The cause of feminist resentment.

The complementarian movement has long implied that the reason women feel the temptation for feminist envy and rebellion is that men aren’t loving enough.  Feminist rebellion is seen not as a sin of women, but as proof of sin by men.  In the past few years complementarians have gone from implying this to stating it outright.  Acts 29 President Matt Chandler goes all in with this idea when teaching about women’s sins.  You can also see the same argument by Mary Kassian in a video on a page explaining complementarianism at The Gospel Coalition.  The video comes with the Editor’s Note:

Learn more from Mary Kassian in this interview with Jennie Allen as they discuss the freedom of boundaries and the difficulty of submitting to sinful men.

In the video Kassian compares men’s leadership in the Church to a husband’s leadership in marriage.  She says if men’s leadership is functioning well you will see unity in both a church and a marriage.  Allen counters that the problem is that it rarely functions well, and because of this women are frightened and feel that men being in authority “steals something from them”:

And I think that the problem is that it rarely functions well. Just really honestly. And I think that that is where it feels scary is women feel like that authority that often gets put upon men steals something from them. And so what would you say to those women that maybe have been hurt by either men or the church and feel like it is just really difficult, even if biblically they can see that view, to regard that as something they would ever live out.

Kassian confirms that she has experienced the same resentment as a “strong woman who has leadership giftings”, and the cause of this feeling is sinful men who aren’t loving enough*:

Well I don’t think there is any woman who hasn’t bumped up against it, and particularly if you have a strong woman who has a leadership giftings and teaching giftings–as I do– and so I have bumped up against that. I have been hurt by it. I have encountered men who are sinful men and who do not interact with me in a godly loving way.

It is of course true that men are sinful, and also true that unloving men can increase a woman’s temptation for feminist rebellion.  But the temptation exists either way;  they are both denying this by framing it as strictly a reaction to sinful men, and overlooking the fact that it is rebellion either way.  In fact, Christian men (and women) are far more likely to encourage rebellion today by pretending it doesn’t exist than by being harsh and authoritarian.  The love we are failing to show is overwhelmingly the failure to rebuke women for a sin our culture teaches is a virtue.

This blind spot for complementarians, the inability to recognize the temptation driving feminist rebellion, is astounding given that we live in an age defined by feminist rebellion.  Women’s envy for the role of men is causing us to dramatically reshape our entire society with disastrous results, and the group of Christians who are ostensibly trying to counter feminism can’t even identify what is going on.  From the complementarian perspective, all that has happened over the last forty or so years is men suddenly and mysteriously became more authoritarian.

As one more example of this profound blind spot, in August of 2012 TGC founders DA Carson and Tim Keller discussed the importance of complementarianism with CBMW co-founder John Piper.  Piper explained that complementarianism is important because:

“We live in a culture where for the last 30 or 40 years, the collapse of the meaning of biblical masculinity has not produced a beautiful egalitarian society,” Piper observes. “It has produced a brutal masculine society.”

 

*Kassian goes on to explain that even when authority is sinful her attitude to authority should reflect her heart towards the Lord:

But how do you deal with it when you’ve been hurt by it, when you’re feeling the sting of that and not experiencing it as something good. I think that for me its important to remember that the way I live my life out, and the way the decisions I make, how I choose to live, how I choose to approach relationships, how I choose to approach my relationships with those in authority, all is a reflection of my heart towards the Lord.

This part of her answer is quite good, but it doesn’t change the fact that she is claiming the reason she feels feminist resentment and rebellion is because men are sinful. You can watch the video below for the entire exchange.

This entry was posted in Acts 29, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Dr. John Piper, Envy, Mary Kassian, Pastor Matt Chandler, Rebellion, Submission, The Gospel Coalition, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to The cause of feminist resentment.

  1. Pingback: The cause of feminist resentment. | Neoreactive

  2. Pingback: The cause of feminist resentment. – Manosphere.com

  3. Bruce says:

    Women are told to obey even pagan husbands. They should certainly obey sinful Christian husbands.

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Leadership giftings and teaching giftings…”

    Why do Evangelicals have this weird habit of making nouns into verbs?

  5. “We live in a culture where for the last 30 or 40 years, the collapse of the meaning of biblical masculinity has not produced a beautiful egalitarian society,” Piper observes. “It has produced a brutal masculine society.”

    So the goal state for feminized churchianity has always been a “a beautiful egalitarian society”?

  6. HamOnRye says:

    Chandler seems to think that women are devoid of their own agenda, a divining rod of virtue with legs. Yet scripture has already told us what is going to be the natural predilections of the fairer sex.


    16 To the woman he 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.”

    Lets give that the ole Kassian unpacking on the last verse. Men have been given authority over their wives, and wives will desire to usurp that authority. Yet Chandler the fool pretends that its something else entirely.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    “We live in a culture where for the last 30 or 40 years, the collapse of the meaning of biblical masculinity has not produced a beautiful egalitarian society,” Piper observes. “It has produced a brutal masculine society.”

    And I bet Piper had that slight, effeminate lisp in his voice as he said “brutal, masculine society” too. This whole series by Dalrock has really brought into focus just how feminized the churches really are, not to mention the larger society.

    We already know what Piper’s definition of “masculine” is: White Knight pedestalizer.

  8. HamOnRye says:

    @Rollo

    So the goal state for feminized churchianity has always been a “a beautiful egalitarian society”?

    Call me crazy but I could have sworn there was another failed ideology that had made the rounds in 20th century that was focused on “a beautiful egalitarian society”.

  9. Looking Glass says:

    @HamOnRye:

    That actually started in the early 1800s, and the first interaction with the church caused the Progressive Movement. Which killed most of the churches that touched it in the process. What’s that definition of insanity again?

  10. Chris says:

    “Well I don’t think there is any woman who hasn’t bumped up against it, and particularly if you have a strong woman who has a leadership giftings and teaching giftings–as I do– and so I have bumped up against that.”

    Self-absorbed much?

  11. thedeti says:

    @ Anon Reader:

    “Leadership giftings and teaching giftings…”

    “Why do Evangelicals have this weird habit of making nouns into verbs?”
    ____________________

    Christianese. It’s probably from I Cor. 12 and the discussion of spiritual gifts. Evangelicals and charismatics are obsessed with spiritual gifts because it’s viewed as having super powers. If you have a spiritual gift, you’re said to have received a “gifting” from the Holy Spirit.

    It’s supposed to be a spiritual occurrence, You receive a gift or gifts from the Holy Spirit upon your baptism as a believer. The purpose of spiritual gifts is supposed to be the edification of the believer, the church, other Christians, and the world. You’re supposed to use your gift (or allow the Holy Spirit to use your gift through you) to strengthen your faith and those of others.

    Instead it’s about “flowing in the Spirit” and “flowing in your giftings” and “operating in the Spirit and the giftings”. It’s about everyone wanting to show each other their gifts (particularly prophecy and speaking in tongues and interpretation of tongues) because then you’re “spiritual”, and that makes you “a better Christian” than someone else who doesn’t have your “gifting”. It’s all quite feminine, really.

  12. Dota says:

    What boggles my mind is why these “Christian” feminists choose to identify as Christian. In an age of unparalleled personal freedom, they are free to run along and form their own feminist religion instead of defecating all over Christianity. I’ve had this same conversation with Islamic feminists who aren’t all that different from their Christian counterparts. Is it because women are incapable of creating anything and must therefore hijack institutions and ideologies that men have created?

  13. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    The complementarian movement has long implied that the reason women feel the temptation for feminist envy and rebellion is that men aren’t loving enough. Feminist rebellion is seen not as a sin of women, but as proof of sin by men. In the past few years complementarians have gone from implying this to stating it outright.

    The irony here is that despite all the modern churches’ emphasis on women: My impression is that they don’t really know women. It’s not just in the area of headship or leadership. It’s not just in the way they overlook women’s sins. It’s not just in the way they transfer blame from women to men.

    They don’t know why there are women, or what women are for; from a positive standpoint.

    If you read the literature (podcasts, videos, etc.) you will notice that what they have decided is that that women exist to be wanted. Women are to be “captivating”, and “pursued” and so-on-and-so-forth. And that’s it. That’s all they’ve got for the reason for women. This is subtly different than women fulfilling a desire in men, and that difference is that there is no expectation of making what wants to be filled (a desire of a man for a woman) actually full (by a woman).

    It’s a ludicrous, pitiful, reason that creates misery. It’s only benefit is that it keeps the delusional fire alive that if it weren’t for a man, a woman would still have a reason to exist. It is the from the flame rebellion. But in fact it is the case for everyone’s existence that only by another’s man’s desire were we created. The only exceptions were Adam and Jesus; who were only of God and not a man.

    It’s the intersection of both Biblical cross-dressing and the perpetual courtship fantasy. It is a convolution that winds it’s broad way to worship of women; which is idolatry.

    I don’t believe they are fully aware of this. I don’t believe they clearly see women and so can’t make their way out of the trap. I think they are deluded mama’s-boys (and the sons of previous mama’s-boys) who were never pulled off the apronstrings of Tha Mommie who wuv’d Her Good Widdle Boy So Vewy Vewy Much. Goats boiled in their mother’s milk.

  14. theasdgamer says:

    The technical term for Piper’s statement is “fucked up”. lol

  15. theasdgamer says:

    Piper is using his support for the FI in order to get laid.

  16. Looking Glass says:

    @deti:

    There’s some funny bits about how the over-emphasis of Spiritual Gifts came about, but that’s getting into the history of a lot of the reactionary Christian movements to what happened in the late 1800s within the Church. Needless to say, it’s the classic problem: one thing got corrupted, there’s an over-reaction and the over-reaction gets corrupted. But the Lord remains.

  17. Seikis says:

    Somehow, they way you describe how complementarians cannot grasp the “why” of F-rebellion, mirrors how the media cannot seem to grasp why Trump is getting a lot of votes. Or either they know but won’t admit publicly.

  18. Carlotta says:

    Kassin speaks with a forked tongue. She specifically says “fathers” have responsibility to lead the family and not the “husband” for a reason. Listen carefully to how she says it and what follows.
    She then goes on to claim to have leadership and teaching giftings, and because she is so strong, she has had sinful men bump up against her. The truth is she tried to ply her rebellion and it didn’t work everywhere. She claims this is because the men were in sin and not her.
    But the Bible says she should be a keeper at home and quiet and not teaching what she prattles on about.

    How about some repentence, Mary?
    But why should she? Piper will make her feel all better.

    And frankly, I am sick and tired of so called women teachers who want you to buy their books about how strong and gifted they are. I think many of my generation have had it with them and wish they would shut up unless the have a good recipe to share.

  19. mmaier2112 says:

    This is subtly different than women fulfilling a desire in men, and that difference is that there is no expectation of making what wants to be filled (a desire of a man for a woman) actually full (by a woman).

    OK, I’m not following the part past “and that difference”. Can you re-word that maybe?

  20. Boxer says:

    Dear Carlotta:

    I had half a mind to pipe up yesterday at the discussion of the witchcraft symbol, but thought I’d let the more knowledgeable bros hash that out. I think it was a fair call to make, though I didn’t think it looked Satanic or Pagan. When I watched that video yesterday (before you mentioned it) I got the impression she was up on a nightclub stage — with dark goth background and indirect lighting. Frankly looks like a place me and TFH and Grey Ghost (in his younger years) would have prowled around to find ho’s. Atmosphere is everything, and she had a very irreligious aesthetic going.

    I am sick and tired of so called women teachers who want you to buy their books about how strong and gifted they are. I think many of my generation have had it with them and wish they would shut up unless the have a good recipe to share.

    Girls who want to “have it all” should read the bible, particularly this part.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+31%3A10-31&version=MSG

    This woman makes money with a business, keeps a house, attracts and keeps a strong alpha husband, and has kids who are the envy of others, all by being chaste, keeping herself attractive, and not listening to harpies with their “you go girl” tropes. Welfare hos and barren cubicle drones aspire to be her, and fail.

    Boxer

  21. TomG says:

    The focus on the sins of man is very telling. It assumes the sins of women doesn’t exist as the cause. It gives women absolution. Sin worsened from feminism with casual sex and rampant divorce. Sin is normal behavior. We are all mixed up and this ministry doesn’t help. Feminists are likely resentful because they don’t acknowledge they are the cause and are powerless to stop it as they are the cause and they continue the lies.

  22. LeeLee says:

    “We live in a culture where for the last 30 or 40 years, the collapse of the meaning of biblical masculinity has not produced a beautiful egalitarian society,” Piper observes. “It has produced a brutal masculine society.”

    I would actually agree with that — except the brutal masculinity is coming from the *women* of our culture, not the men.

  23. mike says:

    @Dota, it’s because they have to leech on to something that has already been built. See Kassian for example. She infilitrates the seminary as a “Distinguished Professor of Women’s studies”. Maybe they should have an all-female seminary were Kassian and her kin can pontificate. Instead, she gets paid to speak to her captive audience, which is mostly male.

  24. Dalrock says:

    @mmaier2112

    OK, I’m not following the part past “and that difference”. Can you re-word that maybe?

    I think he is saying they believe women exist to be chased, not caught.

  25. Pingback: The cause of feminist resentment. | Reaction Times

  26. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    The obvious proof of the superiority of women is that men and women are equal. Says so right here in St. Paul’s second letter to the Braincrampians (verses eleventeen to umpty-doodle).

    Or something.

    The obvious proof that men and women are equal, or soon will be, is the movement afoot to ensure that women can take time off when they are menstruating, in the same way that men can do so righty-o now, when the menz are mensturating (another bastion of “male privilege” falls to the forces of Progress):

    https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/03/02/period-policy-aims-to-synchronize-work-flow-with-aunt-flo.html

    (No, that is not a hyperlink to The Onion.)

  27. mmaier2112 says:

    I think he is saying they believe women exist to be chased, not caught.

    Ridiculous. How do you knock up a wench if you never catch her?

  28. desiderian says:

    “How do you knock up a wench if you never catch her?”

    That’s the thing.

    The kernel of it all is the worldview of the Jaffe Memo/culture of death that grew out of it.

  29. donalgraeme says:

    They don’t know why there are women, or what women are for; from a positive standpoint.

    To take what Cane said a little further… I think it goes beyond them simply not understanding the nature of women (or of “woman”). I think that at the root of this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the masculine and the feminine by most Christians. Their blindness here warps all their thinking. Frankly, it should be surprising that they aren’t more off than they are.

  30. Carlotta says:

    @Leelee
    Lol

    @Boxer
    I know, the mighty wish list of the king’s mom. The Proverbs 31 women is aspirational in a way Ms. Mary never will be.

  31. Carlotta says:

    @Boxer
    Regarding the symbol, I know what it is and warned others. I simply cannot back up what I am saying because I am strongly convicted not to post links at this time. It isnt hard to know the truth if you want to. Most simply don’t want to and ignore the warnings of the Messiah.
    My family was shocked by all the witchcraft in the church when they first were saved. I am still astounded whenever you tell someone, even prove it to them and they almost always say “can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” How about if it looks like a duck and quacks….its a duck!
    And as you said, the atmosphere was telling as well. By their fruits we know who they are and who they serve. Mary is unabashed in showing her fruit because she is coddled by the very people who should be calling for her repentence . They are helping her on her way to hell and have no love for her.

  32. feeriker says:

    Ridiculous. How do you knock up a wench if you never catch her?

    Desiderian stole my thunder, but yeah. You’re not supposed to do either one unless you’re a sensitive egalitarian chaste Alpha.

    Got that?

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    If you have a spiritual gift, you’re said to have received a “gifting” from the Holy Spirit.

    If someone uses that gift to benefit others, is that ReGifting?

    Really, verbing nouns seems more like bureaucratese than any language for communication.

    “My leadership gifting leads me to teaching gifting in empowering and benefting ways”.
    Ok, maybe it’s not bureaucratese, maybe it’s something a precocious high school student would write on a college application essay.

    Either way it’s clumsy, it reads / sounds pompous.

  34. Dota says:

    @ Mike

    Agreed, however, I’ve always wondered why Christians are simply unable to purge their ranks of these subversive elements. I remember from my days in Toronto that a few malcontents in the local Muslim community were agitating for female imams who would lead prayers at the Mosque. These Muslim feminists even got the media involved in what was essentially an internal Muslim affair. Much of this nonsense was being stirred up the liberal “Muslim Canadian Congress” which has little credibility in the Toronto Muslim community. Long story short, most of the mainstream Imams called for these female led congregations to be boycotted and they stood their ground.

    What baffles me is why can’t Christians do the same? When I compare Christians like Dalrock and his readers here to the conservative Muslims I used to associate with in my more religious days (I’m non-religious today) I see little difference. I see that both camps wish to maintain the integrity of their respective scriptures and both are willing to make sacrifices. For some reason camp Christianity isn’t as successful as camp Islam in this endeavour even though their intentions are just as solid. If religion follows culture (as is historically the case) then perhaps North American Christianity is doomed. Or perhaps what you need is a degree of self segregation to preserve your religion. Perhaps those Amish and Hutterites are onto something.

  35. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I’ve always wondered why Christians are simply unable to purge their ranks of these subversive elements.

    In many churches, the “subversive elements” greatly outnumber the true Christians. How can 10% purge the other 90%? The more realistic solution is for the 10% to leave and find (or form) a better, less feminist church.

  36. infowarrior1 says:

    @Anonymous Reader
    “Leadership giftings and teaching giftings…”

    Why do Evangelicals have this weird habit of making nouns into verbs?

    Explanation:
    http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/conservatives-speak-of-nouns-liberals-speak-of-traits/

  37. infowarrior1 says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    Failure of church discipline in the early days lead to this.

  38. infowarrior1 says:

    @Ham on Rye
    ”20th century that was focused on “a beautiful egalitarian society”.”

    More like 18th Century but fully realized in the 20th century. This Egalitarianism of course is a child of the Enlightenment. Who elevated “Reason” as their God and brought forth the French revolution and the proto-communist and Fascist French terror.

  39. infowarrior1 says:

    Not to mention that the Enlightenment brought forth the concept of “isms” the various ideologies of the world are a testament to that.

    Feminism,Marxism,Fascism are all the children of the Enlightenment era.

  40. MarcusD says:

    a checklist of things to discuss with your girlfriend
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1001782

  41. Cane Caldo says:

    @mmaier2112 & Dalrock

    I wrote:

    Women are to be “captivating”, and “pursued” and so-on-and-so-forth. And that’s it. That’s all they’ve got for the reason for women. This is subtly different than women fulfilling a desire in men, and that difference is that there is no expectation of making what wants to be filled (a desire of a man for a woman) actually full (by a woman).

    I admit it is a strangely worded sentence.

    I think he is saying they believe women exist to be chased, not caught.

    That is half of it.

    The story in Genesis goes (and I believe it) that Adam was formed. Then God says it is not good for man (implying all men) to be alone. So God had Adam take stock of all the creatures of the world, but among them he found no suitable help meet. Adam recognized that they were not meant for him. Now Adam is on the same page as God and realizes that he is alone, and that it’s not good. So God creates Eve.

    Eve is brought forth to satisfy the desire of God for Adam and of Adam for himself. She isn’t created as a source of desire, but as a fulfillment of Adam’s pre-existing desire. That’s the difference I’m trying to highlight.

    Here’s another way to demonstrate it.

    A man says to you: “I want that woman. She meets all my desires.” Those are words of praise. Then that woman says to you: “I am desirable.” Any sane man would count that as vanity. Hopefully the difference is clear.

    Here’s where it can get muddled though and why I called it a subtle difference. The man, upon hearing you call out vanity, might argue, “But she is desirable. I just said I desire her!” and the women will yes. That is true, he did! And who can argue with that? If he desires me then I am by definition desirable!” But what gets lost in this failure of communication is that she has mistakenly attributed to herself the power of desire; as if she were its source. No. Desire comes from the heart of the desirer. It never belonged to her. What belongs to her is only to fulfill his desire; to be pleasing to him. Always, of course, in accordance with God’s plan and will. That’s the reason for her creation.

  42. Looking Glass says:

    @infowarrior1:

    The Enlightenment was a lot “better” when you don’t see a lot of the original texts. Nearly all of the benefits of the Enlightenment Era have nothing really to do with the philosophy. It was the rise of Nation States (which ended 100 years of roughly “religious” wars in Europe) and the resurgence in Christian practice. [The Reformation & Counter-Reformation movements kind of had a large effect on Christian practice.] Add in technological advances that drastically increased the supply and lowered the cost of foreign trade goods, making significant quality of life improvements for many in Europe.

    @Dota:

    I’d suggest taking a look at the old Ecumenical Councils, if you want an idea of what actually has happened within Christianity for the last 2000 years. It can take a very long time to remove a very devious heresy.

  43. greyghost says:

    What boggles my mind is why these “Christian” feminists choose to identify as Christian. In an age of unparalleled personal freedom, they are free to run along and form their own feminist religion instead of defecating all over Christianity

    There is social status in being seen and known as a “Christian” woman. Even now the average person aware of the divorce culture and broken families still thinks the best bet is to foolishly choose a “Christian” woman for marriage. A woman claiming to be Christian is no different than make up or a designer purse it is just a status label for them. Christian men that are serious need to be red pill. Understanding the fundamentals of female nature is important for more than just getting sex.

  44. Pingback: The holiness of sin | Neoreactive

  45. HamOnRye says:

    @LeeLee

    I would actually agree with that — except the brutal masculinity is coming from the *women* of our culture, not the men.

    That’s an actually very astute observation. In my conversations with my daughter I am constantly pointing out her strengths and encouraging her to play to her strengths. I have also cautioned her that when try to be something that you were not intended to be nor geared for, is when disaster sets in.

    One of the biggest problems of the church today is women trying to be men and men trying to be women.

  46. DrTorch says:

    What baffles me is why can’t Christians do the same?

    Because these churches are “evangelical” and that has become an idol to them. They are more concerned about “saving souls” than obeying God.

    “It has produced a brutal masculine society.”

    LeeLee’s well placed comment notwithstanding, Piper is full is $#!t.

  47. Rpro says:

    I have a job, I submit to my boss and he respects me enough to take my advice. Together we Keep the company running smoothly. Now imagine if one day I took over (out of jealousy), sent the work crews to the jobs I wanted them on. Told the Secretary to forward all calls to me. Imagine my boss let that happen. The company would close it’s doors in six months. Why? Because I don’t have the experience my boss does. I don’t have his customer base, or contacts he does. I don’t know when the money comes in our who to pay first.. He got to where he is because he fought for it and learned along the way. Women ursuping men’s roles makes both parties look foolish, because we can never have the same life experiences. Women don’t have to (or won’t) overcome the same obstacles men do. Men are challenged by other men, women are pacified by men. This is why other countries don’t respect America. It’s like trying to take Jesus’ spot in the heavens without the very brutal, personal sacrifice.

  48. Carlotta says:

    “LeeLee’s well placed comment notwithstanding, Piper is full is $#!t.”

    His comment is greatly bothering me. I think he has really outed himself as having a hatred of masculinity for men. Why do any men listen to him?

  49. Scott says:

    Why do Evangelicals have this weird habit of making nouns into verbs?

    At seminary, my favorite was “discipling.”

  50. Carlotta says:

    I hope this isn’t off topic, if it is Dalrock I apologize.
    Here is someone doing the whole teaching women thing correctly, albeit she is doing it online. Though she actively mentors women locally and through skype. It appears to me she fulfills this mandate well, but I would interested in others thoughts. Thanks.

    http://homeliving.blogspot.com/

  51. feeriker says:

    Why do any men listen to [Piper]?

    Because he offers pre-digested pseudo-spiritual pablum to henpecked men who also happen to be too intellectually and spiritually lazy to read and interpret Scripture for themselves. He is also fortunate in that the majority of Christian men who make up his audience, in addition to being biblically ignorant, have had all masculine self-respect beaten out of them by the time they reach puberty. Dry spounges ripe for absorbing his christo-feminist heresy.

  52. PokeSalad says:

    “a beautiful egalitarian society”.”

    Also espoused by Marx, Lenin, and Mao, among others….

  53. PokeSalad says:

    He is also fortunate in that the majority of Christian men who make up his audience, in addition to being biblically ignorant, have had all masculine self-respect beaten out of them by the time they reach puberty.

    Being passive is the Easy Button. Being a real leader is hard work.

  54. Damn Crackers says:

    “It has produced a brutal masculine society.” Can someone point me to a few examples of this? I mean, we have female Ghostbusters now for God’s sake!

  55. Dota says:

    Because these churches are “evangelical” and that has become an idol to them. They are more concerned about “saving souls” than obeying God.

    I think Dalrock is saving souls here in his own way, so I’m not sure what you mean, or rather, what the evangelicals mean.

    In many churches, the “subversive elements” greatly outnumber the true Christians. How can 10% purge the other 90%?

    Interesting. In many Muslim communities it is easy to dismiss Feminism and Marxism as degenerate “foreign” ideologies, but since Marxism is now Western culture, how to purge it? I’ve also noticed that a great volume of Islamic literature (especially that published in Pakistan) explicitly attacks feminism and chastises women for denying their husbands sex. A frontal assault on feminism is possible in the Muslim world precisely because it is still perceived as foreign.

    At any rate, the reason I brought up the issue of female Muslim imams was simply to illustrate how all feminists are essentially alike. The obsession of Muslim feminists to lead a prayer congregation (in direct violation of Islamic sunnah) is identical to the envy of men that drives Christian feminists. The resemblance is uncanny.

  56. I notice academic liberals do the same thing, in addition to making needless plurals of things, e.g, ‘feminist logics.’

  57. Bill Smith says:

    I would expect that Scott would argue his wife does it correctly as well. You should look at his blog if not.

    https://morallycontextualizedromanceblog.wordpress.com/

    Look for the posts by his wife, which are normally limited to women to reply. (The blog policy.)

    Dota,

    You should read more of church history. Every movement I have seen rose out of emphasizing one aspect of the Christian life. Most had some merit, but easily pushed a bit beyond reason.

    Humans do that, starting from within the organization they are in. They will transform that organization if allowed to do so. They will only form their own if unable to do so. See Martin Luther for a big example.

    That doesn’t make any specific message right or wrong, but it does explain why they work in the existing church, especially when so many are receptive to it.

  58. Bill Smith says:

    DC,

    “It has produced a brutal masculine society.” Can someone point me to a few examples of this? I mean, we have female Ghostbusters now for God’s sake!

    I do get a bit fed up with continuously being told of all the bogeymen/strawmen by many who are reinforcing the modern feminist narrative. I listen to a wide range of teachers and such and can’t recall hearing any of the “put women down stuff” some regularly rail against.

    The same would apply to claims of a masculine society. It makes a great strawman for them. It does seem like the existence of any male only space is a major threat to them so we must be in a very masculine society because such spaces still exist for a rare few, or in small spaces such as “man caves.”

    It is also like arguing against gravity. I want to be able to fly through the air to work, not drive in rush hour traffic jams. Why are things so cruel? Male leadership is a fact woven into nature. Even rampant sin cannot change core reality.

  59. Anonymous Reader says:

    Infowarrior1 replies to

    Why do Evangelicals have this weird habit of making nouns into verbs?

    That’s an interesting article you pointed to at Anonymous Conservative. So what does that make Evangelicals, “liberals” or “conservatives”? Taking a noun (“conservative”) and making it into a verb…points to what?

    Words already exist that perform the functions of “teaching gifting”, “leadership gifting”. For example, I knew a man some years ago who strongly claimed that true leadership is a “calling”; either a man feels he has been called to leadership, or he doesn’t. Hmm. Perhaps this is just more of the feminization of the churches – to be called is to be singled out by some authority for a purpose (although in blue pill households it’s like to be the man “called” to take out the gabage by his superior, Herself…but I digress). “Gifting” seems more passive – just sitting around, and a gift drops out of the sky.

    Scott, I think I ran across the word “discipling” some years back, probably in a church context, it seemed odd as well. What’s wrong with the word “training” or “instructing”, I wonder?

    My own personal background tends to make me suspect people who take perfectly good words and make salad out of them, especiallly when existing words work just fine for communication. It seems to me that in such cases, obfuscation is more important than communication, and that’s when my suspcious mind asks “Ok, so what is being hidden, here?”.

    Anyway, that’s enough of the rabbit trail, I’ll just point out that the words we use in speech tend to be the words we use in thought, and if we use unclear, cryptic or ambiguous words in speech, what does that do to our thoughts?

  60. Gunner Q says:

    mmaier2112 @ March 3, 2016 at 5:42 pm:
    “OK, I’m not following the part past “and that difference”. Can you re-word that maybe?”

    It’s the difference between a wife using sex as a reward and using sex to satisfy her husband’s desires.

    PokeSalad @ 9:05 am:
    ““a beautiful egalitarian society”.”

    Also espoused by Marx, Lenin, and Mao, among others….”

    He does sound like those Commies who say Communism is a great idea that hasn’t yet been properly implemented. We must try harder, with less tolerance for dissent!

    Dota @ 12:25 am:
    “Agreed, however, I’ve always wondered why Christians are simply unable to purge their ranks of these subversive elements.”

    God often places these wicked men in authority to test and refine us. It isn’t always a question of human effort.

  61. Bill Smith says:

    How many here “google and answer”?

    Just following the rabbit trail. Speech does change over time. Anyone ever looked at really old English? Or even just the original KJV text? The differences pop out, even in the current KJV text, which is fairly old itself.

  62. Bill Smith says:

    That should be “google an answer.”

  63. Anonymous Reader says:

    Just following the rabbit trail. Speech does change over time.

    Sure. So? The question is, what is the purpose of a change: to improve communication or to just signal ingroup status, or to degrade communication via obfuscation, or something else?

    Evangelical Christianese seems to be a mix of ingroup signalling and obfuscation.

  64. Anonymous Reader says:

    mmaier2112 @ March 3, 2016 at 5:42 pm:
    “OK, I’m not following the part past “and that difference”. Can you re-word that maybe?”

    GunnerQ
    It’s the difference between a wife using sex as a reward and using sex to satisfy her husband’s desires.

    Yes. Is she handing out a doggie treat as behavior modification, is she providing an IV-drip to keep him barely sane, or is she wholeheartedly joining with him?

    Hey, wait, is sex a “gifting”? Does a wife who isn’t miserly engage in sexual gifting in Evangelical Christianese? From my time wasted reading Sheila Gregoire’s site I know the answer…

  65. Carlotta says:

    @feeriker
    Ah. So they kind of deserve it then. Just kidding, very sad but they can open up a Bible and change all that. Sad.

  66. JDG says:

    Christian men (and women) are far more likely to encourage rebellion today by pretending it doesn’t exist than by being harsh and authoritarian. The love we are failing to show is overwhelmingly the failure to rebuke women for a sin our culture teaches is a virtue.

    Well said.

  67. Bdawg16 says:

    Carlotta says:
    March 4, 2016 at 8:19 am
    “LeeLee’s well placed comment notwithstanding, Piper is full is $#!t.”

    “His comment is greatly bothering me. I think he has really outed himself as having a hatred of masculinity for men. Why do any men listen to him?”

    Just my opinion but so many men have been beaten down their entire lives by this unbiblical philosophy of “wife worship” which leads to men being conditioned to think their sole purpose in life is to make some woman “happy” and fulfilled” as opposed to “glorifying God and enjoying Him forever” to borrow from the Westminster Catechism.

    Therefore, it’s much easier and takes less effort to listen to male “bitches” like Piper, Driscoll, Keller, Walsh and the rest of these pole lickers spout off their false doctrine and female idolatry. I know men who really are trying to do the right thing, and yet, have such a low view of themselves and who they are in Christ, that they think being ridiculed, mocked and emasculated by the feminist’s and false teachers, makes them more “Christ like”. Very sad.

  68. Bob Wallace says:

    “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.”

    That’s a bit of a mistranslation.

    It’s better translated as women’s desire is to rule men but men shall rule them.

  69. thedeti says:

    @ Anon Reader:

    “I think I ran across the word “discipling” some years back, probably in a church context, it seemed odd as well. What’s wrong with the word “training” or “instructing”, I wonder?”

    The word “discipling” elevates training and instructing. IIt’s ostensibly to follow the great commission, which is “Go make disciples of all the nations”. Because we all know what a “Disciple” was, and we as evangelicals are supposed to be more like Jesus, and what better way to be more like Jesus than to be a “disciple”? It’s more than training and instruction; it’s supposed to be learning a way of life to be a better Christian. So it’s a term of art in Protestant evangelical circles.

    But, to be honest, if they really did “discipling” the way it’s intended in the Bible, very few men (or women) would do it. Because they don’t.

  70. Darwinian Arminian says:

    “We live in a culture where for the last 30 or 40 years, the collapse of the meaning of biblical masculinity has not produced a beautiful egalitarian society,” Piper observes. “It has produced a brutal masculine society.”

    When you see a line like this, you realize that preachers like Piper aren’t even paying attention anymore and have simply resorted to using whatever bogus claims they can pull out of their collective asses to justify their chosen social programs. In the “brutal masculine society” Piper decries, violent crime in every category (including rape and domestic assault) is at its lowest rate in decades, and hasn’t even risen once for 20+ years (1995 saw the last reported annual increase). Popular statistics on the subject of increasing male violence — like the claim that 1 in 5 women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted — have been shown to be based largely on fabrication and faulty testing that in many cases expanded the definition so that “unwanted flirting” now gets grouped into the same category as rape.

    He might have had a better point if he’d said that we’ve produced a more decadent society — but then he might have had to specify how we’d gotten more decadent. This he will not do — because then he might have to ask for some accountability from the women. There’s certainly far more divorce today than 30 years ago, but over two thirds of those divorces are sought by women, and the majority of them are no-fault. Out-of-wedlock births are also on the rise, but since men can’t get pregnant, at some point the pastor might have to focus on the behavior of the women — especially when current census numbers report over 15 million more women who are mothers than there are men who are fathers. Custody of the children will be given to the mother by default, but those same single mothers are also far more likely to give their offspring a future marked by abuse and poverty. Which reminds me of another fun fact: in cases of child abuse, who’s been documented to be the most likely culprit to physically beat their children? The victim’s mother. Then there’s the matter of abortion, which courts have provided women with a right to, even to the point of denying a father the opportunity to press charges if his lawfully wedded wife decides to unilaterally kill his unborn child without even informing him she was pregnant (from Planned Parenthood v. Casey).

    Piper is wrong because an “egalitarian society” was, in fact, exactly what we got. The reason it will never be “beautiful” is because feminists are unwilling to give up any of their new freedoms, even when that includes the liberty to commit evil with the immediate consequences removed. And our pastors, for their part, will be unwilling to screw up the courage to call them on this — not when there’s far less of a cost to be paid in just telling the men that their sins are the primary reason why the women’s sins exist in the first place.

  71. Morgan says:

    Complimentarians have essentially given up all authority that offends feminists. There was nothing left except the authority given to them by feminists, which is founded on the woman’s willingness to be led. Therefore, only men with a woman willing to be led have any authority. And the test of that authority is her willingness to be led. It’s a circular argument that gives the woman the authority to grant you authority. Your authority is based on your ability to do what she wants and believe it was your idea.

    This is why the current american family is in such disarray. Women don’t want a man to have authority over her ( Husband ), she just wants him to protect her and take care of her ( Government ).

  72. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    At seminary, my favorite was “discipling”.

    Yes; this one is heinous because it is a juke; a subversion. There is a perfectly good word already and it even has the same root. That word is “discipline”. But they don’t like that word.

  73. Stryker7200 says:

    Care to break this down Dalrock?

    http://www.shaneyirene.com/2015/10/everyday-examples-of-christian-rape-culture/

    Seems the “rape culture” hysteria has officially entered the “Christian” realm. The amount of damage ring going on in this article is astounding. It’s as if these Christians never read the Bible.

    More and more it is evident to me the need for women, young and adult, to be under the authority and teaching of their fathers/husbands. Single women are easily deceived. Easily.

  74. Gunner Q says:

    thedeti @ 1:24 pm:
    “But, to be honest, if they really did “discipling” the way it’s intended in the Bible, very few men (or women) would do it. Because they don’t.”

    You have this backwards. It’s the pastors who reject discipleship, not laymen, because disciples are potential competitors for power. Good leaders aren’t threatened by having a prepared successor but bad leaders are. All the guys like me who wanted to get involved eventually left in frustration.

    Churchians made “disciple” a verb because they fear the noun.

  75. theasdgamer says:

    Cuckstians like Piper are swallowing egalitarian feminism hook, line, and sinker. It makes me wish that Paul had warned Timothy about how silly men would be given preaching positions to deceive Christians in the latter days. People like Piper do far more damage than Kassian.

  76. justdoit says:

    @Cane Caldo says

    If you read the literature (podcasts, videos, etc.) you will notice that what they have decided is that that women exist to be wanted. Women are to be “captivating”, and “pursued” and so-on-and-so-forth. And that’s it. That’s all they’ve got for the reason for women. This is subtly different than women fulfilling a desire in men, and that difference is that there is no expectation of making what wants to be filled (a desire of a man for a woman) actually full (by a woman).

    I say:

    +1000, the above is what women actually do. And then they complained loudly that men “objectify” them. It is completely insane. Of course, the complaint is only made when some weak unworthy man is “objectifying” them. But since that covers 99% of all men, it pretty much is all the time.

  77. DrTorch says:

    Women are to be “captivating”, and “pursued” and so-on-and-so-forth.

    That’s precisely the conclusion to one of Shaunti Feldhahn’s chapters in her book “For Men Only, Revised and Updated Edition: A Straightforward Guide to the Inner Lives of Women”

    To be fair, I’m unsure if she was reporting it or advocating for it. However, what I’ve never seen is any Christian rebuke women for it when they referenced this book’s materials.

  78. feeriker says:

    deti said:

    But, to be honest, if they really did “discipling” the way it’s intended in the Bible, very few men (or women) would do it. Because they don’t.

    Gunner Q replied:

    You have this backwards. It’s the pastors who reject discipleship, not laymen, because disciples are potential competitors for power. Good leaders aren’t threatened by having a prepared successor but bad leaders are.

    I think you’re both right. Laychurchians, if they were to ever carefully read the New Testament (yes, I know, I know … I said IF), would realize not only the amount of personal sacrifice, personal discipline, and hard work involved in “discipling,” but would also realize what they would risk in terms of their worldly existence. This is why almost none of them would do it even if they were biblically literate. Much easier to just pay occasional lip service to the Scriptures than live them and actually sacrifice anything.

    Most pastors in my experience aren’t much more literate or disciplined in Scripture than the people they (pretend to) lead, but then again, they really don’t have to be. In most churches no one is demanding that they step up, teach, and lead in the manner prescribed in the Gospels. That, after all, would require effort, sincere commitment, and sacrifice on the part of their congregations and as I just stated above, almost none have any interest in that. Of course the few who DO are indeed a threat to the pastoral position, if for no other reason than that they would expose the emptiness behind the clerical collar. No churchian establishment can tolerate that for long and survive.

  79. DrTorch says:

    Seems the “rape culture” hysteria has officially entered the “Christian” realm

    This woman has no claim to Christianity nor to being a “thinker” despite her affirmations.

  80. greyghost says:

    DrTorch
    Don’t be so simple. She is identifying herself as Christian. Just as Piper and his church. Good enough for her. The crap she is pushing will sell to the church we have today. And those feminized men will eat this up for the approval of those women in the name of god.

  81. Flood that ‘Christian Rape Culture’ comments section please guys. Would be so much fun to watch!

  82. Carlotta says:

    @Bdawg16
    Thank you for your explanation, a situation I saw at our former church finally makes sense.

  83. ray says:

    “Goats boiled in their mother’s milk.”

    Yep. Toil ‘n trouble. To mix manuscripts.

    God’s warning in Exodus 23:19 means, broadly, don’t raise womanish boys. Build strong male cultures, not fake-empowerment cow-nations. After the time for mother’s milk is done, remove the boys and place them under proper male supervision. People living in the wilderness, whether geophysical or spiritual, who do otherwise won’t make it out.

    Exodus 23 is one of my favorite OT chapters — applicable to that historical moment and also time-release. Proof of, and glory to, our caring and careful God.

  84. feeriker says:

    Flood that ‘Christian Rape Culture’ comments section please guys.

    No.

    I got through just two paragraphs of her imbecilic drivel and realized that devoting any time and energy to rebutting her would be a violation of both the Confucian and biblical (Proverbs) admonitions against wasting words of reason and wisdom on a fool.

  85. mmaier2112 says:

    So women are the FOOD and not the source of the hunger. Good point.

  86. Spike says:

    Strange. If Ms Kassian has such “Leadership Giftings” (cringe) as she says, she would, or should, understand the meaning of the biblical Greek word “Hupotasso”. This word is translated as “submission” in the New Testament. Better Greek scholars than me tell us that the word is a military term – you fall in line in a disciplined manner and take orders, exactly as a soldier does. The line of command would be Pastor – Husband – wife – children.

    Kassian thinks she is special with her “Giftings”, yet the rebellion is clearly on show to whoever wants to see her behavior in the light of Scripture, especially in biblical Greek – studied at seminaries just like the one that employs Kassian. This is what is the most appalling part of the Kassian thread.

    She isn’t the only one. Many here would undoubtedly be able to tell you of stories where the new Pastor arrives, starts assessing characters, stops some ministries, and people begin murmuring against him and leaving the church. All of them – especially women – are “mature leaders” with “gifts”. They then begin agitating to get the leadership changed so they can get a slice of the leadership pie – by going to the secular world’s press (owned by the enemies of the Gospel), and to the popular culture.

    Ms Kassian is the Christian world’s Miley Cyrus, who became famous with the album “Can’t be Tamed”. Even Justin Bieber didn’t behave that badly, but I expected that. Bieber is after all, male.

  87. Hans says:

    ” The line of command would be paster …husband. .. ”
    ABSOLUTELY NOT…
    There’s three distinct spheres of authority. ..family. ..church/community (biblically they are one)….and state.
    The paster’s authority is in the community realm and has NO place in the family.
    The false teachings of pastoral authority is fundamental to the lack of influence of the church in the overall community. …..due to their unlawful intrusion into the family realm, God has weakened them overall

  88. cptnemo2013 says:

    Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.

  89. Spike says:

    Hans says:
    March 6, 2016 at 3:58 pm
    ” The line of command would be paster …husband. .. ”
    ABSOLUTELY NOT…
    There’s three distinct spheres of authority. ..family. ..church/community (biblically they are one)….and state.
    The paster’s authority is in the community realm and has NO place in the family.

    Good point,Hans. I was thinking about the church internally, from the position of a woman’s ministry, i.e The Pastor wants women to do X. He checks with husband, who has the final say over his family.

    Meanwhile, on “Christian Rape Culture” – does anyone have any statistics on how many horrible Christians there are out there, committing child abuse and spousal rape? Does it differ from secular figures?

  90. Snowy says:

    Kassian loves having a microphone in front of her mouth. She loves the sound of her own voice. She presents herself like a Hollywood movie actress. Or a company CEO. She is very proud – of what, I don’t know. I think she mistakes pride for strength. Very unChristian character, if not more so than your average “secular” woman. It’s actually quite pitiful, considering her claims to godliness.

  91. Pingback: Fulfillment of desire | chokingonredpills

  92. Pingback: CBMW’s evolving position on spiritual headship. | Dalrock

  93. Pingback: Guarding her equality. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s