cain killed Able.
    Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

    In Genesis 3:16 is more accurate to say “You will desire to rule over your husband but he will rule over you”

    God to woman: “You wanted power? Bad enough to sin? Well guess what, man rules over you”
    Doesn’t that sound like poetic justice to you

    How about man?
    “Cursed is the ground because of you;
    through painful toil you will eat food from it
    all the days of your life.
    18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field.
    19 By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
    until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
    for dust you are
    and to dust you will return.”

    God to man: “I give you paradise and provide everything for you and you were willing to reject me for what I created for you. Well guess what, You get to work HARD just to sustain your life and the life of the woman you chose to be with and you will toil for you and your family until the day you die. Oh, the nature that your woman possesses, the one that will try to usurp you, that will be like that until you die as well.”
    Doesn’t that sound like poetic justice to you?

    God ordained women to be in a “suppressive idea” as their punishment and for their benefit.

  61. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus
    …as if a Literary scholar had recently grasped that, after all, Hamlet far from being indecisive was one kick-ass Prince and Othello far from being paranoid and jealous was entirely justified in his belief that his wife was cucking him.

    Indeed, ye verily, as if…

    Happily you will note people believe more in Shakespeare than they do in The Bible and thus you do not get endless rewrites with ‘Gender Neutral’ – sic erat – language to achieve the desired result.

    Hmm. I had never noted that before. I’ve seen some pretty poor performances – 12th Night as a brooding, eggs-ee-stenchial drama, for example. I sorely wished for some eggs, to throw. But no one (yet) has attempted to put Romeo up on the balcony, nor tried to cast Oprah as Othello. So Opus is clearly onto something here, mebbe people do believe more in the Bard than the Bible.

    Curious, wot?

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    One message is biblical, the other is feminism crossdressed up as Christianity.

    FIFY.

    [D: Well played.]

  63. Easttexasfatboy says:

    So, Gents, to the question! How does what’s being mentioned differ from rank apostasy? I realize that isn’t a popular question, but it really seems relevant. Call it what it is, plainly.

  64. Looking Glass says:

    @LeeLee:

    Your pastoral staff encouraged you to start a ministry. What did God tell you to do? That’s the core of the issue we’re dealing with here. It’s a “Christian Culture” against what God actually said to do.

  65. Looking Glass says:

    @Easttexasfatboy:

    It is rank apostasy. Those that follow it should fear for the Soul.

  66. The frustrated preacher in a woman’s body says that June Cleaver represents the thwarting of women’s freedom and is not liberating. I must have been very distracted because as these women were discussing what a Biblical woman looks like, I missed the part where these older women were training the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. I did catch the women are frustrated that they can’t exercise their gifts in the church, but I missed the part about exercising their gifts at home.

  67. desiderian says:

    LeeLee,

    “just like men”

    “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’”

    – Genesis 3:4-5

    Be not deceived, LeeLee. God has given woman her own wondrous gifts, unlike God or men. Cherish them, and take care that your talents are not buried in the ground, but rather return a profit for the Master who gave them to you.

  68. JDG says:

    The unspoken premise of the discussion is that Christians got it all wrong for nineteen and a half centuries, and then the 1960s

    This is exactly how I presented the situation to a proponent of egalitarianism for a large Reformed denomination. His answer? New revelation. That’s it. That’s how virtually all of Christianity can get it wrong for 1900 plus years while those living during and after the sexual revolution can have it right.

  69. I’ve always found it entertaining that evangelicals insist on the Bible being the God-spoken ‘literal’ truth when it comes to the creation story, but beyond Genesis it’s all about interpretations and nuances that serve the purposes of whomever is doing the interpreting – in this era it’s the Feminine Imperative.

    There are so many examples of the insaturation of the feminine-imperative, so many personal and public accounts it’s an indictment of church culture turning a blind eye to it. Either that or this shift has taken place so deftly women honestly can’t see it.

    When I made the assertion that the Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit, I don’t, of course, mean that in the literal sense. What I mean is that the imperative has become part of church culture’s social doctrines. When you have high profile christians proclaiming it common knowledge or an article of faith that women are “closer to God than men ever could hope to be” you start to see how the FI is becoming more and more comfortable in exercising its influence more openly.

    When your doctrine revolves around, soft, malleable, men raised to defer and serve women, to pedestalize their mysterious “more godly” wonder, and hope against hope one will deign to tolerate a poor, bewildered christian man (who must forgive all her past indiscretions), you can see how this social hierarchy starts. When you have christian men shaming and deriding (AMOGing) other christian men for not carrying the FI’s ideological water as a sexual strategy then you can see how the FI has infiltrated the church with the “lets you and him fight” social convention between men.

    The Holy Spirit is still what it’s always been, but the FI has appropriated the doctrinal concept of the Holy Spirit in a cultural sense in order to effect its ends. High profile religious men then pick up this appropriation to effect their own sexual strategy by using it as a means to identify better with the women they hope it will improve their status with.

    So yes, women are more Holy than men, more close to God than men, because to suggest otherwise is to invite women’s disapproval. Solution: equate the Feminine Imperative with the will of the Holy Spirit. It’s important to remember that Christian men are every bit as complicit in establishing this as the women who both enjoy it and expect that Godly superiority to men (being better conduits to God) as a feminine entitlement.

    I think I should also point out that throughout history, there has been an interplay between social movements and church doctrine which has ultimately informed faith.

    The reason for the divide between Catholicism and Protestantism is an easy example of this, but it should be noted that the ensaturation of the social dynamics of feminism into the larger church (I use that term generally) will ultimately influence and alter the faiths of those churches eventually.

    So while I’m saying in a universal truth sense that the Feminine Imperative will never actually replace the Holy Spirit, the social undercurrent of the FI will (or has the potential to) alter doctrine, practice and ultimately the faith that future generations are taught as canon with regard to that religion.

    A universal truth of God may be immutable, but how it’s interpreted, and to who’s ends its interpretation serves can inform future faith. These women are not complementarians, they are egalitarians who want to characterize complementarity as aligning with a faith that ensures the FI and the Holy Spirit stay conflated.

  70. infowarrior1 says:

    @easttexasfatboy

    ”MGTOW is growing”

    The problem is that such men extinct themselves the next generation. And although the idea of MGTOW will spread the continued selective pressure will result of men resistant to MGTOW because such entails certain genetic extinction.

    It should not a sustainable strategy in the long run.

  71. JDG says:

    … here is a video of Professor Kassian discussing the importance of escaping the repression of the 1950s …

    1950s: Most children grew up with intact homes, less crime, and with their fathers in charge. Less teen pregnancy, way fewer abortions, divorces, teen suicides, rapes and murders. The biggest problems in school were talking out of turn, violating school dress codes, and chewing gum in class.

    Today: 40% of children are born bastards in addition to those who are raised by mothers who nuked their families. There is much more crime. Fathers are rarely in charge. Teen pregnancy is now the norm. More then 56,000,000 babies have been murdered in their own mother’s wombs. The divorce rate is around 50% (the majority female initiated). Teen suicides have sky rocked (especially among teens that grow up with out their fathers). The biggest problems in school are now Drugs, murder, rape (so we’re told), fornication and teen pregnancies.

    Maybe we could use some more of that 1950s repression. I’m just saying.

  72. infowarrior1 says:

    @LG
    ”weak women”

    In other translations it was ”silly women” it seems.

  73. JDG says:

    One message is biblical, the other is feminism crossdressed up as Christianity.

    Yep!

  74. LeeLee says:

    @Looking Glass, in all earnestness, I don’t know how anyone can read the Bible and not be gripped by a sense of urgency to leverage everything in one’s life and context to bring the gospel to the lost. I 100% believed I was listening to God by obeying Him in fulfilling the great commission, and beyond that I always listen for God’s voice in the guidance and feedback I receive from the authority figures over me.. first my husband, then authorities over me at church and so on.

    To be honest with you though, I walked away from that ministry totally exhausted, burnt out and confused about whether it was worth it at all. I was showing hospitality and building relationships with these lost women, but I came to realize that their negative, rebellious and ungodly attitudes were beginning to influence me more than I was influencing them.

    On top of that, spending a lot of time in empty and godless chatter in the hopes of finding a conversational open door to truth was burning me out and making me more introverted, withdrawn and uninterested in building friendships with healthy, godly women.

    I closed the group and remain connected with a few of the women, and some of them did genuinely come closer to God and are continuing to grow in their relationship with Him now. But I do wonder what it was all about and if it was all a mistake just based on how much it drained me. I think that’s why I’m so curious about this post. Trying to understand both my experience and the topic of women’s ministry as a whole.

  75. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Info, I’ve never pretended otherwise. Having kids right now just doesn’t seem wise. I reckon I’m putting my faith in the next go around. Truth is, I believe that women will keep getting crazier as time goes by.

  76. Anonymous Reader says:

    LeeLee
    …I came to realize that their negative, rebellious and ungodly attitudes were beginning to influence me more than I was influencing them.

    Various armies through history have found it to be useful to put a new recruit with two or more veterans. “You shadow them, do what they do, when they do it”. The reverse, putting one veteran with multiple newbies, doesn’t work because the recruits tend to copy each other rather than the veteran.

    As a woman you are more group oriented by nature. It is only to be expected that you would be affected by the women you associate with. To make a group like that work a majority of the women should come from the church, ideally from the same church. The other women should be in a distinct minority, otherwise their attitudes come to dominate.

    There’s a tendency in the modern world to push people beyond their capabilities. It’s not just in the business or academic world, either.

  77. Scott says:

    From the Quinisext Ecumenical Council (691) –binding on all Orthodox and Catholic Christians. (Also revered by most protestants as useful for teaching)

    70. Let it not be permissible for women to talk during Holy Mass, but in accordance with the words of Paul the Apostle, “let your women remain silent. For it has not been permitted them to talk, but to obey, as the law directs. If they wish to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.”

    “As in all churches of the saints,” says Paul the Apostle, “in the churches let your women remain silent. For it has not been permitted them to talk but to obey, as the law directs. If they wish to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home” (1 Cor. 14:33–35.)

    “Let the women learn quietly with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be quiet. For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman having been deceived became at fault. But she shall be saved through child-bearing, if they abide in faith and love and sanctity with sobriety” (1 Tim. 2:11–15).

    Interpretation.

    According to the words of this Canon and according to the words of St. Paul, women are prohibited from teaching either in holy temples (churches) or outside thereof, for St. Paul does not mean by “church” the temple itself, but a “congregation of people” anywhere; and still more are they prohibited from chanting either in a choir of their own or along with men.

    “For it is a shame for women to talk in church” (1 Cor. 14:35). This means that women should keep silent in church, and out of church wherever there is a congregation of people. The fact that the word talk is used here, and not the word speak, controverts and overthrows the allegation put forward by some persons that only teaching is forbidden to women but not chanting; for talk includes any sort of vocal utterance, and not merely articulate speech. In fact, women are not allowed to let their voice be heard at all within the sacred temple of the church. They may, of course, sing and chant in their hearts praises and blessings to God, but not with their lips.

    Before God formed Eve, He said: “It is not good that man should be alone; let us make for him a helper meet for him” (Gen. 2:18). This means that woman was created, not to rule man, but to help him and to be ruled by him. Woman is a teacher of every virtue by word and deed within her own province at home; but she is not allowed even to speak or sing within the sacred precincts of the church. Woman’s job is to bear children and rear them in the belief and love of God, to uphold the sanctity and sobriety of marriage, and to shun adultery as a thing that is odious to God. By so doing she will be saved, and not otherwise; by leaving this path and failing in these duties, she invites perdition.

    “If anyone think himself a prophet or a spiritual agent, let him acknowledge that what I write unto you are commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant” (1 Cor. 14:37–38). A true prophet or teacher or spiritual agent has the spirit of Christ and does not disagree with Christ’s Apostle; he easily discerns and believes that St. Paul’s commandments are commandments of Christ. Whoever, on the other hand, does not discern and believe this, yet thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual agent, is merely deluding himself; he is a false prophet lacking the spirit of Christ.

    Teaching and chanting are inconsistent with the nature and destiny of a Christian woman, just as are the priesthood and the bishopric. Eve, the woman formed by God, was the first to teach Adam once, in Paradise, and she ruined everything; that is why women are forbidden to talk in churches. The greatest adornment of women is silence. Let their example be Mary, the New Woman and Child of God, who alone has the honor of having had her speech recorded in history and handed down in the ninth ode of the Church; this refers to her speech and that of Elizabeth. Therefore let Christian women emulate her. The ancient idolaters had priestesses to officiate at the altars and in the temples of idols, in which demons were worshiped; and hence it is that deluded heretics derived this impious custom of theirs of letting women teach and sing and govern in their churches. Shall we Orthodox Christians imitate them? By no means!

    It is recorded in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (Book 7, ch. 30) that a council of bishops met in Antioch in the third century after Christ from various cities for the purpose of trying Paul the bishop of Samosat, who was rather a sophist and magician than a bishop and who, in addition to other heresies, had introduced a choir of women into the church of Antioch. That council addressed a letter to bishops Dionysius of Rome and Maximus of Alexandria containing the following phrases: “Having suppressed the psalms to our Lord Jesus Christ on the pretext that they are modern psalms and the writings of modern men, who is preparing women to chant to himself in the midst of the church on the great day of Easter whom one would shudder merely to listen to.”

    Women were never permitted to teach or to chant in the church along with the sacred cantors or in a choir of their own. Female choirs are an unexampled innovation involving many perils and capable of leading to many scandals, for woman’s voice is more attractive and more pathetic than man’s. The appearance of women in the church choir constitutes a stumbling block; for the eyes and ears of the congregation are at once turned to them, and, becoming intoxicated with the sight and sound of the highstrung melodramatic voices of women, they are languorously effeminated in mind and rendered incapable of enjoying the modest and contrite songs of the Church; thus the church choir gradually becomes transformed into a theatrical chorus!

    Canon LXXV of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod decrees the following with reference to church choirs: “It is our wish that those who come to church to chant should neither employ disorderly yelling and strain their natural voices to scream, nor recite anything inappropriate and not suited to a church, but that they should offer such psalmodies with great care contrition to God, who listens and looks on in secret.” “The children of Israel shall be reverent,” saith the sacred saying (Lev. 15:31).

    The holy liturgy and sacred hymnody presented in church has the purpose of offering prayers to propitiate God for our sins. Whoever prays and supplicates should be of humble and contrite mind; yelling indicates rudeness and irreverence of mind. But voices and faces of female choirs and the psalmody of European quartets represent a theatrical mind rather than a modest ecclesiastical mind. What is it that is unsuited to the church? Effeminate songs (melodies) and trills (which means the same thing as the warbles of old) and an excessive variety of tones that inclines to whorish songs, Zonaras, an interpreter of the Canons, says.

    The children of Israel after Christ are the pious Christians, who should be imbued with fear of God and reverence while within the church. God is not pleased with variety of melodies and voices, but with contrition and repentance of the heart. This is easily understood when we remember that man is pleased to listen to melodies and to look at pretty faces, whereas God looks into man’s soul in the depths of the heart and delights in its reverence, which is manifested by humbleness of behavior.

    Does anyone actually practice this? Of course not. But there it is.

  78. Richard Cook says:

    Hey Rollo at 1036. The orthodox church hasnt. Period.

  79. Looking Glass says:

    “Women were never permitted to teach or to chant in the church along with the sacred cantors or in a choir of their own. Female choirs are an unexampled innovation involving many perils and capable of leading to many scandals, for woman’s voice is more attractive and more pathetic than man’s. The appearance of women in the church choir constitutes a stumbling block; for the eyes and ears of the congregation are at once turned to them, and, becoming intoxicated with the sight and sound of the highstrung melodramatic voices of women, they are languorously effeminated in mind and rendered incapable of enjoying the modest and contrite songs of the Church; thus the church choir gradually becomes transformed into a theatrical chorus!”

    That’s an amazing read.

    @LeeLee

    I’ll type up a longer response.

  80. desiderian says:

    LeeLee,

    You will be given authority in due measure to that which you have authored that is of lasting worth. Your distinctive gift as a woman is the capacity for authoring new life. Focus your efforts on that calling, and in due time your authority as an evangelist will grow along with the fruits of that calling.

    Your good news is the manliness of your husband and the righteousness of your children.

  81. donalgraeme says:

    Scott, that council is not binding on Catholics.

  82. Gunner Q says:

    Rollo Tomassi @ 6:59 pm:
    “I think I should also point out that throughout history, there has been an interplay between social movements and church doctrine which has ultimately informed faith.”

    That’s the most fascinating part of Church history, how it’s gone through several major iterations over the ages despite its core documents not changing one bit.

    “The reason for the divide between Catholicism and Protestantism is an easy example of this, but it should be noted that the ensaturation of the social dynamics of feminism into the larger church (I use that term generally) will ultimately influence and alter the faiths of those churches eventually.”

    Feminism has always been part of Christianity but not as doctrine. God created humanity such that the man was the leader and woman the follower. Inversing this relationship has always been a top priority of the devil as far back as Eden because the devil, too, was once a follower of God. Matriarchy is blasphemy, not apostasy, because it’s a symbol of the servant triumphing over the master, a 180 reversal of God’s plan. Today it’s feminism, yesterday it was witchcraft, once it was worshiping fertility goddesses. Evil can iterate, too, but according to the Bible women have always wanted to dominate men and men have always been susceptible to appeasing. Our current situation is unique only in scale.

    For what it’s worth, I see the Prot/Cat divide as being the result of technology, not theology or social pressure. When literacy and Bibles were rare, Catholic traditions of professional clergy and venerating saints made a lot of good sense. Now that literacy and Bibles are everywhere, it’s better to be personally proficient with Christian principles now that that’s possible. The father of Protestantism, then, was Gutenberg not Luther.

    I know technology has influenced this outbreak of feminism, too (slutphones!) but my ideas are still raw.

  83. Scott says:

    DG-

    I stand corrected. I looked it up right after you PMd me! However, the RC canon lawyers do refer to it reverently in a few places I found. They don’t so much dispute it as it was a disciplinary canon done by the Greeks.

  84. Novaseeker says:

    These women are not complementarians, they are egalitarians who want to characterize complementarity as aligning with a faith that ensures the FI and the Holy Spirit stay conflated.

    Yes, Rollo, precisely. They are egalitarians whose god is really the cultural feminine imperative, which they cross-dress as the Christian God.

  85. Novaseeker says:

    Scott, DG —

    It isn’t an EC per Catholicism, but an authoritative source of doctrine/praxis (while not being a dispositive one). Orthodox make no such distinctions.

  86. Dalrock I smoked some of my medical marijuana before I watched the video and I have no idea what the ever living Hell these women are talking about. Each of them is carrying on their own discussion and each is nonsensical. They are trying to sound smart but they are nothing of the sort.

    “How do we take what the Bible says….I wrestle with that…..my theology says one thing…..I love God’s truth….the fact that God made me a woman and how that mattered….these strong women who are gifted and how they can honor God as a woman..”

    WHAT….THE….FRICK is going on. The only time all 3 Yentas nodded was when somebody said “Gender doesn’t matter.”

    The snark and bitterness when she says: “the Complementarian sense that every woman has to be June Cleaver at home…”

    “When we express in a complementarian sense there is a greater unity and a greater mutuality…it just expresses such a beautiful picture of our lord Jesus.”

    OMG!!!🙂 LOLOLOLOLOLZZZZZZ

  87. PuffyJacket says:

    @BPP

    Perhaps you’ve inadvertently discovered the key to making sense of feminism and Churchian-speak.

    Nothing good ever comes from three unsupervised women clucking about submission. Especially if they are Christian.

  88. embracingreality says:

    -MGTOW is growing-

    Infowarrior1 warns:
    “The problem is that such men extinct themselves the next generation. And although the idea of MGTOW will spread the continued selective pressure will result of men resistant to MGTOW because such entails certain genetic extinction. It should not a sustainable strategy in the long run.”

    Sustainable for who? The children of those men who decide not to go their own way? For those of us who refuse to reproduce “sustainable” is only critically important to us for the remainder of our lives. Not to sound completely uncaring, I wish the next generation no ill. As for MGTOW however we really have no real stake in the future beyond our life expectancy. This world, this nation? Lots of luck to those investing in the next 70 years but I’m not betting on that with my blood. Hope it works out for your kids but ultimately that’s your problem and theirs.

  89. The discussion in the video begins on the premise that women’s roles before Modern Churchian Feminism can be described as “Pulled-in” or “Suppressive” and such. According to this gaggle of rebellious harpies, Christianity got it wrong when it came to understanding women’s role in the family.

    /sarcasm
    I’m so thankful that these women have been given a new, revelation (read: heresy) from God that was hidden (read: Gnosticism) from us all this time and they are going to tell us exactly what God is “really saying” when he commands women to submit to their husbands. Not only are we privileged for our generation to be blessed with so many modern day Deborahs, they would have us believe God gave them the authority to teach this revelation despite explicit biblical prohibition of it!
    /sarcasm off

    You can stop the video after the first question posed by the host. It tells you all you need to know about these unrepentant hens.

  90. Derek Vinyard says:

    How fitting that this woman is from the feminist dictatorship of Canada.

  91. infowarrior1 says:

    @embracingreality

    ”Sustainable for who? The children of those men who decide not to go their own way? For those of us who refuse to reproduce “sustainable” is only critically important to us for the remainder of our lives. Not to sound completely uncaring, I wish the next generation no ill. As for MGTOW however we really have no real stake in the future beyond our life expectancy. This world, this nation? Lots of luck to those investing in the next 70 years but I’m not betting on that with my blood. Hope it works out for your kids but ultimately that’s your problem and theirs.”

    Exactly. Whoever problem it may be it does not change society as a whole. It does not put an end to the problems that give rise to MGTOW in the 1st place.

    ”Sustainable for who”
    Future men.

  92. MV says:

    GunnerQ

    Of course technology influenced the outbreak of feminist female-brain-plague.

    Invention of washing machine gave housewives enough free time to sit around and bitterly hamsterbate about their “problem with no name”. Then contraceptive pills opened their daughters a way to avoid housewifehood and “not become just like their mothers”. And, finally, in the third generation, liberated from the last vestiges of decency, came the slutphones.

    The good news, though, is that this whole abomination won’t survive the first 72 hours of the coming societal collapse. If you survive longer than that, you will live the rest of your life a free man in a free world, where feminism will be no more🙂

  93. Sean says:

    @ Dalrock and jonakc (if you’re reading this thread):

    After watching this video and the last post by our host here, I feel the need to apologize and ask for forgiveness for my defense of CBMW about a month or so ago. It’s appearing more and more like I was completely in error.

  94. Looking Glass says:

    @LeeLee:

    Firstly, on the Good News and reading the Bible. You can’t reach those who won’t listen. Salvation is a choice. It is to take responsibility for your Sin. It is not Emotion or Logic trumping Sin; it is the power of the Spirit calling out to the Lost. God is the one that does the work, having already paid the price for reconciliation. For most Christians, they spend a lot of their effort (when making an attempt to “help”) getting in the way.

    This is why we need to pray and always seek guidance from the Lord. Because we don’t see everything. God reveals himself, quite often, in the little, odd or strange things he asks us to do. The “urging” of the Spirit to call someone at random is fairly common, but the value is beyond measure. It’s the Faithfulness that is the key and what God uses. (Doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t be brutal.)

    Let me highlight the issue another way. In any reasonably sized church, there’s a pretty good chance someone sitting through the sermon is in the wrong city right now. Probably the wrong country. God wants them somewhere very different than where they are. With the same issue, we know there are missionaries that are in the field that shouldn’t be there. (And their mission board most definitely wasn’t listening to God.) It’s not a question of the Work to be done; it’s wholly a question of “Is this the Work you would have me do, Lord?”.

    So, for your harlot ministry, it wasn’t a “bad” thing. But you were clearly working under your own power and over-extending yourself. By your own admission, it was having a negative effect on the rest of your life. This is normally a sign of “good idea, not God’s idea” problem. (Understand, I’m talking from experience here.) No church can have every outreach program that is in vogue in Christian circles (which is a massive Red Flag, frankly, when there is a “vogue” at all), so just because it was a good idea does not mean it was the idea you were to undertake.

    This is one of the situations where you needed to go to your Husband and ask him to pray about this while you also prayed about it. God will have given you the answer pretty clearly. Normally in a word or three. For something as involved as that type of Ministry, you really need a pretty explicit “Go” from God. (Let us save a discussion of God giving us a lot of open choices in certain matters for another time.)

    But try not to beat yourself up on this one. The modern Church has indoctrinated much Vanity as Righteousness in its actions, to the point that sorting it all out takes a lot of thought & analysis on the topic. And, regardless, if one person comes to the Lord (eventually), the work wasn’t in vain. It just likely wasn’t what God wanted you to specifically do at that time, so you were doing the heavy lifting on your own.

    In regards to the video, I think it’s a good idea to realize that, as a Woman, you have a very learned process of wading through female chatter. This creates a rather selective listening pattern that all Women display (though all do it a little differently). But don’t view this as a failure. I think it’s actually a blessing because the Lord knows Men don’t want to talk as much as Women are compelled to talk. Though a blessing, it also means that when you get a bunch of Women chatting, you’re taking it in as “chatter”, so you’ll focus on the points that are relevant to yourself. But, in this case, this is an attempt a Practical Theology, so *every* phrase has to be parsed for soundness. I think because you haven’t quite switched approaches when listening to the video, that’s why you’re having trouble seeing much of the trouble. Because these types of false teachers always have parts that would be considered proper, but they use that to dress up their lies. Or as Paul put it in the part of 2 Timothy I quoted earlier: “For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.

  95. Looking Glass says:

    @Sean:

    It’s hard for a Christian Man to realize that the seeming last vestiges of sanity are actually half-insane themselves. The reality is that the Western Church is going to need to be wholly rebuilt from the inside-out. And God is going to be taking a blow torch to much of it in the process.

  96. Sean says:

    Yes, it’s indeed hard to see churches being led astray by those the members (individual church funds in CBMW’s case) that put them there. I can’t get into too much detail but the problems with CBMW hit very much at home with me with regards to my local church.

  97. Looking Glass says:

    @Sean:

    There’s also the issue that we might call the “Rotten Wood” problem. Historically, 1 Bible being available in an entire Region wasn’t uncommon. So they would have specific readings from it. Theological study simply wasn’t available to the masses. Thus you expect the theologians and priests to “mind the store”. That was, in fact, their job. “Keepers of the Faith” was more than just pretty words.

    The problem, that we’re rapidly running into (much like the Reformation did), is no one really was “minding the store” as matter of basic theology. The major triumph of the “entryists” into Christianity in the late 1800s was to obliterate the transmission systems for the deeper parts of theology. The result is that the benefit of it only flowed to the few capable and able to do the work. But they were pretty well silenced in favor of the flavor of the month doctrine.

    At the same time, we’ve gone through several iterations of Revivalism within the USA. We’re bound for another, I hope. This time, I pray, we “take down the high places” rather more than just clearing the whores out of the temple.

  98. greyghost says:

    Sean
    Work on getting “red Pill” As crazy as it sound spending time on men’s blogs and especially pick up artist web sites is good for the mind. Know MGTOW PUA and the true nature of women. After that come back and take a look at the bible and the church. Rollo T above wrote a very good comment on the church and feminism. You will be able to do that. Next comes the scary part. You will be the church men come to. When people ask you about God you will be the source for God. You will know the churchian church is full of shit.
    Over all red pill eyes can see the beauty In the bible. Red pill eyes also make history and movies new again.

  99. enrique says:

    @embracingreality

    The only thing that can slow down MGTOW are laws enacted by White Knights, due to pressure from women. I expect there to be heightened attention to the sexbot industry for example–because it is too perfectly MGTOW. However, since women actually participate in prostitution (and get $$) and it has been de-shamed, I do NOT predict that will get any more restrictive, overall. It will be like the government was with the lottery in various states, 20, 30 years ago. They were against it for all sorts of “moral” reasons, then once they saw the cash and it’s sufficiently mainstream, the govt is ALL IN on it even creating laws to protect their interests in it. Women will be the same with prostitution. They also, as they do now, will utilize it. Just like sex tourism in Africa.

    I always make sure when some gal self-righteously brings up sex tourism, that I respond with “Ya, it’s unbelievable that you got all these European women, most of whom are fat or unattractive, going to Africa to use, objectify and dehumanize young black men for sex.” It’s a good form of shaming, negging and symmetrical pairing to show women’s hypocrisy. I’ve yet to have one in response, agree and say those women should be locked up.

  100. enrique says:

    Caught this the other day. Has the standard fare as far as claiming the use of robots “objectifies” women and children (notice their pairing there–and the reason: the narrative begins here in 2015). Then, to look egalitarian, they have this:

    https://campaignagainstsexrobots.wordpress.com/2015/10/10/males-as-sex-objects/

    This is of course, another form of pairing, like magicians use with physical objects during tricks, simply to get the inclusion of that which they really want, which is to restrict men’s use of sex bots, which may lead to less benefits ($) to women (per CH’s maxim, a need to restrict men’s sexuality). They really don’t care about men, or even the fact that many men AND women will use sexbots, because they are emotionally or physically disabled–or as in the case of dildos and women, just want to get off. There’s also a market for men to buy male robots.

    I still think VR will be the future, and it will be so completely private and personal that to prevent it’s growing development would take laws that involve too many industries and likely violate rights in most Western Nations. Not that they (fascists progs/liberals and tradcons) are above trying.

  101. Regular Guy says:

    There isn’t a single, high profile woman in Evangelical circles that I can think of that isn’t a part of Feminist poison of rebellion tainting the modern church. Every single one of them from Beth Moore to Joyce Meyers to Nancy Leigh DeMoss and Mary Kassian are teaching biblical error with the intention of subverting the authority of the husbands they were placed under. These women of the church are trying to collectively control the church under the guise of being “Christian Women”. This is why women were explicitly forbidden in the bible from teaching doctrine; Women are easily deceived.

    But what else can you expect from The Gospel Coalition? According to J.D. Hall @ Pulpit & Pen (Great reformed discernment blog btw) this organization has been in serious Theological Downgrade for sometime now.

  102. enrique says:

    @Regular guy: “Women are easily deceived.”

    Women easily deceive.

    You’re welcome.

  103. Robert says:

    I have a daughter who is graduating high school this year. We are very traditional Christians and we believe that marrying earlier is better. If there are any white Christian men who are looking for a traditional submissive wife e-mail me at robert_engr@yahoo.com

  104. Those ridiculous blustering comments from men in the previous post are all, 100% Lift Chasing.

    But here, the thing that screamed out at me on this video is the crackling barely disguised animosity between the two “experts” on the couch. They are looking at each other like that photo of Michelle Obama staring at the then first lady of France. It is a function of how self serving it truly is to be one of these outspoken female advocates.

    To take a mishmash of silly mental meanderings and attempt to then , with appropriately furrowed brow, say something enduring …well….that’s why the ….uh hem ….quietness …..in church was, , um, ….suggested.
    If they did that same interview six months later the very high level themes may match, but the things said would be different, even contradictory, because they are saying what they feel needs to be said at that moment to maintain the feelings they are experiencing in that moment. Each little concocted statement is like the cocaine users bump off the tip of the car key…..just enough to maintain man.

  105. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    I was looking at the “girlpower image” in the OP and thought it looked familiar.

    Then I realized where I had seen it before.

  106. Damn Crackers says:

    Once you lost the Southern Baptists, I don’t know what’s left.

  107. So I watched the video stone straight and now I REALLY have no idea what they are saying. They appear to be random clauses strung together often with rank heresy and reasonable thoughts uttered in the same breath. The random sentences appear to be strung from at least 6 separate conversations although it would take further contextual analysis with a board of experts to figure out that question. I am guessing there were at least 2 separate conversations per woman but the chick in Red might have been engaged in 3 or more while the old chick may have had just 1 or 2, something about a desire to serve in the ministry and sharing the glory of Christ? I am pretty sure some audio/visual tech just strung the young chick’s statements from a large database of independent clauses.

  108. Gunner Q says:

    @MV,

    There’s more to technology’s influence on feminism than allowing boredom and contraception. Example, slutphones, Internet & television have made protecting girls from unhealthy influences almost impossible for even the most determined of fathers. Used to be daughters had to dress slutty and walk the street to get bad boy attention; now they can browse Tinder in their bedroom. That is unprecedented and, I suspect, a major cause of feminism’s rapid spread.

    The solution to global feminism might involve banning all women from using telecommunications.

    infowarrior1 @ 1:48 am:
    “Whoever problem it may be it does not change society as a whole. It does not put an end to the problems that give rise to MGTOW in the 1st place.”

    Well, then… how would siring children I can neither afford nor protect, with a woman I cannot trust, solve my society’s problems? It sounds like a great way to make society’s problems worse.

    Humanity is in no danger of extinction.

    Robert, I would’ve looked into your offer ten years ago. If you don’t get any responses from the Manosphere then you could try an online profile: “The pic is my daughter, I’m her father. I want her married and we’re handling this the old-fashioned way.” We’d be very interested in hearing about the experience.

    I didn’t get any response to the job offer I posted earlier. Guess we’re pretty spread out geographically.

  109. They need a man to mansplain it to them.

    As far as I could tell, their meandering and obtuse verbiage could have been summed up by the ‘do whatever makes her happy’ statement. Or perhaps the ‘happy wife, happy life’ bull we’ve come to expect. Basically, they want complementary to mean whatever it is they want it to mean.T hey want privilege but not responsibility, rights but no obligations, freedom with no restrictions, to be protected by men but not for men. They want their fried ice and they want it now!

  110. greyghost says:

    That video of women speaking on God is women speaking on God. As described it is just women Speaking on God. The bad thing is some guy running the church tries to accommodate their speaking into church doctrine and calls it Christian.

  111. BradA says:

    BPP,

    The older lady was Nancy Lee DeMoss, daughter of the quite wealthy DeMoss family that has been active in many conservative circles in the past. I had more respect for her in the past, but the first part of the clip (I couldn’t stomach the whole thing) was just a justification for “I want to go my own way in the name of the Lord.” Falsely raising June Cleaver as a bogeyman is bad as well. I never watched that show much, but I bet she had a better life even in her own eyes than most of the “free” Christian women today.

  112. BradA says:

    I meant to also note that Nancy Lee DeMoss has been able to accomplish all she has because of daddy’s money, at least as a start, not because of some huge innate capability on her part.

  113. LeeLee says:

    @Anonymous Reader, I completely agree. Now I only go to Christian stay at home mom groups like MOPS where there is an evangelistic element but the message is Bible based and I’m actually pointed in the right direction.

    @Desiderian, true. I know that God’s main calling on my life is to be the wife and mother He’s called me to be.

    @Looking Glass I hear what you’re saying and I appreciate your insights on the video. It’s true, women and men have very different conversational styles and I think it’s clear from a lot of the comments here that I am listening to it in a completely different way from male listeners, many of whom seem baffled lol.

  114. enrique says:

    sidebar: Solipsism award for 2015 (in speaking of another case, similar to the one that is the basis of this article): https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/inside-the-unique-battle-between-two-moms-for-200530369.html

    “Just last year, a New York judge fielded a similar case — and ruled that another mother did not have legal standing to joint custody of her son with her partner, who gave birth to the boy. At the time, Suzanne B. Goldberg, director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia University, told the New York Times that the verdict was “troubling” because “it leaves a same-sex parent as a legal stranger to her child.”

    It begs the implied, unspoken sentence..”Sure, we do this to BIOLOGICAL dads all the time, but that’s different…their men.”

  115. Anonymous Reader says:

    LeeLee
    It’s true, women and men have very different conversational styles and I think it’s clear from a lot of the comments here that I am listening to it in a completely different way from male listeners, many of whom seem baffled lol.

    Yet another excellent example of how the notion “men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies” has nothing to do with reality. Thanks for pointing this out, LeeLee.

    Yes, you are hearing that conversation in a very different way from the male listeners. Women’s conversations are conducted in “women speak” and tend to include subcommunications, sometimes in the form of incomplete sentences or statements that trail off…or in multiple women saying different things at the same time as each reacts to the overt and covert communication in both overt and covert modes.

    Men typically hear the top layer of the conversation, the subcommunication goes right by us, like static on an AM radio station. Now, a man can learn to pick up some of the subcommunication but it typically is like learning a foreign language. IMO it is worth while for a man to learn a bit of this for vairous reasons, but many disagree. Eh.

    However we can be very good at spotting the weak point in a series of statements, and you can see Dalrock and others doing exactly that in this thread. Cutting through all the goo to spot the non-defining definition of “complementarian”, for example.

    It’s almost as though men and women have different typical skill sets that complement each other…but only when men and women are not forced into some sort of Procrustean “we are all individuals in the exact same way” mode, of course. Garsh! Paging Rollo…

  116. Sean says:

    @greyghost

    Thanks for the advice but I’ve been reading Manosphere blogs since the University of Man and Cappy’s Minimalism Threat post. The problem arises when a church’s theology, like my home church, is very solid but has questionable (IMHO) associations. Sometimes you just have to believe someone and then vet afterwards… again, as I’m doing with my home church.

    Home = membership in not ‘people in my living room’.

  117. Hank Flanders says:

    We’ve already surpassed 100 comments on this post, so hopefully, Dalrock won’t mind if I bring something else up at this point.

    I’ve had some employment issues over the years, which is probably a good part of the reason I’m still unmarried. After college, I got into a job I knew I wouldn’t want to do for the rest of my life, so I went in a different direction. The field that I eventually went to, which I thought I would stay with for the rest of my career was supposed to be stable, but then, the economic downturn started in 2008, just months after I had begun a job in that new field. I ended up getting laid off a couple of times and had difficulty in finding a replacement job. I’ve since switched careers again, and this career is looking more exciting and promising than what I was doing before, but I’ve accumulated unsecured debt over the years, which will take time to pay off. I’m also new to this field, so I may be working for entry-level wages for at least a year or so.

    Whenever I’ve been out of work, I’ve not even attempted to date, since I didn’t feel I had anything to offer. This feeling was exacerbated by the fact that when I have had decent five-figure incomes, I still couldn’t make any progress with the kind of woman I’d be interested in. From a Red Pill standpoint, am I going to have to wait until I’m making six figures in order to get the kind of woman I want, or would the fact that I have to wait until I’m making good money be proof that I wouldn’t want such a woman, since she’d be interested in money and not me?

    I wouldn’t normally be interested in this kind of music, but I heard this song at the gym recently called “Locked Away,” and it made me wonder whether about the validity of questions in the lyrics. That is, are there any women out there who would really just love you for you, regardless of the circumstances, or is hypergamy just too strong to ever hope to find a woman who doesn’t succumb to its draw? On the other side, is it ever even to a man’s benefit or worth it in the long-run to appeal to a woman’s hypergamy in order to win her?

    (I know there’s a MGTOW response to all of these questions, but I’m directing these questions at married men or men who hope to be married one day).

  118. @ Hank Flanders

    I outlined my general philosophy in these two posts:

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/my-5-step-process-to-maturity-in-relationships/
    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/a-detailed-timeline-and-how-to-guide-on-the-process-of-finding-a-wife/

    Whenever I’ve been out of work, I’ve not even attempted to date, since I didn’t feel I had anything to offer. This feeling was exacerbated by the fact that when I have had decent five-figure incomes, I still couldn’t make any progress with the kind of woman I’d be interested in. From a Red Pill standpoint, am I going to have to wait until I’m making six figures in order to get the kind of woman I want, or would the fact that I have to wait until I’m making good money be proof that I wouldn’t want such a woman, since she’d be interested in money and not me?

    I haven’t told my current girlfriend of 9 months (overtly moving toward marriage) how much I make because it’s simply not important. However, I have informed her of my general financial plan for the next 10 years which is to raise a family and with hard work become financially independent if possible.

    The key here is two things.

    1. Women want to know they will be provided for
    2. Women like a man who is ambitious and has a plan

    Instead of using money as a lure which would get you proverbially “beta bux’d” you can shift the perspective into your goals and your plans. Very few men have any sort of purpose and goals now which will help set you apart.

    If you get a woman who insists on knowing even after you tell her your goals and ambitions then well you know she’s a gold digger and can move on. Most Christian women I’ve dated I just share my goals with it satisfies their curiosity.

    I wouldn’t normally be interested in this kind of music, but I heard this song at the gym recently called “Locked Away,” and it made me wonder whether about the validity of questions in the lyrics. That is, are there any women out there who would really just love you for you, regardless of the circumstances, or is hypergamy just too strong to ever hope to find a woman who doesn’t succumb to its draw? On the other side, is it ever even to a man’s benefit or worth it in the long-run to appeal to a woman’s hypergamy in order to win her?

    Don’t operate from the identity of wanting to be loved. That’s your father and mother’s responsibility to you as their child. As a man, potential suitor, and husband you should be *respected* not loved. Sure, she may love you, but the command from her in Scripture is to respect you.

    Be a man who is excellent and virtuous in whatever you do. One that is respected. These men are in short supply in the Church which will make things much easier for you.

  119. Dragonfly says:

    Hank, a woman only interested in how much you make is not going to be a good wife or quality woman for you anyway. There are men married to good women who don’t make 6 figures, a lot of it just depends on how you relate to women, and your attitude when around them.

    I believe it was good discernment that you didn’t want to date while unemployed, that showed you were looking forward to the future, and for a woman interested in marriage, she will look for security and job stability. A good future wife also takes into account your potential for career growth and determination. The fact that you didn’t just give up, that you were wise to avoid dating when you needed to save your resources or use them to meet your own immediate needs, is a great sign! I don’t think that you’ll have to wait until you’re making 6 figures to find someone worthwhile, I married my husband while we were both still in college, and over this past 8 years, his income has grown a ton, but our marriage wasn’t founded on him being rich or making 6 figures. 🙂

  120. Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    From what I have heard about “Women’s study courses”. You would be best to avoid hiring or getting involved any woman who takes such a course. My friend knew a woman who took such a course. At first it starts out with some legit wrongdoings, real or percieved, then turns into all men are pigs, etc. She didn’t get radicalised. One of the rare few.

  121. Scott says:

    1. Women want to know they will be provided for
    2. Women like a man who is ambitious and has a plan

    Instead of using money as a lure which would get you proverbially “beta bux’d” you can shift the perspective into your goals and your plans. Very few men have any sort of purpose and goals now which will help set you apart.

    Mychael was with me (and married me) when I was still in graduate school and barely making ends meet–like eating ramen and writing tiny checks at the grocery store I hoped I could cover before they cleared. I told her from the very start what my plan was. It was very difficult financially in those first couple of years.

    We are approaching 10 years together now.

  122. Oblivion says:

    woman “man up!”
    Man ” no, it’s not the 1950″s anymore!”

    That is pure gold! I’m gonna use that one

  123. Hank Flanders says:

    Scott

    Mychael was with me (and married me) when I was still in graduate school and barely making ends meet–like eating ramen and writing tiny checks at the grocery store I hoped I could cover before they cleared. I told her from the very start what my plan was. It was very difficult financially in those first couple of years.

    We are approaching 10 years together now.

    Thanks, Scott! This is exactly what I was going for!

  124. Hank Flanders says:

    Dragonfly

    I don’t think that you’ll have to wait until you’re making 6 figures to find someone worthwhile, I married my husband while we were both still in college, and over this past 8 years, his income has grown a ton, but our marriage wasn’t founded on him being rich or making 6 figures.🙂

    Thanks for your input, Dragonfly. I realized I had said my question was directed at men, but it can include women, too, so thanks for sharing your experience, too.

  125. Hank Flanders says:

    Deep Strength

    Don’t operate from the identity of wanting to be loved. That’s your father and mother’s responsibility to you as their child. As a man, potential suitor, and husband you should be *respected* not loved. Sure, she may love you, but the command from her in Scripture is to respect you.

    I’ve been pondering this conundrum, lately. It’s true that in Corinthians that wives are commanded to respect their husbands but not specifically to love them, but elsewhere in scripture, it’s written that Jesus taught us that the highest commandments are to love God followed by our neighbors. God is obviously the stronger (more masculine?) figure in His relationship with us, and if even He wants to be loved by something as weak as one of us, then isn’t it natural that a man wants to be loved by a woman? Also, if a woman is to love her neighbor as herself, then how much more is she supposed to love her husband, who is her closest neighbor? These are just rhetorical thoughts I’ve been having. Anyway, thanks for sharing your point-of-view and experience.

  126. I’m sorry, needed some comic relief. This is what women talking sounds like to me.

  127. OKRickety says:

    Hank Flanders said on December 10, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    I’ve had some employment issues over the years, which is probably a good part of the reason I’m still unmarried.

    If your employment issues were the result of bad timing, economic difficulties, etc., then you have demonstrated perseverance by trying to get new jobs in the same field, and then, eventually, moving on to another field. Of course, it would be nice for you (and a wife) to have the security of a “permanent” job, but I don’t know if that is possible anymore. So, I would see your perseverance as an attribute — you’re not going to just give up when the going gets tough. A good wife will recognize this and value it.

    Whenever I’ve been out of work, I’ve not even attempted to date, since I didn’t feel I had anything to offer. This feeling was exacerbated by the fact that when I have had decent five-figure incomes, I still couldn’t make any progress with the kind of woman I’d be interested in.

    It seems your income level may be impacting your self-esteem. Sure, it would be silly to get married without reasonable expectation of providing financially for a wife (and future family?), but it shouldn’t keep you from dating. If you are moving forward, a good wife-to-be will understand and be willing to wait, at least for a while.

    Your income level should not be the primary (or secondary or tertiary, either) factor in finding a wife. If it is, then I think you’re interested in the wrong kind of woman.

  128. @ Hank Flanders

    I’ve been pondering this conundrum, lately. It’s true that in Corinthians that wives are commanded to respect husbands but not specifically to love them, but elsewhere in scripture, it’s written that Jesus taught us that the highest commandments are to love God followed by our neighbors. God is obviously the stronger (more masculine?) figure in His relationship with us, and if even He wants to be loved by something as weak as one of us, then isn’t it natural that a man wants to be loved by a woman? Also, if a woman is to love her neighbor as herself, then how much more is she supposed to love her husband, who is her closest neighbor? These are just rhetorical thoughts I’ve been having. Anyway, thanks for sharing your point-of-view and experience.

    This is somewhat like the supposed “mutual submission” that feminists bring up in a way. Since men and women are supposed to be the same, the relationship between men and women are supposed to be the same. However, love toward headship looks different than love from headship or an authority position.

    Remember that love is not a feeling it is an action. “Love” toward headship is synonymous with respect/reverence, submission, and obedience.

    John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

    Eph 5:22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. […] 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she [r]respects her husband.

    On the other hand, love toward brothers and sisters in Christ as well as those under [your] authority is synonymous with sacrificial love:

    John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

    John 15:12 “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do what I command you. 15 No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. 17 This I command you, that you love one another.

    Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [q]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

    In general, since our society is so saturated with “love” and “wanting to be loved” it is important to know the different aspects that pour out from love in the context of the Christian walk.

    A wife surely loves her husband: but it is important to know the qualities that love will look like according to the roles and responsibilities given to the wife. A wife that claims to love her husband but shows no respect or reverence, no submission, and no obedience does not love him at all. She is rebellious.

    Note: Titus 2 where wives are called to love their husbands and children is philadelphia — brotherly kindness — not agape.

    The command of roles and responsibilities given to the husband and wives paint us a clear picture of what “love” in a marriage relationship looks like. It is love and respect, headship and submission, and a host of other responsibilities from Gen 1 & 2, 1 Cor 7, Col 3, Tit 2, 1 Peter 3, etc.

  129. Hank Flanders says:

    Correction: Earlier, I said “Corinthians” when I was really thinking to the passage in Ephesians.

  130. Hank Flanders says:

    *thinking about

  131. Hank Flanders says:

    Deep Strength

    However, love toward headship looks different than love from headship or an authority position…The command of roles and responsibilities given to the husband and wives paint us a clear picture of what “love” in a marriage relationship looks like. It is love and respect, headship and submission, and a host of other responsibilities from Gen 1 & 2, 1 Cor 7, Col 3, Tit 2, 1 Peter 3, etc.

    Yeah, I agree with what you wrote, especially this part: “Remember that love is not a feeling it is an action. “Love” toward headship is synonymous with respect/reverence, submission, and obedience.” That’s the reason I didn’t differentiate between love and respect in my post above.

  132. Spike says:

    Looking Glass says:
    December 9, 2015 at 11:20 am
    2000 Years and Paul still addresses the problem quite easily.

    2 Timothy 3:1-7 (ESV)

    “But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. “

    This written on the day that the Pope has told Catholics that they should not try to convert Jews

    https://www.rt.com/news/325545-catholics-jews-convert-vatican/

    it becomes apparent that on all fronts, violence is being done to Scripture.

    Who employs the graduates of “Women’s Studies” programs, and why do seminaries – who are entrusted with teaching sound doctrine – have such programs, when such programs destroy the very fabric – Christian men – who support them?

    The most destructive of radical feminists – Mary Daly, who advocated male gendercide for 90% of male babies leaving a small amount of breeding stock – was employed by a Catholic college for most of her academic career:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly

  133. Miserman says:

    At 7:05, Kassian says “… complimentarity [is that even a word?] says that every woman needs to be married and have children and have the white picket fence and that’s all she does.”

    Again, here is the idea that somehow life as wife and mother are only gifts from God when the woman is free to be more than just a wife and a mother. Marriage and family are viewed as somehow inferior to “ministry.”

    To the man, however, being a servant husband and father is ministry.

  134. JDG says:

    Deep Strength says:
    December 10, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    +1000

  135. feeriker says:

    Again, here is the idea that somehow life as wife and mother are only gifts from God when the woman is free to be more than just a wife and a mother. Marriage and family are viewed as somehow inferior to “ministry.”

    To the typical modern American churchian woman, the role of wife and mother is a (hopefully temporary) burden to be tolerated, something she endures like an illness or a jail sentence until God releases her from it to be independent, er, “free to ‘minister’ in some ‘meaningful’ field” in which she can feel “fulfilled.” Preferably this will be something that 1) pays her money, enough to at least feel “independent” and 2) lets her break free of her husband’s “control” (even though she probably already wears the pants in the family).

    Very often God just never makes good on that imaginary IOU/parole grant and she never gets to enjoy that “exciting” career as a StrongIndependentMissionary. At some point resentment and rebellion, perhaps even apostasy, are the result.

  136. @Hank: are there any women out there who would really just love you for you

    YES!!!

    >>>>>regardless of the circumstances,

    NO!!

    >>>or is hypergamy just too strong to ever hope to find a woman who doesn’t succumb to its draw?

    ALL women are severely tempted and have the opportunity to succumb. Not all do even in the worst of circumstances. There are NAWALTS who will stay loyal to you through thick and thin. The trick is that even unicorns will stop screwing you if you stop satisfying her hypergamy. She may not divorce-rape you but she will ALWAYS stop screwing you. THAT is an AWALT that you can take to the bank.

    >>>On the other side, is it ever even to a man’s benefit or worth it in the long-run to appeal to a woman’s hypergamy in order to win her?

    Bro, that is like asking is it ever beneficial to drink water, you know if you get thirsty. It is the ONLY way to “win” her- and the ONLY way to keep her (naked).

    Pro Tip: She is not “yours” it is just your turn.

  137. @Rollo: I wouldn’t walk it back one bit. The Holy Spirit IS being “replaced” by the holy hamster in the same way the Israelites “replaced” the God of Abraham with a golden idol. God was still there but no doubt His presence in the hearts of the people was gone. Do we really have to explain to women and churchians that protesting the idolatry of this act of worshiping the holy hamster guided golden vagina does not disparage the omnipotence of our God.

  138. MV says:

    @enrique

    There is a legal precedent for this kinky-dyky situation in the biblical story of wise king Salomon and two harlot mothers fighting for one child (1 Kings 3:16-28).

  139. Damn Crackers says:

    A woman’s affair not only is good for her but also her children –

    http://news.yahoo.com/why-having-an-affair-made-1317725136224310.html

  140. MarcusD says:

    Speaking of Mayer…

    Marissa Mayer’s Value “Added”: Yahoo Is Now Worth A Negative $13 Billion
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-10/marissa-mayers-value-added-yahoo-now-worth-negative-13-billion

  141. MarcusD says:

    I really wan’t to tell a girl I like her but…
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=990761

    A Catholic Woman Tells of Her Marriage: an Account of Leading a Married Life With God
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=990862

    Marriage troubles
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=990823

  142. Looking Glass says:

    @Spike:

    If they argued it was mostly not going to work because post-Bablyonian Jewry was designed around rejecting Christianity (much in the way Islam and post-modernist Socialism were as well), there would be a good logical back up. But you don’t give up, even if few will ever convert.

  143. Opus says:

    Is there not some delicious irony in that Mrs Kassian mocks the idea of home, family and children by her dismissive reference to white picket fences – she has it all of course; I need to add that white picket fences seem to be an entirely American and Colonial American invention – you never seem them here in Great Britain; Gardens in great Britain are very different, high fences usually of brown wood or preferably very tall shrubs and used for very different purposes; we do not sit out in the front, but I am in danger of digressing – whereas Millions of people are apparently illegally living and working in the United States whose dream would presumably be to escape to Suburbia and the same white picket fences, so much mocked by Mrs Kassian, and the house that goes with it worked for and probably paid for by her husband. No one forced her to marry or to marry Mr Kassian, yet in listening to her contempt for her affluent life one cannot resist feeling that what she really wants to say is that every woman in her oppressed position has a right to go EPL – and doubtless there is some verse in The Bible which can be spun in support of a trip to North Africa and a meeting with a man called Fernando or Omar, for what else exactly is could it be that is missing in her life. Perhaps she needs to openly embrace Open Marriage and leave off what I take to be entirely inappropriate interpretations of those NT texts.

  144. Is this not merely another pretext for allowing women to tear up their side of a social contract whilst still expecting and forcing men to keep theirs?

  145. “‘they boldly state that men and women’ – it jumped out at me. I am turning into a Grammar Nazi, but the use of the adverb Boldly before the verb – in this case, State – is now part of common culture (though not I think the KJV). I have always felt, nevertheless, that splitting an infinitive added force to the sentence and Fowler and Fowler could see no objection (so I recall).”

    Eh? What infinitive is being split here?

  146. Miserman says:

    I am always fascinated when I heard Christian women and their male enablers talk of women using their “gifts” in the church. What gifts are they talking about? What gifts are they not allowed to use? If I had to guess I would say they are talking about the gifts of heading families and congregations.

  147. Hank Flanders says:

    OKRickety

    If your employment issues were the result of bad timing, economic difficulties, etc., then you have demonstrated perseverance by trying to get new jobs in the same field, and then, eventually, moving on to another field. Of course, it would be nice for you (and a wife) to have the security of a “permanent” job, but I don’t know if that is possible anymore. So, I would see your perseverance as an attribute — you’re not going to just give up when the going gets tough. A good wife will recognize this and value it.

    Thanks for the encouragement. I hope I can find someone who’s that logical.

  148. feeriker says:

    …yet in listening to her contempt for her affluent life one cannot resist feeling that what she really wants to say is that every woman in her oppressed position has a right to go EPL – and doubtless there is some verse in The Bible which can be spun in support of a trip to North Africa and a meeting with a man called Fernando or Omar, for what else exactly is could it be that is missing in her life. Perhaps she needs to openly embrace Open Marriage and leave off what I take to be entirely inappropriate interpretations of those NT texts.

    Spot on, Opus. I’m betting that this is EXACTLY what Mizz Kassian and other churchio-feminists of her stripe want to say, but dare not do so, for even modern churchians aren’t quite ready yet to swallow overtly stated feminist apostasy.

    Yes, apostasy is the right word here, for it is obvious by their words and many of their deeds that these women reject the Scriptures they claim to follow. For these Scriptures contain clearly worded commandments that run counter to the FI and that therefore simply cannot be tolerated. Unfortunately for these oppressed dearies, churchianity has not quite devolved and deteriorated to the point where they can yet openly declare that “the Old Testament profits, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul were troglodyte misogynists, like all men of the ancient world, whose words and deeds pertaining to women have no place in the modern, enlightened world and are obviously not of God. Therefore we refuse to be bound by them.”

    Women like Mizz Kassian and her hen chorus are just marking time until such time as they can openly and unapologetically rebel and know that no gelded churchian men will dare to stand up to them. Methinks that they don’t have very much longer to wait. Mizz Kassian’s current position at the Southern Baptist churchian indoctrinatikn center serves as partial proof that end is closer than most people think.

  149. Regular Guy says:

    @ Damn Crackers

    I’m in a small, 5 family, Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church and I make it my mission to challenge every feminist thought that openly rears it’s ugly head. It’s not a perfect church, but if I found one, I suspect they wouldn’t let me in the door.

  150. enrique says:

    @Damn Crackers: Yahoo seems like some form of an Intel shop doing gaslamping against the American public. They constantly have these female-written-oriented articles that push soft misandry, hypergamy and the FI. This is the kind of soft war one nation pushes against another, underminding it’s currency and culture, generally.

    @Opus: Yes, I’ve noticed there’s always a cognitive-dissonance with women and liberals/progressives. They make generalities to build consensus to their opinion, but then wind supporting the very things they allegedly take issue of. This Kasian gal, as you point out, is like so many, who say things like “That whole 1950s image of June Clever:” (and then often pair it with abusive husbands, as if that was the norm). Then they go on to make clear, that they live a simply BETTER version of the same image they supposedly dislike. It’s about as legit as “feminist” Jane Fonda, who only OWES her career to: 1) A famous father, 2) Attractiveness as a young woman, 3) the famous and wealthy men she has been married to. Imedla Marcos was a more honest character, with her 1,000 pairs of shoes.

  151. Gunner Q says:

    Miserman @ 8:21 am:
    “If I had to guess I would say they are talking about the gifts of heading families and congregations.”

    That was my impression of LeeLee, too. She tried to be a high-status, high-profile evangelist despite the impediment of a husband and infants to care for. Sounds like she at least cut the church work when the inevitable burnout happened. Most YuGo grrls cut the hubby instead.

    As if God would allow any souls to go to Hell because she gave priority to her husband.

  152. BradA says:

    You may be reading a bit too much into LeeLee GQ.

  153. Original Laura says:

    Hank Flanders: I don’t know how old you are, but there are SO MANY unemployed and underemployed men in their 20s and 30s now that your status as an employed man who has been unemployed in the past should not be any kind of social handicap.

    House prices in most parts of the USA now appear to be dropping slowly but steadily, so if you marry a woman who is good at managing money, you may very well end up in approximately the same financial place at age 50 that you would have been had you been born 10 or 15 years earlier.

  154. Gunner Q says:

    “You may be reading a bit too much into LeeLee GQ.”

    Of course, but these days I like to be very skeptical of women who try to do it all. Evangelism is the kind of high-visibility work that tempts them, too. The churches Leelee mentioned in which women are literally not allowed to speak, they are nowhere close to endorsing feminism, whereas a church in which women are encouraged to do everything except directly teach men is only a “could you cover for me just once” away.

    It isn’t enough for me that a church doesn’t have a female senior pastor. They need to not toe the line at all.

  155. BradA says:

    I am quite cynical GQ, but not quite as much as you are now. You may be right, or not, but I do agree that we have to watch out.

    I do remember visiting a church in northern Virginia several decades ago with women, including the pastor’s wife, who walked around with their heads down all the time, while the men were mostly outgoing. That is what your post makes me think of and I don’t buy that either. (I am not saying you mean that, I am just noting the image it brings up for me.)

    Most people are idiots and don’t stop at Biblical limits, so they ignore admonitions like the one you note, which certainly makes getting even close to it more dangerous. I am not sure I am ready to go that far myself though, since I don’t find the Scriptural support for it. Adding our own rules on top of things can lead to the errors the Pharisees made in Jesus’ day.

    (Not trying to stir up an argument, just commenting.)

  156. Pingback: Divorcian heresy. [quotage] – Dark Brightness

  157. Marie says:

    No one has addressed leelee’s point that Paul used women in ministry (unless I missed it). This is a bad clip. I’ve personally read they’re book “true woman 201,” and it teaches about Titus 2. They point out that it says something about a woman’s nature if we’re reminded to love our husbands and children. They also teach that women are responsible for managing the home even if they work outside the house. They teach that you can be obedient and not submissive if your heart is not in the proper place.

    For what it’s worth, I grew up in independent bible/independent baptist churches. Women in ministry has always been cleaning the church, nursery, food (cookies for vbs, meals for the sick, potlucks). They ran the helping hands ministry where they’d assign someone to clean for a member who is sick (and various things of that nature). They do the accompaniment for the hymns. No women pastors, elders, deacons or worship leaders.

  158. Looking Glass says:

    @Marie:

    I did address LeeLee’s point. The question is *ALWAYS* “What has God asked of me?”. One can do many “good things” by their own power, but the reward is wholly in the here & now. You miss the eternal reward because you missed the point & God’s Instruction.

  159. Looking Glass says:

    Reflecting a bit on Paul’s injunction about Women even talking in “church”, it dawned one me what he was actually establishing. Especially in light of our understanding of intra & inter-sex social dynamics, the benefit wouldn’t be obviously apparent at first.

    If you haven’t had the pleasure of learning with just a group of Men, for an extended period of time, you really don’t know the benefit of that environment. It’s honest in the way only Men can be, and it is very easy to learn quickly in that environment. In a smallish group setting, it would take a few times meeting before the effects became prominent, but once it’s established the less inclined to participant would suddenly be very insightful. It’s also more time efficient and you can deal with the hard topics without having to deal with the frail emotions of most Women. (This is also part of the reason God told us not to put Women into positions of authority within the Church. No Woman is actually capable of consistently carrying out the hard parts of Theology.)

  160. BradA says:

    I have found it a challenge to find men who really want to wrestle with the Scriptures. Plenty of places to argue, but I mean something far more useful.

  161. Dale says:

    @Hank Flanders

    >or would the fact that I have to wait until I’m making good money be proof that I wouldn’t want such a woman, since she’d be interested in money and not me?

    I used to think in this manner. Basically, she was not “holy” enough if she cares about the provision I can provide. Especially if I have to visibly show my wealth before she becomes interested.
    And certainly, a man or woman who is consumed with money has problems. Matt 6:19-24 is a favourite passage of mine.

    However, God has said that a man is to provide for his wife. Ex 21:7-11 deals with a narrow example of marriage, but does show a man is to provide food and clothing for his wife. Thus, I should not be surprised if God has put into women a desire for a man who can and is willing to provide.
    We may argue about the level of provision necessary. And I have no doubt that many women’s desires have been corrupted, causing them to desire far more than the simple provision level described in Scripture.

    Just as I wish to see an example of modest clothing, chastity and femininity from a woman before I consider her for marriage, so too do I think we as men should allow her to see an example of provision capabilities and mature spiritual leadership before she considers us for marriage.
    I will agree with DragonFly here however, that a woman requiring a 6-figure salary is not appropriate for (Biblical) marriage.

    May God guide you as you seek to walk the requisite tightrope, avoiding both wasting the resources for which you will give an account, and the giving of an unappealing appearance of poverty! 🙂

    And I have not married, so perhaps consider the lack of wisdom apparent in my advice.

    >That is, are there any women out there who would really just love you for you, regardless of the circumstances

    Your ability and willingness to fulfill the role God ascribes to you ARE part of who you are, including your provisioning abilities. They are not simply external details. They are just as relevant as whether a bride-to-be is still a virgin (Deut 22), dressed modestly or obedient to her father.

    As others have done, I encourage you to not let your current situation preclude you from pursuing a marriage. With a good work ethic and wisdom, it is reasonable to think your situation will improve with time.

    @Deep Strength
    >Sure, she may love you, but the command from her in Scripture is to respect you.

    As you pointed out later, Titus 2:3-5 also includes the instruction for (young) wives to love their husbands. I think the need to understand “love” as actions is critical. Your passages on this are important; one of my favourites is John 14:21-24.
    21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

    22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

    23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

    Otherwise, great comment.

    @LeeLee

    I think it is great that you are willing to serve, in particular with sharing the good news of salvation. Rom 12:3-8 and 1 Pet 4:10-11 do show that we have different gifts, so God may certainly put you in a different place of service.
    And obviously it is not wrong to wish to make disciples for Christ (Matt 28:18-20). As others have suggested, it may be more effective to do these efforts on a 1-to-1 basis, or in a group where the believers are a majority, rather than fighting the tides of a large group of unbelievers.
    I think it is great for a woman to value her own relationship with God and her own family higher than a perceived “ministry” that may not have been from God. You appear to have chosen this wise path.
    May God guide your service. And remember, the same Holy Spirit that inspired the other commands of Scripture also inspired passages such as 1 Cor 7, Col 3:18-21 and Titus 2:3-5. Serving your husband and his family, as God commanded, IS serving God.

    @Looking Glass

    One of the best groups I was in was a group of about 4 core men. We ostensibly got together each week just to play games, but significant theological discussions broke out almost every week. I really enjoyed the camaraderie as well as the theological discussions.
    As the group enlarged, in particular as women joined, those discussions became infrequent.

  162. Spike says:

    @Looking Glass says: December 11, 2015 at 1:45 am
    “If they argued it was mostly not going to work because post-Babylonian Jewry was designed around rejecting Christianity (much in the way Islam and post-modernist Socialism were as well), there would be a good logical back up. But you don’t give up, even if few will ever convert”

    -Thanks, Looking Glass. My response to it all is Acts 5:29.
    Christians must wake up to the fact that you have pointed out in the above statement. Post-Babylonian Jewry is not the natural ally of Christianity. This cuts John Hagee and other Evangelicals off the fold, but this is a necessary distinction to make.
    We are on this forum, as others have pointed out, largely because of the diatribes of Jewish women – Betty Friedan, Andrea Dworkin, Naomi Wolf, Gloria Steinem, Susan Brownmiller and a host of others.
    While not all feminists are Jewish (Germaine Greer for example comes from my native Australia) a massive proportion of them are. Their teachings need to be publicly exposed and refuted.

  163. Locard says:

    A lovely recent Proverbs 31 post going around.
    “That friend who speaks truth? Listen to her. Stay connected to her. Let her speak truth into your life even when you’re tired of hearing it. Stand in the shadow of her faith when you feel your own faith is weak, and let her lead you back to God time and time again.”

    “Walk with the wise and become wise, for a companion of fools suffers harm.” Proverbs 13:20 (NIV)
    Lysa TerKeurst

  164. Hank Flanders says:

    Original Laura

    Hank Flanders: I don’t know how old you are, but there are SO MANY unemployed and underemployed men in their 20s and 30s now that your status as an employed man who has been unemployed in the past should not be any kind of social handicap.

    Thanks, I’m in my mid-30s. I thought at this point in my life my career would have gone somewhere, but it feels like I’m constantly starting over, but I should be and am thankful that I at least have the ability to start over.

  165. 2084GO says:

    “The culture informs the Bible? What good is the Bible then?”

    For its moral teachings. Naturally the languages they spoke, clothes they wore, customs they followed, food they ate, etc, were the languages, clothes, customs and food of that area at that time, not pizza or English or jeans, etc.

  166. Mark Citadel says:

    I once heard someone say that ‘ethnic studies’ courses were only used by guys to pick up girls. I think ‘women’s studied’ courses are only used by girls to pick up other girls.

  167. JDG says:


    “The culture informs the Bible? What good is the Bible then?”

    For its moral teachings. Naturally the languages they spoke, clothes they wore, customs they followed, food they ate, etc, were the languages, clothes, customs and food of that area at that time, not pizza or English or jeans, etc.

    Changes in the culture that are amoral do not inform the Bible, but rather the reader on how the principles in the Bible might be applied. For the Christian, whenever the changes in the culture clash with the principles taught in the Bible the cultural change needs to go.

  168. Micha Elyi says:

    …the Pope has told Catholics that they should not try to convert Jews…

    https://www.rt.com/news/325545-catholics-jews-convert-vatican/
    Spike

    You should question more, Spike, especially any claims that Russia Today (RT) is an honest news source or that it is an authority on Catholic Christians. I noticed that the link to RT that you provided said nothing about the Pope and did not quote the Pope.

    Basically, RT’s story is just plain wrong. Then you went and attributed RT’s disinformation about a document released by a Vatican commission to the Pope himself. Uh oh.

    Here’s a better source that discusses what really happened:
    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/new-vatican-document-on-jews-salvation-and-evangelization/#ixzz3uFDhRom5

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

  170. Pingback: How do wives petition or win their husbands | Christianity and the manosphere

  171. Pingback: Don’t tell women no. | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s