Tame or be tamed.

In response to my last post several readers and one kind blogger challenged my characterization of Mary Kassian’s sermon Don’t Be a Wimp: Kicking the Habits That Make Women Weak.  I was very brief in my last post, so I’m doing this follow up with more detail.  The sermon is just under an hour so I’ll break it down into four sections.  For brevity I’ll keep the quotes to a minimum and instead will reference sections of the sermon by their beginning and ending times in the video.  From there you can find the same section in the transcript if you prefer to read her words rather than listen.

1)  Introduction (Them’s fightin’ words!) 0 to 2:14

The first two minutes are dedicated to whipping up feelings of feminist envy and resentment in the audience.  Kassian talks about being a tomboy who could do everything the boys could do, and her deep resentment when one of her brothers told her she was a “weak girl”.

2)  Identifying the topic of the sermon (Taming Scripture) 2:15-6:37

This feminist resentment has a purpose, because this is a very standard Christian feminist sermon where the feminist identifies an initially offensive passage in Scripture before explaining that it isn’t offensive if you know what it really means.  If Scripture offends your feminist sensibilities ladies, you clearly don’t understand it correctly. What then follows is an outlandish yarn about the “true meaning” of this widely misunderstood Scripture.  If you look you will find Christian feminists doing this all of the time.  For just a few examples, see Jen Wilkin doing it with 1 Pet 3 here, and Sheila Gregoire doing this with Eph 5:22 here.

In this particular Scripture taming sermon, the topic is 2 Timothy 3:6-7

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.

Kassian describes her initial offense at the words of the Apostle Paul:

My brother had called me a weak girl. There is no way anyone was ever going to call me weak. And here was Scripture talking about weak women.

You can turn there to 2 Timothy 3:6-7. That’s the passage we’re going to park on this morning, and I’m going to unpack it for you.

Kassian then follows the pattern, explaining the true meaning of 2 Timothy 3:6-7.  Of course it isn’t offensive to feminists at all!  It turns out there is a feminist backstory that explains everything.

…one of the problems that was facing the church there was that false teachers were impacting the church, influencing the church from the inside. And they were finding a disproportionate amount of success amongst the women, because the women were weak.

Here is Paul-the-women’s-studies-major identifying an area of disproportionate results between men and women, and Paul wants to level things up by teaching the women to be as strong as the men.  Kassian tells us that Paul’s point in the passage is to empower Christian women so they will be equal with men in their ability to avoid being deceived (emphasis mine):

These women were childish and frivolous and silly and immature and wimpy. They deserved the triple W label: weak, wimpy woman. [laughter]

The point is, they ought not to have been. They ought not to have been that.

The only problem is that isn’t Paul’s point at all.  Moreover, while the backstory she offers may well have happened, it doesn’t accurately describe the context of the Scripture.  In the verses leading up to 2 Timothy 3:6-7, Paul explains that perilous times are coming.  Paul isn’t writing to tell Timothy how to fix his problem of unempowered women, he is warning Timothy of danger to come in the future:

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Paul isn’t commenting on a baffling recent lack of moxie, he is warning of an inherent vector of attack that will be exploited in the future.  As Paul explained in his previous letter to Timothy women are more easily deceived, and this goes all the way back to the fall:

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.

Yet Kassian has twisted this passage around to where instead Paul is somehow surprised that women are more easily deceived than men and offering a recipe for making this equal.

3)  How to be strong empowered women.  6:37-44:30

Kassian then uses the specific wording of the passage to identify seven habits women can adopt to become as hard to deceive as men.  Much of what she proposes is good, except for the fact that even while doing this she is teaching the opposite of what Paul was getting at.  For example, it is good that she is teaching women to learn Scripture.  But in doing this she is claiming women can solve the problem of being more easily deceived than men by studying their Bibles.

Lies, lies, lies. Satan is the father of lies. He is a good liar.

And our foremother Eve fell for a lie, and the propensity to fall for them has plagued women ever since.

Do you know how the FBI trains secret service agents to identify counterfeit money? They put them in a room with real money. And for hours and hours and hours, they study the details of the real thing, and they feel it, and they smell it. And they become so familiar with real money that when they come across counterfeit money, they just know, “Hmm, something’s off, not quite right. It’s not quite the right texture.” And they can pick it out, what’s wrong. They don’t pick out what’s wrong by studying the bad stuff. They pick it out by becoming familiar with the good stuff.

And it’s the same way with us; it’s the same way with us. In order to combat falsehood, we need to become intimately familiar with truth. We need the Word.

This is truth. This is truth, and if we aren’t getting it into our systems, if we aren’t feeling it and handling it and reading it and studying it and becoming a familiar with the texture and the feel of it, we’re not going to know when something else is kind of off.

But if we’re familiar with truth, when Satan comes along with a lie . . . and those lies always have some truth to them, otherwise we wouldn’t fall for them. They’re just off a little bit. And when Satan comes along with a lie, we’ll be able to know, “Hmm, something’s not quite right here. Something’s not quite right.”

So a woman of strength equips her mind, and she also protects it.

Truth will set you free, ladies, but you will have a tough time discerning what’s true if you spend all your time being exposed to garbage.

Don’t be a wimp, ladies. Don’t be a wimp. A weak woman is captivated by lies. A woman of strength takes her thoughts captive to truth.

While studying Scripture is very important, it isn’t the solution Paul provides to this specific problem.  The solution is for women to learn in silence in all submission.  But this has the original problem of offending feminist sensibilities.  When Scripture faces off against feminist sensibilities, something has to give;  either Scripture will tame the feminist, or the feminist will tame Scripture.  Here as we see so often, the choice of the feminist is to tame Scripture.

4)  The twist.  44:30-End

Finally, we get to the twist.  The twist is designed to seem like repentance of the feminist rebellion stoked in the beginning and nurtured throughout the rest of the sermon, but this is only a distraction.  If you read carefully you will find that no such repentance occurs.

The twist is that once she started actually fighting her brother (who is 3 years her senior), she started getting hurt.  The outrage of “He called me a weak girl!” is traded for the outrage of “He hit a girl!”

I started swinging and hitting and punching and kicking. And I think he was amused. He pushed me off a little bit, but then I must have smacked him in the face, and he got angry. And he started hitting me for real, and it didn’t feel so good. And I started crying, and I was getting hit, and I was losing the fight, and he was pinning me down.

And it must have been this massive commotion, because my older brother heard it from downstairs and he came up. He pulled us apart, took my brother to the floor, pinned him down, and told him off and said, “How dare you! How dare you do that! How dare you hit her!”

This isn’t about logic, it is about emotion, and the emotion remains unchanged.  This isn’t a capitulation;  it isn’t a recognition that she resented being a woman and envied men.  It is a shift from overt feminism to non-threatening chivalry.

My older brother looked at me, and he said, “You are a girl. And if you get into fights with him, you’re going to get beat up. And next time you have an issue, you come call me, and I’ll deal with it.”

I like that brother. That was a good brother. [laughter]

Like, “Yeah, I can get into trouble. He’ll come deal with it.

This would be an obvious opening to remind the women that they need to lean on, to submit to, the man who should be leading them and protecting them.  But again, this would offend the feminist sensibility, and Kassian has made it clear elsewhere that no man is going to tell her to submit.

What follows instead is a speech nearly all Christian men have received multiple times, usually from a Christian man who is a current or former athlete.  The only difference is Kassian has changed the sexes to make this about being a strong woman instead of being a strong man.

But here is the irony: A weak woman tries to act strong, and culture tells us to act all strong and in control and in charge and bossy as women. But a woman of strength recognizes that she is weak, and that she needs a Savior-that she’s in a lifelong wrestling match with sin, and she’s not going to win unless that Savior comes in and takes care of it for her.

Our own strength is inadequate. I loved listening to Joni last night and listening to her talk about her weakness, because that’s what we are.

And in order to become a woman who clothes myself in strength, I need to identify my weakness and press into the strength of Jesus.

Ephesians 6:10: “Be strong”-what? “in the Lord and in the strength of His might.”

It’s His might. It’s His strength. It’s Him. And if you don’t hold onto that, you can act as big and tough and mean as you want, but you are just going to get beat up because we’re weak. We are weak, and without Christ as our strength, we’re going to take the hits.

Seek the Lord and His strength. Seek His presence. Seek His strength continually.

This entry was posted in Chivalry, Complementarian, Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Feminists, Jen Wilkin, Mary Kassian, Moxie, Rebellion, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to Tame or be tamed.

  1. Pingback: Tame or be tamed. | Neoreactive

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    The fight with her brother, followed by the White Knighting of her older brother, is classic Female Imperative at work, but it’s also the usual script that equalitarian feminism follows.

    1. “I”m as tough as any guy!”
    2. “I can mouth off to any guy!”
    3. “Don’t HIt Me, I’m A Girl” (DHMIAG)
    4. “Won’t some MAN save me?”

    Repeat…
    Look, she was rewarded for starting a physical altercation with her older brother when her oldest brother came into the room and took her side. In essence Kassian set up her brother in a no-win situation: either he submits to her girlish temper tantrum and thus allows her to rule him, or he resists and winds up as The Bad Guy. No surprise this gets a lot of positive reaction from an all-female audience; “Let’s You And Him Fight” is a common sorting mechanism used by female humans since forever. This is the same dynamic that can play out in far too many domestic violence situations: woman starts something she can’t finish, calls her Big Brother in blue (with a gun) to come save her, man goes to jail. See: “Duluth Protocol” for why this is true.

    What’s interesting in a more meta sense: the men who can’t see this. I wouldn’t expect a pedestalizing, out of date Trad-Con to understand what’s going on, but it’s interesting that more Game-aware men also can’t see it. There’s subcommunication clearly going on in Kassian’s sermon, of course, that’s standard woman-woman communication. It isn’t just the ordering of the story, I’d have to re-view this vid to be sure but it seems to me she’s smirking a bit in certain parts; body language and facial expression being key parts of subcommunication.

    Finally, the last bit is the giveaway: Kassian is talking to women but she’s pretending to be a man talking to other men. This is yet another example of the crossdressing that conservative feminists are very fond of. What’s interesting to me is how many conservative men simply can’t see this; it’s like looking at a wall painted bright red and discussing it with someone who’s red/green colorblind…

  3. Pingback: Tame or be tamed. – Manosphere.com

  4. Cane Caldo says:

    What follows instead is a speech nearly all Christian men have received multiple times, usually from a Christian man who is a current or former athlete. The only difference is Kassian has changed the sexes to make this about being a strong woman instead of being a strong man.

    And so it follows that the roles of husband and father are excised from “real” spiritual life. It’s all about your benefit, ladies! Those brutes are relegated to the world of the mundane; consequences of worldly tribulation and circumstance.

  5. That linked about how ‘servant leaders mind their own business’ kinda destroyed the argument that this women is doing the Lord’s work. She is not, she has been deceived, Satan tricked her, move along now.

  6. Funny how the ‘good man’ is the one who has to take responsibility for her failings rather than letting her take the consequences. He should have pulled his younger brother off, sent him away and scolded her for hitting her brother and being disrespectful. If that was the tact the older brother took, we probably wouldn’t be dealing with the Kassian of today.

  7. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Okay Dal, remember yesterday I told you I’d give it some more thought.

    Well now I see it, and it is actually very basic.

    Every bit of instruction given since the Fall of Adam and Eve was given because Father Yahweh seeks to restore us.

    While we are sealed in the Holy Spirit til the day of Redemption, we are yet being sanctified; however that process of sanctification requires order. The reason is because we took on a nature that as at odds with what it was pre-fall.

    This nature has to be kept in check, for Christ sake, for the Glory of the Father, and to mitigate our suffering, as well as to keep us in a place to continue to fulfill His plan for His people.

    To fulfill this plan we have to stay in our fucking lanes, confess, repent, and walk in faith.

    Feminism of all flavors isn’t about doing any of this. It’s about subtle usurpation, making excuses (actually, you can feel the cognitive dissonance coming from Kassian in her non-verbals), seeking to have pre-eminence of His plan (I’m just letting the man think he’s in charge, but we know who is calling the shots), and thinking their shit don’t stink because all of that doesn’t apply to them (I’m not a fallen woman who has a sinful nature, Repent for what? I just need to get more girl power because my Personal Jesus is just as good as any mans, my Personal Jesus…his kung fu is veeery goooodt)

    So she gets on the hamster and tells the women that they just need more girl power. They don’t need to learn or listen or be led by their godly devout husbands, they just need more moxie (as you have said on many occasions). They don’t need to be led, just need to get the lead out, and be unapologetic about it. See ladies, that’s really what Paul and ‘nem are saying to us. Cover what? Submit to who? Turn down for what? Gurl, pleeze…we got this!

  8. theasdgamer says:

    Dal, Kassian’s blog is offline now. We can’t access to link to it in your earlier linked post.

  9. Dalrock says:

    Here is an archive link I took of the page when it was still up: https://archive.is/mtKY4

    Edit: That link is for the 7 Misconceptions of Submission. I also found that the original youtube link was empty (but the time specific ones were fine), so I fixed that. The link to the transcript is still working for me, but if it goes down the archive is here.

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dal, Kassian’s blog is offline now.

    Gee, that’s such a surprise…

  11. Looking Glass says:

    We still haven’t even mentioned the point where she named dropped everyone she’s associated with and herself. The arrogance was pretty straight forward. A Christian should understand the Grace of the Lord and why it’s so important. Name-dropping people that you know, in front of a large crowd of Women, is massively shameful signalling.

  12. LeeLee says:

    Dalrock, I hear what you’re saying but there is something that is troubling me about this –Titus 2:3? It says that older women should “*teach* what is good” (kalodidaskaloß/
    Kalodidaskalos) to younger women and so train them to be self controlled, submissive, love their families, work hard at home, etc.

    To me this assumes that there’s an expectation that godly older women will take on a teaching role with younger women? In modern day life, most Christian young women get their instruction on how to be a woman from secular magazines, blogs and celebrities because inter-generational relationships have all but broken down.

    It makes sense to me in our cultural context that something like a private event for women would be a great place for godly older women to fulfill Titus 2. If women teaching the Bible at a private event for women is off limits, it’s hard to see how that makes sense:

    for example, at the annual christmas brunch for my homeschool group, which is a private event meant to encourage Christian ladies, should the key speaker not speak of the Bible when trying to encourage us? That just seems off. Should we not have a Christmas brunch at all? That seems off too.

    I’m not trying to be annoying, I really want to understand how you see this even on a small scale like that.

    Though what I can clearly connect with it what you’re saying about the content — because the teaching has to have the effect of producing the characteristics in Titus 2… submissive to husbands, kind, loving, caring for the home first, etc.

    If women are coming home like hear me rawr, that’s no good.

  13. “How dare you! How dare you do that! How dare you hit her!”

    Hmmm,…that sounds familiar. Oh yeah,…

  14. Per Desteen says:

    @leelee:

    “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.”

    Nothing said about women teaching women. Titus is no contradiction.

  15. Per Desteen says:

    leelee:

    “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.”

    Nothing said about women teaching women. Titus is no contradiction.

  16. thedeti says:

    LeeLee:

    Titus 2 says women are to teach the younger women how to be good wives, take care of home and kids, train them in submission, etc.

    Titus 2 does NOT say women are to teach the younger women the meaning of Scripture, or to exegete Scripture.

    Scripture exegesis, and teaching on Scripture, is “preaching”.

  17. Hayeks host says:

    This has to be be one of your best posts ever. This the red pill counterpart to Vox Day’s SJWs Always Lie. This is the summation for the bait and switch that churchians do with headship.

  18. When Scripture faces off against feminist sensibilities, something has to give; either Scripture will tame the feminist, or the feminist will tame Scripture.

    Or you could simply conflate the Feminine Imperative with the Holy Spirit in sermons and church culture so often that feminist sensibilities become a de facto presumption of religious doctrine.

    Maybe it’s me, but it seems much more practical to bypass the need to continually tame scripture when you can just have the sheep presume that if it sounds like fempowerment it’s probably God’s will.

  19. thedeti says:

    Actually, now that I’m looking at it – Titus 2 doesn’t authorize women to teach the meaning of Scripture to anyone, anywhere – even kids.

  20. The 3rd Commandment:

    You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

    I used to think this meant is was a sin to say “God Dammit”, but what it really means is to presume to speak for God (taking his name) and delivering your own message (in vain) as His. That’s really the definition of blasphemy.

    Something to think about when we’re considering all this.

  21. Gunner Q says:

    “This would be an obvious opening to remind the women that they need to lean on, to submit to, the man who should be leading them and protecting them.”

    +1. The whole point of having a husband is so a woman doesn’t have to be strong. She can instead appreciate him for being strong for her benefit. That’s exactly Christ & Church.

    LeeLee @ 3:40 pm:
    “To me this assumes that there’s an expectation that godly older women will take on a teaching role with younger women?”

    You women don’t need the Bible to teach each other how to be pleasant and helpful around the house anyway.

  22. RichardP says:

    Contrary to what Dalrock seems to be saying, I did not get the idea from Mary Kassian’s talk that she was teaching the women what the point of 2 Timothy 3:6-7 was. Rather, I got the sense that Mary Kassian was calling women to a higher standard – and used 2 Timothy 3:6-7 as a base position. To paraphrase her point: “2 Timothy 3:6-7 tells us what we women can be at our worst; Christ is calling us to a higher standard than that”. That is a point clearly different from the point Paul was making.

    Women have innate characteristics (see 2 Timothy 3:6-7). So do men. Christ calls us to put off that old man and take on the new one. Are men the only ones called to do that? Does that calling apply also to women? If the answer is “yes”, then we must accept that – in terms of our salvation, for both male and female – “innate” is not destiny. “Rise to the standard that Christ calls us to” was the thrust of Mary Kassian’s talk. Why would Christ call women to that higher standard if he knew they were not capable of reaching it (with his help).

    Rather than clutter this post with links to different scriptures, I will give this one link that contains many of the scriptures I am alluding to in my point here. If these scriptures apply equally to women, then focusing on the “innate” in anyone, male or female, is not scriptural. I thought anyone who truely understood the mechanics of the “new birth” in Christ realized that.

    http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/The-New-Man-In-Christ

  23. LeeLee says:

    @Looking Glass & @thedeti: the word literally means “teach what is good/ be teachers of what is good” *and so* train the younger women — How could “what is good” exclude the Bible? This is why I’m struggling so much with this — the application seems to back Christian women into only communicating in secular terms unless they’re friends and/or relatives and they’re alone together.

  24. RichardP says:

    @Gunner said:
    “This would be an obvious opening to remind the women that they need to lean on, to submit to, the man who should be leading them and protecting them.”

    +1. The whole point of having a husband is so a woman doesn’t have to be strong. She can instead appreciate him for being strong for her benefit. That’s exactly Christ & Church.
    ———————-

    What does any of that have to do with a woman’s response to God’s claim on her life? Does woman require an intermediary between her and God?

    Jesus says that no man comes to God but through him. He then states that no man comes to him (Jesus) except that God calls them. Is that “calling to Jesus” that God does only extended to men? Or does God also call women? If God does call women, does he only do it through their husbands? If the answer is yes, is it impossible for God to call an unmarried women?

    Your answers here are too simplistic for the reality as described in the Bible. Unless you wish to claim that salvation is only for married women.

  25. Els says:

    the application seems to back Christian women into only communicating in secular terms unless they’re friends and/or relatives and they’re alone together.

    Actually Lee Lee, I am now firmly convinced that this is exactly the way Titus 2 is to be disseminated the overwhelming majority of the time: Within personal relationships, from women who have walked the talk to women who have witnessed their lives enough to know that they are qualified to talk because they’ve seen them walk.

    Unfortunately, due to extended family, community and church breakdown, into the void has risen parachurch ministries, self-certified Internet women’s teachers (I used to be one so I’m not bashing ANYONE), and all other questionable sources of “Titus 2” that women rush toward because the voids inside of us are real and painful.

    It’s a terrible situation, truly.

  26. thedeti says:

    LeeLee:

    Titus 2:3-5:

    “The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

    4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

    5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

    “teachers of good things” is then followed by a series of items, none of which includes teaching Scripture. The statement “that the Word of God be not blasphemed” doesn’t seem to be an invitation to women to teach scripture; but instead as a modifier to all the prior items, ie, these things are good and consistent with God’s word and with a life of holiness. In fact that last phrase seems to be an invitation that women not teach scripture so that they might avoid blasphemy, which is essentially as Rollo identified it (passing off your own words as those of God).

  27. Thanks Deti, it would seem that even the people here have a problem with a wife learning the Scripture from her husband. They seem to be under the impression that these older women would be better teaches. The deception is strong.

  28. Thanks Rollo, it’s been awhile since we’ve had Mark Driscoll here to scold us. I was almost missing him, almost…

  29. HamOnRye says:

    @LeeLee

    I have read a couple of her books, and I actually like much of what she has to say, however I wonder how long it will be before the wheels come off the wagon. The primary problem is Mary Kassian, as much as she gets right is fundamentally not following her own advice of understanding where she is weak. Mary Kassian is not simply teaching/training the younger women, she is running her own ministry. She is not running in the service of another pastor she is off doing her own thing.

    I am sure you are probably saying “Ok whats wrong with that?” at this point in time. Peter was dealing specifically the Gnostic heresies in which women where highly represented but also where also leaders of that movement. About 2 centuries later the Montanism heresies show up and again we see a replication of the same issue; high ratio of women followers and leaders. History has proven that women are extremely receptive to false teaching, yet Mary Kassian chooses to run her own ministry.

    This history does not faze women like Mary Kassian, yet it should. A wise individual knows where they are weak and actively seeks to avoid placing themselves in situations that tempt their weakness.

  30. RichardP
    What does any of that have to do with a woman’s response to God’s claim on her life? Does woman require an intermediary between her and God?

    Meditate on Genesis 3:16, particularly the part about “he shall rule over you.”

    Look at the responsibility given to the men (fathers and husbands) in Numbers 30 and consider what it says about women in light of Genesis 3:16.

    Then consider God’s response to Korah in Numbers 16 when Korah and his followers challenged God’s ordained authority structure.

    Finally, with all that in mind, consider Ephesians 5:22 “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord”

    You’re conflating the need a woman has for a savior with her need for a ruler.

  31. Will says:

    “Do you know how the FBI trains secret service agents?”

    ::face palm::

    They don’t..

  32. I have read a couple of her books, and I actually like much of what she has to say, however I wonder how long it will be before the wheels come off the wagon. The primary problem is Mary Kassian, as much as she gets right is fundamentally not following her own advice of understanding where she is weak. Mary Kassian is not simply teaching/training the younger women, she is running her own ministry. She is not running in the service of another pastor she is off doing her own thing.

    That’s quite funny, she even says that a little bit of truth sprinkled in amongst the false will aid in the deception… so she says a few positive things and suddenly half the men on this blog are defending her, proving that very point, even after she has been shown to be wrong on the issue of submission and on the issue of women teaching. She speaks like one who has been fooled by their own words.

  33. Pingback: Tame or be tamed. | Reaction Times

  34. Anonymous Reader says:

    LeeLee
    To me this assumes that there’s an expectation that godly older women will take on a teaching role with younger women?

    I’ve taught a few things in my life. Sometimes I used books and words…

    How do you teach someone to build a fire? By example – here is good wood, here is wet wood, here is kindling wood, here is wood that is too big for starting a fire, here is tinder, this is one way to arrange all the wood/kindling/tinder…

    I’ve taught people how to cook basic food. Here is raw meat, here is a knife, we don’t cut meat on the wood cutting board that we cut veggies on, here is olive oil, here is how to not burn yourself…

    For most of human history people were taught by example. The apprentice system is a formalized version of that. A successful army of the 20th century would assign one new recruit to 2 or 3 veterans – “You go where they go, do what they do, maybe you survive”. ‘

    A great deal of communication in general is nonverbal, and women have the near monopoly on subcommunications. Let’s pick one thing: contempt. Contempt of wife for husband is one of the marriage-killers. Contempt of children for parent is a guarantee of misery. One expression of contempt is eye-rolling.

    If an older woman sees a young bride rolling her eyes behind her husband’s back, she can address that quietly. But better still would have been a mother who refused to tolerate a daughter that rolled her eyes at her father – and a mother who taught by example that the husband / father must be respected, especially when it is hard to do so.

    See how this works, LeeLee? Older women can teach younger women with a few words, some looks, gestures, etc. No need for a podium and a spotlight and a microphone & other ego-enhancing tools. Just one-on-one “Dear, you married him….” communication and subcommunication.

    Kassian wasn’t teaching. She was leading a rally of rebellion.

  35. Mark Hanson says:

    Thanks, Dalrock, for being kind to those of us guys that have a history of worshiping in Feminist Empowerment circles, and spelling things out. I read Kassian’s entire transcript yesterday and didn’t quite understand why you were making a fuss,

    Her initial reading of the Timothy passage is correct – women are more easily led astray by false teachers than men. And who can argue with the idea that women should learn the Scripture better?

    But I didn’t initially see that the end run was replacement rather than supplement. “Go to Jesus” is sound at first blush – he is the mediator for women as well as men. But the idea quickly morphs “go to Jesus instead of the men he has put in authority over you” – or worse, “go to Jesus because you need help, but you don’t need male authority over you.” In other words, the standard recipe for heresy: “Just me and Jesus – that’s all that’s needed.”

    At the same time I wonder a bit about the difference between then and now. In Paul’s day, almost no one would have owned a copy of the Scripture., and men and women would both for the most part have heard it read or recited rather than reading it themselves. In general, men were trained to remember and understand spoken teaching, in a way that women weren’t (and no one is nowadays!) Now that we have printed Bibles and published sermons and books, there is no reason that women as well as men cannot have firsthand access.

    Given this difference, I wonder whether the application of Paul’s passage needs to be re-cast in the light of our day. I know in my church the women are allowed to study the Bible and Christian books for themselves, but the Elders (men only) are the gatekeepers of the resources they use in classes. Seems to work pretty well. But women don’t teach men, mixed classes or children over 8 except under tightly constrained circumstances.

  36. bookstopper says:

    @ Rollo
    Blasphemy was the very first thing that came to mind when I read the OP. Conflation of the HS with the FI or gina tingle is the same type of blasphemy.

    @ Deti
    Drat, you beat me to the punch again! 🙂

    @ the OP
    If Dalrock hadn’t let me know this was a non-apology, I wouldn’t have made the logical connection between this section and an apology. It doesn’t follow any of the necessary criteria for forgiveness…just a feel good anecdote about obvious white knighting followed by a sanctimonious pat on the head to her manservant.

    The tame/be tamed problem nicely summarizes the difficulty with feminist encroachment in our culture overall, not just in regards to scripture. Thank you for your perspective, Dalrock, it’s invaluable as always.

  37. Darwinian Arminian says:

    “My older brother looked at me, and he said, “You are a girl. And if you get into fights with him, you’re going to get beat up. And next time you have an issue, you come call me, and I’ll deal with it.” I like that brother. That was a good brother. [laughter]

    Like, “Yeah, I can get into trouble. He’ll come deal with it.”

    This bit right here is the really damning part of her whole message, and it probably best sums up the whole attitude that Dalrock is trying to point out. Mary Kassian is completely blind to what got the trouble started for her in the first place. She got proud, she overestimated her powers, and then she proceeded to pick a fight that she never had any chance of winning. But she bypasses on even acknowledging this error or seeking repentance for it so that she can make a quick jump to the part that she really likes: A higher power will now step in to protect her and make her problems right again!

    Is Mary Kassian trying to use the story of her brother’s intervention for her as an illustration for how Christ saves his followers? If so, this strikes me as an incredibly flippant and downright cheap way of regarding her own salvation. “Yeah, I can get into trouble. He’ll come deal with it!” Would any faithful pastor tell a believer to take a similar attitude towards God? “I can jump into any kind of sin or foolishness head first. Christ will always offer me forgiveness after it’s done!”

    Kassian wants to continue to enjoy being able to get into trouble, while also being able to count on God to bail her out when the trouble arrives. And she spends the bulk of her sermon encouraging her fellow women of the church to build and cultivate their own strength and wisdom as is also the feminist fashion — right up until hubris sinks her and she’s stuck having to appeal to a higher power. It would seem that for her the word of God is not her salvation so much as it’s her contingency plan.

  38. Dalrock says:

    Thank you for the kind words Mark.

    Given this difference, I wonder whether the application of Paul’s passage needs to be re-cast in the light of our day. I know in my church the women are allowed to study the Bible and Christian books for themselves, but the Elders (men only) are the gatekeepers of the resources they use in classes. Seems to work pretty well. But women don’t teach men, mixed classes or children over 8 except under tightly constrained circumstances.

    I don’t read anything by Paul (or anywhere else in the Bible) as prohibiting women from reading Scripture. Women teaching children from material prepared and overseen by men doesn’t seem to be prohibited either.

  39. Looking Glass says:

    @LeeLee:

    Weirdly, that makes the second time in two days people have mixed up my comments for someone else.🙂

    On the general topic & the direction we’re going:

    Generally speaking, the assumption that Christianity would be preached or taught to large crowds is ahistorical. This is why the large crowds were mentioned so often in the Gospels: people generally just didn’t do that. (Or it’s a sign you’re raising an army.) Teaching & discipleship are almost always in very small settings. That’s the way Christianity has been passed along for 2000 years.

    What we’re viewing is the concepts of mass indoctrination that arose during the Progressive Movement merged with Christianity. Short & simply, it doesn’t work. Sure, as a pure evangelism event it can “work”, but there is no growth. But plenty of heresy spreads that way.

  40. Dalrock says:

    @RichardP

    Contrary to what Dalrock seems to be saying, I did not get the idea from Mary Kassian’s talk that she was teaching the women what the point of 2 Timothy 3:6-7 was. Rather, I got the sense that Mary Kassian was calling women to a higher standard – and used 2 Timothy 3:6-7 as a base position. To paraphrase her point: “2 Timothy 3:6-7 tells us what we women can be at our worst; Christ is calling us to a higher standard than that”. That is a point clearly different from the point Paul was making.

    There are two problems with this:

    1) She didn’t say she was using the Scripture as a base position. She said she was going to “unpack” the Scripture for the rest of the sermon.

    You can turn there to 2 Timothy 3:6-7. That’s the passage we’re going to park on this morning, and I’m going to unpack it for you.

    You are arguing that if she had said something other than what she said, she wouldn’t have been wrong in the way that she was. I don’t disagree, but it is meaningless.

    2) Even if she had said she was only using the scripture as a jumping off point to make a different point than Paul was making, the unrelated point she was making goes against the direct meaning of the Scripture she was using as a jumping point. Paul warned that women are a vector of vulnerability (because they are easier to deceive). She took that Scripture to argue that women won’t be easy to deceive if they read the Bible.

  41. Looking Glass says:

    On the sermon and a bunch not noticing the problem: I was thinking yesterday that maybe we’re all just, now, so used to such terribleness that once someone said anything “in the right area”, that many simply latched onto it. Sure, she hit several points fairly well, showing a little bit of honesty in parts, but that was quickly tossed aside.

    Though, in general, I think this issue is a bit broader. It comes up in Science discussions more than people realize. Part of the deductive process is to improve or remove “things you know” for “things you understand better”, but the problem is that so much of science has been baldly wrong (yet taught as the “one true religion!!!!” for on about 150 years now) that we just move on when something changes. It always makes Evolution debates hilarious when you point out that Darwinian Evolution has been utterly refuted by… science for, what, 80ish years? Yet they still use the exact same arguments that God can’t be real, just with “new” versions of what they themselves refuted ages ago now. (The scientifically inclined are free to take the argument back up when they can show me we’ve at least got an accurate weather data system in the States. /shots fired )

  42. Looking Glass says:

    @Dalrock:

    It would be somewhere in the 1800s before any sizable number of Women were literate and there were Bibles to read. Me thinks that’s caused more problems than it’s solved, actually.

  43. Carlotta says:

    @Dalrock
    I was beyond surprised by the pushback your post received. I also see no one noticed the witchcraft symbol displayed in the logo.
    Yahweh did not ask our opinion. He gave us rules to follow. He also gave us common sense.
    1. This women is not only not allowed biblically to preach, she is in open rebellion and not qualified to help younger women in a way she is allowed to. I also doubt she has any valuable experience or advice for those women who actually do follow the Bible.
    2. Where does it say to charge for fulfilling Titus 2? Where does it say make a career out it?
    3. If men in error would stop giving attention to and lauding these women and instead would hold in high esteem in public the women actually doing the right thing the tide would turn. Women crave male attention and approval.
    4. Why aren’t her protectors here holding her to the same standard they would hold a male elder to? Can a homosexual teach as long as his message is mostly sound? How about a violent alcoholic? What about an adulterer?
    5. Wolves are wolves because they mix truth with lies like food and rat poison.

  44. Carlotta says:

    @Leelee
    Dear Sister, I would like to address your question. I have been a committed Bible follower for well over 10 years, though I have followed the Lord since a child. I have been faithfully married to one man for over 20 years. I have a large family and homeschool and homemake.
    I was a feminist, successful business owner and was very deceived by what I thought the Bible said verses what it said. This all changed by the grace of my Father.
    I feel I am biblically qualified to advise you though I would caution you first to trust no one (check THE BIBLE and ask your husband!) and look for older women who you can observe on a regular basis to test their spirit and fruit. As for husbands, run everything by him. Even when my husband was not saved he was able to see through deceptions I didn’t and catches things faster then I ever could. They are simply built that way. If a man of God even better.
    Strangely, Yahweh through his holy spirit has been opening my eyes to this exact issue.
    1. Read carefully the entire books dealing with these issues. Not the verses. Not the chapter. The whole book. Then ask your husband specific questions.
    2. The teaching instructions for women first contain QUALIFICATIONS. This women does not have them. A note….a college degree is not one of them.
    3. Don’t take advice from women you cannot observe in an ongoing way and who do not meet the qualifications .
    4. What we ARE to teach are practical skills for use as wives and mothers. Think a mother training her daughters. This is completely the reverse of what this women is doing. This is not unpacking the Bible for women…..we are told to have our husband’s do that. This is child raising, cooking, cleaning, household management and the wifely arts. There is no Biblical exegesis here. Again, we are to ask our husband’s this!

    Last, I can’t tell you how women like this damage the body of Christ. They lead women away from their God given tasks and literally make you submit in an unholy way to them. What else is she doing here? She is usurping the role of husband’s to teach their wives. Why on earth are these women treating her as if she is their husband?
    And she is diverting the honor that should go to actual Godly women to herself. Ask yourself who is glorified by this sermon but her? Not God!
    Will more women follow the actual commands of the Bible after listening to this or l ess?

    Women of God doing what they are supposed to be doing are powerful in a holy and God honoring way. Be that women and let your husband and Father handle the wolves sweetie.

  45. Robin Munn says:

    @Carlotta –

    I also see no one noticed the witchcraft symbol displayed in the logo.

    Which logo? I assume you don’t mean Dalrock’s blog’s logo. Which one are you referring to?

  46. Pingback: Mary Kassian’s Talk: Don’t Be a Wimp: Kicking the Habits That Make Women Weak | The Autistic Gamer

  47. mike says:

    It’s almost as if Jesus has turned them into alpha widows. No human male is worthy of anything.

  48. Bill Smith says:

    It would be somewhere in the 1800s before any sizable number of Women were literate and there were Bibles to read. Me thinks that’s caused more problems than it’s solved, actually.

    Few men were literate either, so the point can’t stand on that.

    Some would argue we should go back to the RCC or Easter Orthodox way of handling things, and just let those in authority tell us what to do. I will stick with making errors trying to follow the Scriptures ourselves.

    I still do not believe that we have sufficient Biblical evidence for women to be completely silent at all times. I definitely see the merit in male leadership and doctrinal authority, especially over the family, but males are also prone to error so that is not an exclusive perfection.

    Philip’s daughters prophesied as well, as we discussed before. No evidence of that being a purely private affair, so that would need to be explained before I could follow it wholeheartedly. (The contrast there was against Agabus who was a prophet, not an implication of only doing things in private.)

    Whether large meetings of any kind are profitable in the modern church is a good question, but that is not the discussion here.

  49. Bill Smith says:

    Robin, I believe she meant the one for the conference Kassian spoke at. (I wouldn’t agree with that, but such was the implication.)

  50. Carlotta says:

    @Robin Munn
    In the video. It shows the word “Women” and the symbol is on the letter o.

    @Bill Smith
    “I still do not believe that we have sufficient Biblical evidence for women to be completely silent at all times.”

    No one was arguing for this anywhere. Paul specifically says during the teaching/worship service.
    As for the prophet daughters you bring up, the command is that their heads be covered while doing it and Paul gives specific commands about how to keep order and use the gifts of the spirit. Further, the Bible says the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets and no where does it says they do this only in a “church” setting. Throughout the Bible there is prophecy given and the prophet is no where near a temple.

  51. infowarrior1 says:

    @Looking Glass

    The 1800’s also seems to coincide with the rise of 1st wave feminism given increased female literacy.

    Proving God’s point through Paul the easily deceived nature of women. Female minds with such exposure via literacy precipitated the spread of egalitarianism which is then applied to the sexes that results in the debacle we see today.

  52. Robin Munn says:

    @Carlotta –

    The ♁ symbol in the word “women”? I assumed it was the standard “female” symbol ♀ turned upside-down so it would look like a cross. A quick Google search for ♁ (since it’s a standard character in computer fonts, you can Google it) turns up the fact that it’s the astronomical symbol for Earth (the ⊕ symbol is sometimes also used to represent Earth), whereas ♀ represents Venus (hence why that one became the standard “female” symbol). Since Wicca and other witchcraft traditions have strong ties to modern feminism, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find out that they were using the ♀ symbol as well, but the meaning that almost everyone would take ♀ to mean is “female”, and I’m unaware of anyone using the ♁ symbol in any witchcraft tradition.

    Doesn’t mean they don’t, of course; I might be ignorant. But my assumption in seeing the logo in the video is that it’s supposed to represent the “female” symbol, turned upside-down so it looks like a cross.

  53. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Robin: whereas ♀ represents Venus (hence why that one became the standard “female” symbol

    That symbol is Venus’s mirror. Venus was the Roman goddess of love and beauty, so mirrors were important to her.

    The standard male symbol, which is also the symbol for the planet Mars, is Mars’s shield and spear. Mars was the Roman god of war, so his shield and spear were important to him.

  54. freebird says:

    “That symbol is Venus’s mirror.”
    Citation needed
    Yeah right,symbols have metaphorical meanings,”in your head” only.
    For rational humans words and symbols MEAN THINGS.
    Go back to your pagan worship and take the disingenuousness with ya.

  55. desiderian says:

    Dal,

    “Even if she had said she was only using the scripture as a jumping off point to make a different point than Paul was making”

    Then she’s no longer preaching the Word of God and needs to find some place other than a pulpit to do it. The whole point of proper exegesis is making sure the preacher is making the point that scripture is making and not the preacher’s own hobboyhorse.

    Common churchian malady, and not just among women, though their solipsism does leave them particularly vulnerable to it, as you note.

  56. Hank Flanders says:

    feministhater

    Thanks Rollo, it’s been awhile since we’ve had Mark Driscoll here to scold us. I was almost missing him, almost…

    Oh, he’s making a comeback. I imagine we’ll be seeing more from him in the future.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/former-mars-hill-pastor-to-start-new-church-in-phoenix/

    http://www.relevantmagazine.com/slices/mark-driscoll-starting-new-church-arizona

    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/mark.driscoll.signals.launch.of.new.church.as.comeback.continues/73535.htm

    Interestingly, it seems that some of the things which led to Driscoll’s resignation (or firing or whatever) from Mars Hill were supposedly prompted by his mistreatment of church members, particularly women. I do have to wonder what prior church members’ specific grievances were. The details are always fuzzy from what I’ve seen. I wonder if he actually “emotionally abused” women in his church or just limited them to roles that didn’t include teacher or elder or something.

  57. Caspar Reyes says:

    Try this:

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

    From the wikipedia article, the “cross-wearing globe” is a “Christian symbol of authority since the Middle Ages, used on coins, in iconography, and with the sceptre as royal regalia. The cross represents Christ’s dominion over the orb of the world, literally held in the hand of an earthly ruler (or sometimes it is held by an angel). In the iconography of Western art, when Christ himself holds the globe, he is called Salvator Mundi, the Saviour of the World; his statue is the Infant Jesus of Prague.”

    It comes down to authority. Logos are not made by accident.

  58. Carlotta says:

    @Robin Munn
    It is a witchcraft symbol and has zero place being used by those following the Bible. What is sad is that whenever those saved out of witchcraft try to warn those in the church that what they are doing is witchcraft they are often driven from the church because they are infringing on everyone’s grace and being legalistic. At least, that is what my parents were told and me and others I know of. Not saying you are, just relaying what I am others experience .

    A quick note, symbols can have either the same or a dual meaning facing different ways. However, Yahweh is very, very clear to flee evil things and that you cannot make the profane holy. These so called Christian women can’t coop and change a witchcraft symbol and christianize it anymore than you can turn a toilet bowl into a punch bowl. That is why witches find it hysterical that christians celebrate xmas, but that is a whole other subject.

  59. Carlotta says:

    @Caspar Reyes
    Try again. It is not a symbol of the Risen Messiah of the Israelites. “Christian” in that article is universal and inclusive and in no way limited to those who follow the Bible.

  60. Carlotta says:

    @Freebird
    I think you are missing the point that the symbol can have the same or a dual meaning based on the way it is facing. I am not posting citations that link to witchcraft sites. I don’t suggest anyone look into it at all and that you stay as innocent as possible .
    But I stand by what I say, it is witchcraft plain and simple.

  61. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Carlotta
    One can argue that it’s merely a cross on a hill, which is what I thought on first seeing it. But the globe-and-cross is a well recognized symbol of authority because it’s a cross on the world. Perhaps it’s witchcraft in the sense that witchcraft is rebellion, and rebellion or usurpation is most assuredly going on here. But you don’t explain what you mean by “witchcraft”; you only keep repeating “it’s witchcraft plain and simple”. One gets the image of the Macbeth hags in pointy black hats uttering incantations around a cauldron.

    Humourous anecdote: We all knew as schoolboys that the middle finger was a gesture not to make. As children will simply take things for granted, we never questioned why that was; all we knew was that it was a dirty sign. A friend of mine made the sign in a group one day and said, “Hey guys, look, two balls and a dick!” Everyone in the group sushed him and said, “Don’t make that, it’s a dirty sign!”. No one ever made the connection that it was a dirty sign, not for something ineffable but for something real.

    The sign means something. “It’s used in witchcraft” is not a meaning. If indeed it’s used in witchcraft, there’s a reason for that, either the significance of the sign itself, or a corruption of its real meaning.

  62. Scott says:

    RolIo –
    I used to think this meant is was a sin to say “God Dammit”, but what it really means is to presume to speak for God (taking his name) and delivering your own message (in vain) as His. That’s really the definition of blasphemy.

    Agreed. Based on all the evidence, this is the most likely meaning of ‘taking the Lords name in vain.”

    It is to willfully say “By God, I declare the following to be true” (when it is false).

    It has nothing to do with swearing or cursing.

  63. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I’d read that that symbol for women was Venus’s mirror. And the symbol for man and Mars was Mars’s sword and shield.

    I read it a loooong time ago, in a book. This was before the worldwide web. At least 35 years ago, maybe longer. So no, I’ve no citation. I don’t recall the book. But I never forgot it.

  64. Bill Smith says:

    Carlotta,

    No one was arguing for this anywhere. Paul specifically says during the teaching/worship service.

    I was not complete enough, I meant that I was not convinced women were supposed to be completely silent in all teaching/worship services. That would not even allow their singing in the service.

    Carrying a command to its extreme draws out any questionable parts of the command. In this case it appears to conflict with other Scriptures, so cannot be applied that broadly as I noted.

    Believe what you will though. I guess we can use the rainbow in any logos. God gave that to indicate he would not flood the world, but others have misused it for perversion. It is now out of bounds because you are too focused on the misuse and not the Ultimate Creator.

    Aren’t you teaching here?

  65. Bill Smith says:

    Scott and Rollo, that is definitely a valid application of taking God’s name in vain, but the Scriptures often have multiple applications, so cursing could easily be covered as well.

  66. Gunner Q says:

    I need much more proof to believe that’s an occult symbol. Too many people make such claims just to create drama. One could just as easily claim she’s plagiarizing the symbol for Tejon Ranch, a small town along Interstate 5 north of Los Angeles. (Fort Tejon is an interesting bit of local history for the curious.)

    Scott @ 9:39 am:
    “It has nothing to do with swearing or cursing.”

    I’m not convinced. Rollo’s interpretation is valid but there’s also something to be said for simply showing respect. The Jewish habit of rarely using God’s full name is good circumstantial support.

    Better to curse Buddha’s name when I hit my thumb with a hammer.

    RichardP @ March 2, 2016 at 4:59 pm:
    “What does any of that have to do with a woman’s response to God’s claim on her life? Does woman require an intermediary between her and God?”

    God orders wives to obey their husbands as their masters and ask their husbands to interpret Christianity for them rather than local priests. She is even commanded to obey an unbelieving husband. That makes the husband God’s appointed intermediary.

    Unmarried women are free to seek God directly. For wives, however, that would create two distinct authorities. Who does she obey first: her husband, her pastor or what she thinks is God’s will? Bible says husband even if he’s an unbeliever.

    “Jesus says that no man comes to God but through him.”

    That’s salvation he’s talking about, not daily life. You aren’t abandoning Jesus every time you listen to a Sunday sermon.

  67. Carlotta says:

    @ Casper Reyes
    You used a link to explain the sign. I pointed out to you the link was in no way a rebuttal to my claim. You are wrongly assuming that the word “Christian” in your link is defined by someone who follows the Bible. By your own link it clearly does not mean that. It is an encompassing term that can include everything from Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses to Catholics. This umbrella term also includes pagan mixes. Perhaps we simply disagree on what a Christian is.
    As for the rest of your comment, it is ridiculous. In our culture everyone knows what it means when someone gives the middle finger. It has an actual, recognized meaning. The user is doing it for a reason. The person on the receiving end may be naive and think they are just waving hello, doesn’t change the meaning of it.
    And I didn’t repeat myself endlessly, I refused to provide links to witchcraft sites.

    @Bill Smith
    But that is not what you said and I quoted it. You are changing it slightly now. Even so, no one was advocating for what you claimed they were and you are still saying that even though the Bible says that you don’t know if you agree with it. Ok, noted.

    “Believe what you will though. I guess we can use the rainbow in any logos. God gave that to indicate he would not flood the world, but others have misused it for perversion. It is now out of bounds because you are too focused on the misuse and not the Ultimate Creator.”

    Right, this is the exact opposite of what I said which was that you cannot take a witchcraft symbol and christianize it. And if you don’t understand that taking the rainbow and perverting it’s meaning is an intentional affront to the living God, then we are too far apart logically to meet. Your example is silly. Just like faithfully married people wear wedding rings even though adulterers do too. It doesn’t change the meaning of the symbol, it makes the actions more abominable to wear a wedding ring while cheating.

    “Aren’t you teaching here?”

    Are you confused about where you are and what I said? I stated that you brought up a straw man argument that no one was making. How is that me teaching you the Bible? Am I somehow in authority over you or attempting to take it? Did I preach to you? Are we in a church or even at a prayer meeting?

    Feel free to correct me using Biblical text on how I did that, meanwhile maintaining your stance that you don’t actually agree with it. So it is ok with you if I talk in church which is against the Bible but I must remain silent on a discussion board on the internet. Got it.

  68. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Mark Hanson wrote:

    “But I didn’t initially see that the end run was replacement rather than supplement. “Go to Jesus” is sound at first blush – he is the mediator for women as well as men. But the idea quickly morphs “go to Jesus instead of the men he has put in authority over you” – or worse, “go to Jesus because you need help, but you don’t need male authority over you.” In other words, the standard recipe for heresy: “Just me and Jesus – that’s all that’s needed.””

    Sounds like what I wrote above:

    “Feminism of all flavors isn’t about doing any of this. It’s about subtle usurpation, making excuses (actually, you can feel the cognitive dissonance coming from Kassian in her non-verbals), seeking to have pre-eminence of His plan (I’m just letting the man think he’s in charge, but we know who is calling the shots), and thinking their shit don’t stink because all of that doesn’t apply to them (I’m not a fallen woman who has a sinful nature, Repent for what? I just need to get more girl power because my Personal Jesus is just as good as any mans, my Personal Jesus…his kung fu is veeery goooodt)”

    It took me a minute but I caught on, D.

    As far as the rest is concerned, I think most of us know and possibly agree that on a few things.

    I haven’t weighed in here on some of the other stuff, because you all are some damn heavyweights with scripture, so I’ll drop what I know.

    1. Women are to learn in silence. hesuchia (Strong’s 2271).  They are to operate in humility, quietude, soberness, and discretion.  Ever hear a woman in Church who doesn’t agree with something the preacher said and mutters “yeah..what-ever” and then proceeds to bug the shit out of her husband about how confused or disagreeable she is about what she heard?  “That’s not what it says in Torah- that nigga crazy“.  I know it, because I’ve heard my 94 year old mother do that crap.

    2. It doesn’t mean that can’t say jack at all though. phimoo (Strongs 5392).  She’s not muzzled, she’s tempered, but it’s really her disposition that determines how she is perceived (by her husband and to others in the assembly). Hesuchia is about picking and choosing her battles and grievances, as well as just being cool about it till she can get with her husband privately, who can instruct her and put her up on game later.

    Not unlike some contemporary Christians, Messianics and Hebrew Israelites have a pretty stern expectation that women know scripture, but from a different frame of reference, called the Nistar, or hidden dimension.  The women are expected to be deeply rooted in the knowledge of Yahweh…knowledge they get from their husbands and their own personal study, from which is supplanted and reinforced by their husbands leadership, example, and admonition.  They are expected to know it, like a man, but walk in their role as a woman.

    But the concern here is that Kassian is putting a spitball on Nistar and twisting it, because she’s so damn close to being on point.

    I think that when I started moving in a different direction from Messianic  / Hebrew Israelite teaching and started associating with other types of Christ followers is where I started getting pissed off about Christian women and how they just didn’t seem to know shit.  And then to be told by more than a few RP brothers on these blogs that I was misguided in some of my expectations, because Christian women are to help me, and not be someone I should take such pride in for her spiritual dexterity and acumen.   This is why some of my ranting got me accused of being bitter and lacking somewhat in character.  I’ve been frustrated because I’ve been expecting women that I date to be able to mix it up…well, like you guys do here in these threads.  I’m told (well I guess I’m learning) that this is hardly reasonable and that it was actually unscriptural.

    My point? Uh.

    So Dal wrote how I (and a few others) got fooled by Kassian.  Mainly because I see so many lackluster sisters around me that I’m impressed that she flows the way she does.

    Does that make me like a woman…easily deceived?  Hmmm…well maybe, maybe not.  If her persuasive words is planting the subtle seeds of rebellion – and it’s going unchecked by her husband…then hell yeah Houston – we have a problem.

    It would be nice to know that our women are earnestly contending for the faith when they are imparting into other women without having to wonder if there is some low-key fuckery afoot.

    Is Kassian rendering didasko under her own authenteo from her own quiver of Nistar that she got from her Personal Jesus …or does she speak with authority as one who is under authority, teaching women to surrender to their own authority soberly and orderly.

  69. Cane Caldo says:

    @Bill Smith

    I was not complete enough, I meant that I was not convinced women were supposed to be completely silent in all teaching/worship services. That would not even allow their singing in the service.

    In fact specific verses do say “silent”, and could be fairly interpreted as “completely”. To me, it looks like the issue here is that Bill feels it’s wrong to expect of women something different than we expect of men. Unfortunately for you: There’s not a Biblical case for rule by Bill’s feelings.

    If someone states a very reasonable case from the whole context of expectations for quiet of women (throughout the NT and indeed the whole Bible and practice of the churches before yesterday) then you cobble an argument together by saying “So-and-so isn’t expressly and specifically forbidden in this other verse and there seems to be this one time here where it was allowed and possibly sanctioned.”

    To which the reply is: So what? Philip the Evangelist’s virgin daughters (who live under his roof and rule) aren’t representative of the whole of womanhood. Jesus was a man, but that doesn’t mean I, another man, can die for the forgiveness of your sins. Peter was a man like me, but I am not allowed to write letters which will be added to Canon. The fact that some of what she says is technically law isn’t enough to make her speech good. That’s what I displayed with the case of the two arguing sisters.

    Is it the case that Mary Kassian is a prophetess or not? If so, how shall we know? Is it by her head covering? Is it by the public interpretation and coincidence of her words by another with the gift of prophecy? Has she revealed specific and previously unknown revelation that we should believe God has spoken through her? In fact she meets none of the requirements for which we have been told to observe.

    “Well”, you say, “I’m not specifically defending Mary Kassian. My point is larger than her…” and off you go into the weeds asking for specific details of what transpired in the daily life of Philip the Evangelist’s daughters. It’s a rhetorical feint to ask us to believe that their lives could apply to any woman today. No woman today lives in Philip the Evangelist’s house, under his rule, as virgins, in an ancient Near Eastern civilization.

    Around and around we go:

    Bill: “It doesn’t mean that generally.”

    The Men: “Yes it does. It says so here.”

    Bill: “Well there were exceptions.”

    The Men: “So what.”

    Bill: “So give me some more specific facts and then I maybe I’ll feel like making a general conclusion.”

    The Men: “We have the general conclusion. It’s right here.”

    Bill: “Well it’s not specific.”

    The Men: “Yes, that’s what general means.”

    Bill: “I’m not feeling it until I get more specifics.”

    The Men: “Ok. Based on what we know of ancient Near Eastern life and practices, here are some reliable, but not certain, specifics. They support the clear (if uncomfortable) text.”

    Bill: “Still not feeling it. I can’t tell from those specifics what the general conclusion should be.”

    The Men: “So what? We have the general conclusion. It’s right here.”

    Women are to be silent in the churches. When a prophetess comes along we can sort it out. We have been given the tools. But history is a long list of men not sorting it out and of letting the tools lie.

  70. bob k. mando says:

    Darwinian Arminian says: March 2, 2016 at 7:42 pm
    Mary Kassian is completely blind to what got the trouble started for her in the first place.

    that’s the problem, you still don’t fully understand how deep the deception goes here.

    do you ACTUALLY think that Mary remembers every single detail about that evening EXCEPT what was said that instigated the fight?

    do you ACTUALLY think that Mary remembers every thing about the fight itself EXCEPT the specific strike that actually pissed her brother off? remember, she even admits that he simply laughed and fended her off for a bit.

    Mary *knows* exactly who it was and what the argument was that instigated all of this. she doesn’t want to admit to it, so she’s hiding that from the audience.

    Mary *knows* exactly where she hit her brother that pissed him off. would a face shot do it? possible but unlikely, given that he already knew she was swinging and, by her own testimony, had been fending her off quite easily. much more likely that she got a partial nutshot in.

    remember, she’s recounting this story and EVEN IN HER VERSION it’s still all about her not having to take responsibility for her own actions. not having to REPENT of anything.

    do you think she’s going to relate to a crowd of strangers that the beatdown she took was totally deserved? she is LYING by omission, even in recounting the story.

  71. bob k. mando says:

    another thing to think about, it’s virtually certain that Mary only has a single brother who is three years older. everyone who knows her family thus knows who it is that she’s talking about.

    by recounting this story in front of thousands and broadcasting the video to the entire planet she is humiliating her brother for her own self aggrandizement.

  72. Spike says:

    Strong women ..Strong Women… Strong Women. there are Strong Women everywhere. They’re on reality TV. They’re in politics. They’re in the gym and the dojo. They’re in the workplace. They’re in the movies. They’re everywhere.

    If what Kassian says is true, then NONE of these Strong Women would be taken in by Pick Up Artists. None would need a man to change their flat tyres. None would fall prey to needing to look better by going to beauticians, retail stores, and jewelery shops that pander to their insecurities. None would need plastic surgery.
    All of the children of single mothers would be awesomely successful. All of female-based policies would turn our societies into Utopias.

    It looks like the Strong Woman is in the Church as well. We can expect to see how increased feminisation of the Gospel will pave the way to an awesome Revival of Christianity.
    Based on the record of their secular sisters, this space waits with bated breath…

  73. @LeeLee: “at the annual christmas brunch for my homeschool group, which is a private event meant to encourage Christian ladies, should the key speaker not speak of the Bible when trying to encourage us?”

    I recognize lawyerly wiggling when I see it so let’s play. There is a BIG difference between “unpacking scripture” in detail ABOUT THE ROLE OF WOMEN and quoting a favorite passage of scripture with your interpretation at a dinner function before prayer. You know that but it looks like your hamster is fired up about this. Hate to say it but you should really ask your husband. If he says that is fine (and he will) then you are fine, IMHO.

    It is clear that women can teach other women. IT IS CLEAR THAT WOMEN CAN TEACH NON-BELIEVERS OUTSIDE THE CHURCH AND LEAD MEN AND WOMEN TO CHRIST!!! Yes women can teach in school, and in the home. The ONLY restriction is they cannot teach men in church or usurp the role of men in church.

    This gender studies person Dalrock is pointing out is Hell bent on “deconstructing” Scripture to further the Feminine Imperative (aka modern day Churchian Holy Spirit).

  74. Carlotta says:

    @Gunner q
    Sure, some people see demons everywhere. However, I made the mistake of assuming others here picked it up as well because it was so obvious and frankly hilarious that they were so upfront about it. Proof is yours for the taking, Google is your friend.

  75. Bill Smith says:

    Cane,

    You don’t know me very well. All are called to “sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” to each other elsewhere. That command is not just given to men, but implies church service-like meetings. That would be a direct conflict with “be silent in the church meeting at all times.”

    Perhaps it really does mean they must always be silent in all services all the time, but I only see that single admonition, so I cannot build a doctrine on it per the principle of requiring at least 2 or 3 witnesses. Given is also conflicts with other commands I do see I have to not respect it.

    I don’t have a full litany of Scriptures at hand, but that is ultimately the basis of my beliefs. Prove it there with more than that and I will do like the Bereans. Just claim a single Scripture means all women must be silent in church at all times and I will challenge it.

    What about unmarried women? The command is to ask their husbands, not their fathers or significant male in their family. Clearly we are told far less than we would like. Drawing serious doctrinal stances on a single verse is quite problematic.

    That does not mean I favor full women’s ministry. I am not ready to fully tilt at that windmill in my own life, but I may if I write like I intend to write (books). I think more is there than most would prefer to really dig out. Easier to go with the simplistic extension for many.

    Carlotta,

    I corrected my error. That is all I can do. I was not specific enough, so I clarified what I wrote.

    Though I will repeat my assertion that you seem to claim no allowance for women to teach men, yet you freely jump in the fray here. Isn’t that at least a bit hypocritical?

    You have only been around this stuff for quite a short time. Go on 40 years of believing reasonably consistently and seeking out the Scriptures and I may put more credence in seeing demons in every logo. Remember the old Proctor & Gamble logo? (Likely not.)

    BTW, I will correct myself once again. My comment about rainbows should have said that “we can’t use them” per your standard since they have been used by many corrupt groups today. That would be even though God gave those as a sign. Use by some does not prove something is inherently evil.

    Maybe that group really does worship witchcraft and such, but I doubt they do so outside the basic idea that “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.”

  76. Looking Glass says:

    @LeeLee & BPP:

    The “half-honest/half-hamster” effect is always fascinating at times with Women. It’s the reason that a Woman can get a perfectly, theologically correct sermon and then ruin it when she lets her own vanity & arrogance slide in near the end. The fact that Men can, most regularly not have that problem is something I find Women envy very deeply.

    As for your Christmas brunch, if a Woman is going to speak, have her explain practical ways of practicing Kindness and Gratitude. Since those traits are rare in Christian Women. (They shouldn’t be, but they are.)

  77. Cane Caldo says:

    @Bill Smith

    1. I don’t claim to know you at all, and it is irrelevant anyway. What I wrote is an accurate summation of what has transpired in the comments of these last couple posts.

    2. This isn’t hard to understand. Here is what St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14. At this point he has gone on for several pages about how to order meetings of the church and what spiritual gifts are to play what roles in the life of the church, etc. He sums up that litany with:

    26 What then, brothers?

    Brothers (Grab your socks: He’s talking to men!) and he’s asking the rhetorical question: Where do you men go from here? What should worship look like going forward and how do the men ensure that picture?

    When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

    Then come some specific commands concerning women. They are in strong terms. I will highlight that fact.

    As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches.

    ALL the churches. That would include the church in Caesarea where lived Philip and his four virginal and prophetic daughters who lived with him. Which means they didn’t prophesy in church.

    For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

    Here we have something established by two or three witnesses; more actually. All the churches, and Paul, and the law say they are not permitted to speak in holy gatherings and that it is a matter of submission; which is repeatedly emphasized for women in the Epistles to the churches.

    35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

    Shameful, he says! He doesn’t say “It’s distracting for a woman to speak in church”, or boring, or silly, or strange. He says it is shameful.

    Again, I want to point out that the tone of this summary passage is Paul hitting the highlights–the points of importance–and that this is all in answer to the rhetorical question he asked so to explain to the men what worship should be like.

    But he’s not done. He senses that his brothers, the men, will resist this teaching about women being silent in church even though he has been clear. He calls up another rhetorical question.

    36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?

    Who are you to decide what you shall receive in wisdom? Did you bring God to me, Paul? Does your heathen background of Greek goddess and female oracles give you license to let women speak in church; athwart the testimony of myself, all the churches, and the law which God gave to His chosen people and of whom His only begotten Son was prophesied and born?

    37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

    Thus speaks the ever-living word of God.

    39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But all things should be done decently and in order.

    Finally he wraps up this long section on order during church meetings, and he returns from the specific commands to the general.

  78. Carlotta says:

    @Bill Smith

    ” I was not specific enough, so I clarified what I wrote.”

    Your clarification did not resolve the error. Cane Caldo, who is more then qualified and has proven skill, has shown you this with ease. Notice the massive difference between my comment to you and the comments he wrote to you.

    “Though I will repeat my assertion that you seem to claim no allowance for women to teach men, yet you freely jump in the fray here. Isn’t that at least a bit hypocritical?”

    And I will again point out that
    1. By your own comments you don’t agree with the Bible on this very issue. So I can only assume you are a hypocrite, as you are attempting to hold me to a standard you refuse to hold any other women too.
    2. You seem massively confused. Again, are we in church or at a prayer meeting? Am I teaching you the Bible and having authority over you?
    We are in an Internet discussion forum (and I am not the only women here and our gracious host has allowed me to comment), are you having some kind of cognitive dissonance experience ? Or are you now making the ridiculous leap that you can add onto the boundaries laid out in the Bible?
    3. Strange that you presume to correct my behavior when you have zero Biblical grounds and authority to do so but by your own admission are not willing to do so with a women you actually have authority over when you do have Biblical grounds.

    “You have only been around this stuff for quite a short time. Go on 40 years of believing reasonably consistently and seeking out the Scriptures and I may put more credence in seeing demons in every logo. Remember the old Proctor & Gamble logo? (Likely not.)”

    Assumptions are a massive weakness for you then, huh?

    “BTW, I will correct myself once again. My comment about rainbows should have said that “we can’t use them” per your standard since they have been used by many corrupt groups today. That would be even though God gave those as a sign. Use by some does not prove something is inherently evil.”

    And you would again be either acting willfully stupid and purposely misunderstanding my statements or simply foolish enough not to understand that everyone can read your quotes again.

    “Maybe that group really does worship witchcraft and such, but I doubt they do so outside the basic idea that “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.””

    You seem to make a lot of uneducated assumptions and practice a form of idolitry where your feelings are your god. Good luck with that.

  79. Bill Smith says:

    Believe what you want Carlota. Cane did no such thing. He did setup a nice straw man and beat it up well though.

    You claim that one symbol used by “evil people” is horridly wrong, while scorning the claim that applying the same standard to a clearly Biblical symbol is wrong. More than a bit of inconsistency in what you post.

    1. By your own comments you don’t agree with the Bible on this very issue. So I can only assume you are a hypocrite, as you are attempting to hold me to a standard you refuse to hold any other women too.

    I do not believe that taking one Scripture and running with it to its extreme is the right approach if not confirmed with the rest of Scripture. You are free to believe we should, but many idiotic things have been done in Church history taking a single Scripture past its application.

    3. Strange that you presume to correct my behavior when you have zero Biblical grounds and authority to do so but by your own admission are not willing to do so with a women you actually have authority over when you do have Biblical grounds.

    I have zero right to say anything about your behavior? Are you arguing that Dalrock is wrong in the base post noting Kassian’s speech? She is not under his authority either. I just asked whether you should be setting yourself up as a doctrinal authority when you claim that women doing so are wrong. You apparently don’t mind the inconsistency.

    Not surprising given the context of these posts.

  80. Bill Smith says:

    Note: I missed Cane’s most recent reply. I will comment on that if relevant when I read it. I was thinking of the one with the made up conversation that put words into my mouth that he made up.

  81. Bill Smith says:

    Cane,

    Brothers (Grab your socks: He’s talking to men!) and he’s asking the rhetorical question: Where do you men go from here? What should worship look like going forward and how do the men ensure that picture?

    What proves that is men only? “Mankind” and “men” are terms that are applied to all humanity in many places. Do you have proof this is only males and not humans? A modern perversion is going away from the male pronoun and such meaning everyone.

    You still only quote a single set of verses in this case, not the required multiple locations to build a doctrine. Those may be enough for you, but I would rather take the entirety of the Scriptures into context and fit it all together.

    I seem to have had Eph 5:21 in my mind when I wrote the previous note, but that does focus on the private, not the public, except for submitting to one another in the church. (It covers “each of you” with no male limitation I can see. Perhaps you will correct me if I am wrong.)

    Col 3:16 would be more appropriate. Was Col 3 only written to men? I could dig into the whole chain there, but it does not have the same limitation nor the same conclusions. Is the “new man” only for males? Do women not get that?

    The base point is that a single series of verses, and especially one specific verse, is not sufficient for me to hold a firm Biblical doctrine. You are free to do so, but it is not really smart in the light of what others have done with such. Many errant doctrines seem really clear when only looking at a single verse or even a series of them all by themselves.

    Think of how many subvert the meaning of Eph 5:22 by applying Eph 5:21 to negate it as one clear example. Eph 5:21, and the verses before it, do clearly note mutual submission. (In the church, but why let that stop you if you want to build a doctrine.)

    You also did not address the question of why instructions are only to married women, not single women. They would not have a husband to ask at home.

    A related question would be exactly what the purpose of a woman called to singleness would be if she is not allowed to speak in a church service. Must she remained holed up her entire life, lest she inadvertently speak doctrine to a man? She can do so (speak to anyone) anywhere but the church?

    This would also border on the error of assigning the church to a building, rather than being a place where any 2 or 3 Christians meet.

    Taking it to the extreme, Proverbs 31 and many other proverbs should be removed since Solomon learned from his mother. Song of Songs / Song of Solomon is likewise errant because it has a woman doing much of the “teaching” in the verses.

    A bunch of topics here, but that is what comes to my mind. Feel free to continue to accuse me if you wish to do so. I value the entirety of the Scriptures as a focus and my brain jumps around. That is surely more fodder for claiming I am this, that or the other, but it is what it is.

  82. Carlotta says:

    @ Bill Smith
    You are sadly heading straight into lunacy.

    Here is a hint, don’t use quotes when you are not actually quoting something the person said. Scrolling up is incredibly easy and I don’t take kindly to liars. No one, male or female, are called by Christ to be idiots.

    I must say, it is hilarious though to see you attempt to defend your stance that women should be allowed to teach and speak in church to Cane while simultaneously demanding I not do so, even though I am not.

    You are truly on a role. You are lying about my comments, seem to comically misunderstand Dalrock’s post entirely and are attempting to debate Cane on the Bible by not using it. Good times.

    Further you council me to get back to you after 40 more years of walking in faith. Are you claiming that you have walked 40 years as a Bible believer? If not, then hold yourself to the same standard and make no comments until you have. If so, you have quite seriously wasted your time.

    You don’t by any chance write a blog called Whatever…..do you?

    Have a good day now:)

  83. Cane Caldo says:

    @Bill Smith

    The base point is that a single series of verses, and especially one specific verse, is not sufficient for me to hold a firm Biblical doctrine.

    Implicit in this statement is the lie that the doctrine of women’s silence in church is solely found in this one text. Paul wrote that anyone who says otherwise is false.

    If you judged the other verses that trouble you with fair weights instead of pre-loading those verses with the false weight of equality towards men and women, your trouble would disappear.

  84. Pingback: The new face of complementarian feminism | Dalrock

  85. Snowy says:

    Kassian says, “This is truth. This is truth, and if we aren’t getting it into our systems, if we aren’t feeling it and handling it and reading it and studying it and becoming a familiar with the texture and the feel of it, we’re not going to know when something else is kind of off.”

    The truth is that it is not a woman’s place to be doing what Kassian is doing in the video. She needs to get that into her system.

  86. Pingback: Wintery Knight and Dalrock show how feminist, i.e. sold out to the world, The Gospel Coalition is | Patriactionary

  87. Frank K says:

    It is almost amusing to watch Evangelicals, who often proudly proclaim to be “Bible Believing”. increasingly rejecting the parts of the Scriptures that don’t fit their “seeker friendly” narrative. I suppose that they will eventually end up as Unitrarians and will soon be a footnote in Church history

  88. Pingback: She brings a perspective you cannot bring. | Dalrock

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

  90. Pingback: Where have all the good chimps gone? | 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