Hierarchy equals abuse.

As I’ve explained most recently in All roads lead to Duluth, the Duluth model has become by far the dominant paradigm for viewing domestic violence.  This is essential to understand because Duluth isn’t really about domestic violence, but about legislating feminist theory.  The focus of Duluth is to end what feminists call male privilege, or male entitlement.  While the flag of domestic violence and abuse is waved in front of the crowd, the Duluth creators go out of their way to make it clear that their focus is not on violence or abuse, but on the idea that a husband is head of the household.  In the Duluth model the idea of headship is both the root of abuse, and it is in itself abuse.

This paradigm is so widely accepted that very often it isn’t named Duluth when it is presented.  For example, in the article Domestic violence: Male entitlement mentality a factor, the word Duluth is never used.  However, the model is clearly the Duluth model, as it is about power and control and ending male entitlement (emphasis mine):

The real problem is a belief system rooted in male entitlement.

“The underlying belief system is, ‘Because I’m the man in this relationship, I’m in charge,'” Steffy said.

The goal is to help men change the way they think and live, Steffy said. The counselors help them to view relationships as egalitarian, not a hierarchy.

“Our ultimate goal would be for each client to make an absolute commitment to be noncontrolling, nonviolent,” Steffy said.

In the case above the advocate (Roger Steffy with Lutheran Social Services of South Central Pennsylvania) is very open about pushing a feminist/egalitarian model.  But in other cases the same feminist model is delivered by Christian leaders presenting themselves as traditional.  These leaders teach the same feminist concepts, and very often adopt the same feminist terminology, but they present the Duluth paradigm as a (traditional) biblical paradigm and not a radical feminist creation.  This is far more dangerous than the overt teaching of feminism.

I’ve offered examples of this before, but for another example see Pastor Sam Powell’s Headship is not Hierarchy* and his related post Genesis 3:16.  Like Steffy, Powell explains that a hierarchical marriage is by it’s very nature abusive, but he goes a step further and claims the very idea of hierarchy in marriage is of the devil:

The goal of marriage is the one flesh relationship, rather than the antagonistic and abusive relationship that characterized the kingdom of the devil. It isn’t about who makes the coffee, changes the diapers, or does the dishes.

Note how he weaves in feminist resentment to poison the very concept of headship.  Modern wives are constantly encouraged to simmer in feminist resentment over who does the dishes, and Powell makes brilliant use of this to poison the very idea of biblical headship in his reader’s minds.  Part of the ruse here is a very effective distraction.  Powell wants the reader to focus on what he presents as men abusing headship, but his real argument is against headship itself.  In Headship he writes:

I think it is reading to much into the text to say that this means that Adam ruled over his wife. Did Adam sit on the couch and say “Woman, beer me and shut those kids up!” I think not. He did not rule his wife. They both served God and one another perfectly, being without sin.

These are feminist nuclear emotional triggers, designed to terrify the men who are reading and make the women reading furious.  They are stink bombs of marital strife.  But his real point, the one he is sneaking in while lobbing stink bombs, is that husbands are not to lead, even in a loving way. He explains this in his Genesis post:

Let’s take it with the second part of the phrase, “But he shall rule over thee”, which is set in contrast to the first phrase. It’s a disjunctive clause. The word “rule” (mashal) can be good rule, benevolent rule, tyrannical rule or any other kind of rule…

Now that Christ has come, we as men are called, not to rule over our wives (whether benevolently or not) but to love our wives, and thus reflect to the world the love of our great savior, who gave himself for us.

This is also clear in the title “Headship is not hierarchy”;  Powell is against any idea of headship other than one which redefines it as purely submission.

So in answer to the question, “Do I believe that the husband has authority in the home?” My answer is “Yes. Certainly. There is no way around it. He is to wash his wife’s feet, serve her, do good to her, love her – even, as Paul says, give himself for her.

This new definition of headship is really a thinly disguised form of the wife’s role of submission**.  Except in this crossdressing form of headship and submission, husbands are accountable for the outcome while winning their wives without a word:

…the husband is to take the lead in taking the lowest place in the home. That’s not me saying this. That’s Jesus Christ.

It is the husband ultimately responsible for the peace of the home. It is the husband that God will hold accountable for what has been entrusted to him.

Then he switches to Duluth language of abuse, power and control, and male entitlement (emphasis mine):

…he does not rule the home by power and control. He governs his home by service and love. You can see a woman controlled by power. She is downcast and the light is gone in her eyes. And you can see a woman who is loved by her husband. She is alive, fully human, confident, and joyfully doing whatever work God has called her to with spirit and life. Why do so many who claim the name of Christ believe that women are to be controlled by entitlement and power?

The husband isn’t the boss, the commander, the chief, the king. All of that belongs to Christ.

Hierarchy, leading, believing you are the head of the household (in any non feminist sense), is abuse and satanic according to Powell.  Instead, Powell teaches husbands to take on the role of homemaker:

So for you husbands insisting that you are the head of your home, take it seriously. Go home, cook dinner, draw her a bath, do the dishes, put the kids to bed.

As Powell explains, in Christian marriage “It isn’t about who makes the coffee, changes the diapers, or does the dishes”, so long as it is the husband who does these things.

*HT The Question

**The problem is not Powell saying a husband is to serve his wife;  the problem is him using a husband’s obligation to serve his wife to deny headship and entirely recast it as submission.

See Also:  Relishing sin

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Crossdressing Theology, Disrespecting Respectability, Domestic Violence, Duluth Model, Feminists, Headship, Pastor Sam Powell, Servant Leader, Submission, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

336 Responses to Hierarchy equals abuse.

  1. Pingback: Hierarchy equals abuse. | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. Hmm says:

    Jesus “took the lowest place” when he washed his disciples’ feet. But this same Jesus, when he commissioned them (Matt; 28:18-20), told the disciples (and by extension the church) that part of their job was “teaching them to observe all I have commanded you.”

    So if Jesus is the model of a servant leader in marriage, what commands from the husband must the wife obey?

  3. Novaseeker says:

    So if Jesus is the model of a servant leader in marriage, what commands from the husband must the wife obey?

    Indeed, or as if Christ’s role as the head of the Church is simply characterized as being its servant, and not its commander, not its King. It’s taking one element and using it to wash out everything else.

    I have said this before — the idea is to make men into figureheads. You keep the word “head” (because you can’t throw it out without throwing out Paul completely, and the complementarians don’t want to be seen to be doing that, unlike the egalitarians, who are more than happy to do so), but you empty it of its content and replace that content with “male wife”. In this way, you keep the term in place but replace its meaning so as to make it into a figurehead, while still retaining the “form” of head and, of course, the responsibility. It’s straight up feminism, straight up “FI” — disempower the men while keeping them responsible for everything. And the Church has become almost completely corrupted by it, unfortunately.

  4. Boxer says:

    I tried to leave a polite comment on Pastor Powell’s feminist blog, but got an error message. No matter. I’ll just talk at him on the blue shoutbox.

    I do wonder how it feels to be spreading divorce, frustration and angst into the very homes you are paid to shepherd. A pretty sad life, if you ask me.

  5. Lyn87 says:

    I left the following response yesterday. I expected it to go into moderation since I’ve never posted there before (fair enough), but it’s been long enough to get through moderation by now, so I can only assume that “Pastor” Powell just doesn’t have the balls to put it up. Anyway, he doesn’t call the shots here, so I’ll put up the rebuttal that was too scary for him:
    _______________

    What does wifely rebellion look like? Or do you believe that it even exists?

    Surely you believe that children are to obey their parents (although the same words are used to tell wives to obey their husbands, so maybe you don’t believe that…). But that creates a problem for you, because the Bible – and common sense – also dictate that “You cannot serve two masters.” So if there is no parental hierarchy, who are the kids to obey if Mom and Dad tell them different things (which happens in families all the time)? If there is no hierarchy, then the children are free to choose which parent to obey in such cases. Are all you parents okay with your kids playing you off against your spouse to get a “better” outcome?

    So, who decides when you don’t agree? Figure that out and you’ll know who is in charge. If the husband’s duty is merely to serve without authority, then the wife is in charge. Full stop. If that’s what you mean, then just come right out and say it. If that’s not what you mean… keep reading.

    Before the Fall, Eve was under the direct authority of God Himself (since you posit that there was no marital subordination), yet clearly Eve rebelled anyway. If it’s a mortal husband’s responsibility to – your words – “ensure the peace of the home” (which is inescapable if he is to be held responsible), he must have the authority to do so, since God never gives a command without giving the means to carry it out. But if you think that God really does assign husbands responsibility without authority, you are logically left with only one of two choices – and if you’re correct about what you think the Bible says, one of these two things MUST be true.

    Since Eve rebelled while under the direct headship of God:

    1) God is to blame for the “loss of the peace” by failing to lead Eve in sufficient righteousness to keep her from rebelling, just as a husband is at fault if the family goes astray, or,

    2) You are holding mortal husbands to a higher standard than God. (If God Himself with the entire Universe at His disposal could not persuade a sinless woman to refrain from rebellion in paradise, how could He demand that mere mortal husbands keep fallen wives from wrecking the peace of the family?)

    Are you SURE you want to do that? Think long and hard before you choose one of those, because it’s clear that neither is tenable, which means that the line of thought that left you only those two options is also untenable.

    The Bible, including the words of Jesus Himself, uses military examples to illustrate points in many places. In Matthew 8: 5-13 Jesus deals with a Roman Centurion and marveled at his faith, because he – as a soldier – understood the concept of authority. You would do well to ponder such things before you continue to tell wives (who are fallen creatures just like their husbands), that a husband is to treat a wife as a servant treats his Domina, and if she’s not feeling it, it’s because he’s doing something wrong. The inevitable flip-side of assigning husbands responsibility without authority is to grant wives authority without responsibility.

    Many Christians talk about spiritual warfare and sing “Onward Christian Soldiers,” yet live (and write) like civilians. There is a spiritual battle for Christian families, and the guy who’s going to answer for the peace of his family is the guy who wields the authority.

  6. SJB says:

    (male gamete + female gamete) = one flesh.

    Woe to those who complicate God-given simplicity.

  7. Carlotta says:

    What it comes down to is weak and unattractive men offering what they think women want in the hopes of getting them. So they get leftovers and feminists who despise them and never stop with their increasing demands. The women worship themselves and surround themselves with men that will worship them. Leave them to it, the men have not chosen a benevolent god and will feel her full wrath when the very last attractive and worthwhile man departs exposing the cult for what it is. A worthless goddess with followers she despises for worshipping her.
    This is why they write, and talk and deceive. If they can’t enslave the attractive and worthy the whole thing falls apart. Don’t become food for the goddess.

  8. Cindy says:

    Couple of things. First of all, Jesus washed his disciples’ feet ONCE. He wasn’t inverting all servant/master relationships for the rest of time, but making a statement about how low he was about to become for the sake of those he loved. He became sin. That’s as low as it gets. But then he was exalted, and now he’s giving the orders from heaven. All the rest of the time, he told the disciples what to do, and they did it. He had his own work to do, and to do theirs would have been ridiculous. He washed their feet, not their dishes. He was well and truly their King, and they served him. Nobody was confused about who was giving the orders.

    Secondly, I get so sick of people telling husbands to do the housework and put the kids to bed, as if these things were beneath them, and a huge sacrifice, and thus showed how lowly a woman’s work is. It’s not traditionalists that devalue women, if that’s what they think of women’s work. I can be as lazy as the next person, and don’t mind getting a bit of help when I can, but these are my tasks, and they all add up to the indispensable role of wife and mother. I guard them. Mine. You have to be of Satan to make serving your family seem so unpleasant as to be abusive.

  9. Damn Crackers says:

    It’s come full circle. Beck spent 2 hours discussing how Trump has corrupted Christianity.

  10. SnapperTrx says:

    I am facing this same situation right now in that the pastor of our church delivered a scathing message last Sunday on how, if men are not able to accept wisdom and teaching from women, whether wives or women at the pulpit, they are both Pharisees and “spiritually dead”. Along with that was the warning that men shouldn’t “be surprised when your wives are smarter than you spiritually and don’t be surprised when they do and they no longer submit to you”. Also that “being the head doesn’t mean you have control, you should be serving”, as if that’s all Christ ever did was wash peoples feet! It is a move to solidify the belief that husbands and wives are completely equal in interchangeable in the family structure and the church – which the bible clearly shows they are not!

    I am planning on meeting with the pastor to discuss the situation and possibly leave the church. This is an evil message to deliver to a congregation and an open invitation for satan to take a foothold in any woman who wants to overthrow her husbands authority.

  11. Gunner Q says:

    “…the husband is to take the lead in taking the lowest place in the home. ”

    Kinda says it all.

  12. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Evil religious leaders. This is a subject that has been around. My first thought is the false prophets. Then warnings in the Talmud about the פרושים “Pharisee”-usually identified as Talmud scholars, but in fact people the Talmud criticizes as being hypocritical (the exact same way that Jesus did).. But it comes up so often that I wonder if perhaps it is not from the curse of Jeremiah since God sent us true prophets and we did not listen so he will send false prophets and to them we will listen. The trouble is this—there are true teachers but they generally are willfully ignorant about the presence of bad teachers or are quiet sabot this problem. For example here we have a blog dealing with this problem in the Christian world. But this is a drop in the ocean of false and bad teachers. How many people are willing to state the truth fearlessly? Not many. Most teachers would lose their livelihoods.

  13. Lyn87 says:

    Good point, Cindy. We’re going through the Gospel of Matthew on Sunday mornings at my church, and there are plenty of examples of Jesus giving detailed instructions to his disciples. As a retired military officer I instinctively understand the pattern: Jesus was issuing orders to subordinates. In fact, the assignment that Jesus gives to the disciples in Matthew 10: 1-26 could easily be written using the standard Five-Paragraph Operations Order format we use TODAY. I have written such orders myself – it literally has the exact same elements, even down to the content of many of the same sub-paragraphs.

    Trust me… nobody who receives an OPORD thinks he is at the same hierarchical level as the person issuing the order.

  14. Novaseeker says:

    It is a move to solidify the belief that husbands and wives are completely equal in interchangeable in the family structure and the church – which the bible clearly shows they are not!

    Well, to me, it seems more the case that it is a move to subordinate husbands explicitly to wives, with wives as the more spiritual, smarter and therefore not the ones who submit, while husbands are to heed their smarter more spiritual wives, submit to them, and be responsible for everything as the “head”. It’s an inversion of roles, full stop, coupled with the coup-de-grace of keeping men responsible while stripping them of authority and handing it to their wives. Not egalitarian — it’s femdom, full stop. Female Led Relationship.

  15. DrTorch says:

    “rather than the antagonistic and abusive relationship that characterized the kingdom of the devil.”

    Pretty clear that Powell is the sort being mentioned in 2 Pet 2. But comparing divinely inspired word of God w/ kingdom of Devil? That’s unpardonable sin territory IMO.

  16. feeriker says:

    I do wonder how it feels to be spreading divorce, frustration and angst into the very homes you are paid to shepherd. A pretty sad life, if you ask me.

    Powell is either profoundly mentally retarded (doubtful) or monumentally evil. There is no “third way” in which he can claim that he has written in ignorance of the implications of his position. No sentient human being with an IQ north of 90, no matter how deeply indoctrinated and captivated by the current culture and who (presumably) grasps the clear and obvious message of Scripture can be unaware of the heretical destruction that will be unleashed by this crossdressing and gelding of men.

    TL;DR version: Powell, like all other churchians, hates and is embarrassed by Scripture, but is too cowardly to admit the obvious.

  17. Lyn87 says:

    To elaborate on my earlier point: feel free to show this to anyone who says that Jesus did not give orders to his disciples (and thus husbands who are to emulate Christ in their marriages have no authority to issue orders in their homes – like “Pastor” Powell does). I took the exact words that Jesus spoke to his disciples in Matthew 10: 1-26 and simply reformatted them into the standard Five-Paragraph OPORDER (as in OPerations ORDER) used by the U.S. military today:

    Task Organization:
    The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. (v2-4)

    I. Situation:

    A. Enemy Forces
    Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. (v16-23)

    Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. (v26)

    B. Friendly Forces
    And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. (v1)

    C. Attachments/Detachments
    And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (v11-15)

    II. Mission
    Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (v5-7)

    III. Execution
    Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. (v8)

    IV. Sustainment
    Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. (v 9-10)

    V. Command and Signal
    The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? (v 24-25)

  18. feeriker says:

    Pretty clear that Powell is the sort being mentioned in 2 Pet 2. But comparing divinely inspired word of God w/ kingdom of Devil? That’s unpardonable sin territory IMO.

    I guess that’s as close as we’ll ever come to hearing his ilk openly express their (obvious) contempt for God’s Word.

  19. Fifty Seven says:

    If you have no authority to change anything you are not ‘head’ or ‘in charge’ or ‘leading’ in any way that means anything. Someone else is. In this case, your wife. All groups of humans larger than one individual have someone who is deferred to, to more or less extent– someone whose will is enacted more than anyone else’s in the group.

  20. feeriker says:

    Lyn87 says:
    September 21, 2016 at 10:47 am

    I can already hear the very same churchians who otherwise LOVE to couch Scripture in the most militaristic of terms now shrieking “but … But … BUT … Jesus wasn’t a General!”

  21. Feminist Hater says:

    Imagine if men just flipped these pastors the bird everytime they tried this. The pews would be empty. Come on, men, flip these suckers the bird. If your Church leader dares to sprout these words, vote with your feet and leave. If you wife chooses to stay, you have your answer and are better off without her. Don’t be afraid. Stand up for yourself and for what is right.

  22. The Question says:

    Like I said in the last post, the telltale sign of an egalitarian is how they absolutely detest the concept of hierarchy. It is also a trait among left-libertarians.

    They can call themselves complementarians or whatever they want, but a rose is a rose.

    For some reason, egalitarians claim the very nature of hierarchy is coercive or unethical, when it only concerns the manner in which authority is organized within an institution.

    Like authority, hierarchy is a natural phenomenon. It’s not hard to see why. It is a very practical way of dividing responsibility. In organizations, hierarchy is necessary for economic reasons; it makes little sense to have everyone multi-task by performing small amounts of the exact same duties.

    The division of labor as articulated by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations is why hierarchy leads to prosperity. The only way to divide labor is to divide responsibility, and authority has to be provided in order to carry out one’s role. Companies have a chief executive officer, a treasurer and a board of directors. It would be impossible for all of them to be of “equal” authority because their responsibilities aren’t equal.

    Additionally, there is nothing coercive about voluntarily choosing a lower ranking position within an organization.

    It’s no wonder libertarian intellectual giant Murray Rothbard described egalitarianism as a war against nature. https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/were-not-equal/

    The real reason egalitarians don’t like hierarchy has nothing to do with abuse or coercion but the fact that its existence and practicality disproves their fundamental belief that all people are equal or the same. The natural tendency to form hierarchies even at the youngest ages shows this is not the case.

    In dealing with Scriptures exclusively, egalitarians are dishonest in what they claim to believe. They claim to promote equality between spouses, but in reality their ideology transfers the authority of the husband as the head of the household over to the wife, but keeps the husband’s responsibilities and duties as head of the household totally intact.

    So egalitarians aren’t even egalitarians. It is just a revolt against nature.

    Or, as Lew Rockwell said, “And here we discover something important about the whole egalitarian program: it’s not really about equality. It’s about some people exercising power over others.”

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/lew-rockwell/against-egalitarianism/

  23. Boxer says:

    Imagine if men just flipped these pastors the bird everytime they tried this. The pews would be empty. Come on, men, flip these suckers the bird. If your Church leader dares to sprout these words, vote with your feet and leave. If you wife chooses to stay, you have your answer and are better off without her. Don’t be afraid. Stand up for yourself and for what is right.

    I think it starts out with little stuff, and many men do flip the pastor the bird. This is evident when one reads Dalrock’s awesome takedown of the fraud Mark Driscoll.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/the-aperture-and-its-pretenders/

    The most intelligent, independent and sincere men leave the feminist flock early, which serves to concentrate the congregation with cucks, single moms, empowered feminist bull dykes, and henpecked losers. Over time, these feminists make regular families unwelcome, so that as the congregation grows, it becomes increasingly feminist. It’s a weird sort of infinite feedback loop. Eventually, the cult’s leader has a large number of very weak and decadent people under his complete control. Then he usually is overcome by hubris and self-destructs in laughable fashion.

    Boxer

  24. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    I do wonder how it feels to be spreading divorce, frustration and angst into the very homes you are paid to shepherd. A pretty sad life, if you ask me.

    He also goes to the 5s and 6s in church and extols them as ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’. Three times.

    As feeriker has taught us, this is not merely being a mangina, but is evidence of a complete lack of genuine faith.

    Again, a complete lack of genuine faith.

  25. Heidi says:

    You know, it’s funny; I never hear people admonishing parents that the Ephesians 6:1 command for children to obey their parents means that the parents shouldn’t try to “boss” their children. Indeed, it is regarded as a profound failure of love on the parents’ side if they do not exercise proper authority over their children. Why is Scriptural hierarchy okay for the parent-child relationship, but abusive for the husband-wife relationship?

  26. The Question says:

    @ Heidi

    The entire root of this problem stems from the churchian erroneous belief that feminism was created in response to the failure of men to properly love their wives and that if they did as they were supposed to the rebellion would end.

  27. SnapperTrx says:

    Refer them to Joshua: The Commander of the Lords Army might like to say otherwise.

  28. SnapperTrx says:

    Funny how neither God nor Jesus seemed to address the ‘issue’ of evil patriarchy in the scripture. Neither did they give a call for women to rise up and level the playing field. I guess some feel they need to fix that oversight themselves.

  29. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Great post; My only complaint is that you didn’t file it under the the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up,” tag.

  30. Boxer says:

    As feeriker has taught us, this is not merely being a mangina, but is evidence of a complete lack of genuine faith.

    No question you guys are correct. No one who sincerely lives the discipline of Christianity would behave this way.

  31. Caspar Reyes says:

    It was the Man’s prerogative by Divine commission to issue such commands and instructions as the Man deemed good for the management of the Garden and for its inhabitants. The Woman recognizes this authority implicitly by quoting him to the Serpent: “…neither shall you touch it…” She was not deceived about what she heard, and she disobeyed not the words of God but those of the Man, not in eating the fruit but in touching it, for in any case she understood “do not touch it” as a law, and that law was given by the Man. Nor was the deception a matter of “believing a lie” so much as of the Serpent exploiting her intrinsic nature to corrupt the order of creation (same reason for his ejection from Heaven). Make no mistake about it; denying men headship over their wife is the Devil’s original task.

    “Husband” means “manager” or “steward”. If you use the term you are testifying to hierarchy. Pastor Powell confesses “order” in the Garden but can’t complete the logic. C.S. Lewis’ Perelandra is an allegory, but it shows a clear picture of how order implies hierarchy and of how it might work in a pristine world.

  32. Darwinian Arminian says:

    And for any pastors stupid enough to call for husbands to “assume headship” by washing the wife’s feet, I refer them to Vox Day’s, “The Myth of the Servant Leader.”

    “This creative doctrine is loosely supposed to be based on the command for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved His Church. But sacrificial love is not synonymous with servanthood, much less servitude. The soldier who leaps on a grenade to save his buddies is not their servant, nor did Jesus Christ’s humility in washing His disciples’ feet alter the fact that He was still the Master and they the followers. It is unlikely, for example, that even with his clean feet Peter would take it upon himself to inform the Messiah what He would be teaching the next day.”

    You can read the whole thing here: http://www.wnd.com/2006/03/35111/

  33. Knight says:

    False doctrine is very old, it will always need to be shown for what it is. We have similar issues at my church. I think it all started with saying that a woman is not subject to her husband, but is subject to God. This sounds nice, but problems instantly arise, as the man and the women will have different ideas of what God wants. We are building a fraternity at http://www.knightsofthewest.com to combat this kind of stuff.

  34. Lyn87 says:

    This just in: “Pastor” Powell allowed my comment through moderation and “responded.” I put “responded” in irony quotes, because he neglected to address any of the content, and contented himself with saying I lacked “foundational understanding,” that I didn’t know what a loving marriage was like, and that I should educate myself. He dressed it up in churchian language, but it was standard-issue Tumblr-speak all the same.

    I called him out on his dodging my questions and told him to come here if he wanted to discuss it with men who knew the scriptures rather than his feminist echo-chamber.

    We’ll see.

  35. Boxer says:

    Dear Lyn87:

    Good work. Still laughing at the fact that the only response he had was basically “wow just wow, I can’t even…” Feminists are so predictable.

    Best,

    Boxer

  36. patchasaurus says:

    One of the most unfortunate things about the whole concept is that it DOES NOT WORK. I am the first to admit that I was a total supplicating husband (aka Kitchen Bitch) because I was fully indoctrinated into the ideology through church and “christian” marriage books and programs. I bathed the kids, put them to bed, changed the diapers, washed the dishes, cooked, cleaned, and this was in addition to operating my own construction company and tending to the yard and maintenance and repairs. It caused my ex to only grow deeper and deeper into depression and misery, lose all attraction and respect for me, withdraw competely from sex and affection, ultimately divorce. It is a LIE. I watch so many couples living this out now still and I openly try to warn my friends and other husbands away from it. I subsequently have few friends and the wives are not keen on their husbands hanging out with me. It has driven me from the church due to my own observations of the blatant feminism, divorce acceptance, cowardice of preachers and church leaders, who continue to promote this garbage and bow before their wives and all other women in the congregation. I miss church. I have tried to start a home church, looking into orthodoxy, want to do something, but it is a long hard recovery.

  37. patchasaurus says:

    I know the Bible well and continue to stay in the Word. It is astonishing and much to my shame that I was led so far down the modern cultural path and away from Truth. The Word of God is for all of us and is not difficult to understand.

  38. Anon says:

    Boxer and Lyn87,

    At least you guys are confronting these various pastorbators, and providing them a link to what is being said here. In the past, it seemed that most subjects of these articles never knew that they were being dismantled here…

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    Crackers
    Beck spent 2 hours discussing how Trump has corrupted Christianity.

    Beck still has a radio show? People still listen? P.T. Barnum was right.

    The irony of a loon like Glen Beck claiming to know anything about religion – what is he now, has he converted to something else this week, or is that next week? – is pretty deep.

  40. Lyn87 says:

    Anon,

    As Christians, we are to confront error (as Jesus did), and Mister Powell is not only deep into error, but is actively spreading that error while wearing the robes of a pastor.

    Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. – James 3:1 – NIV.

    One hopes to “regain a brother” by showing him the truth found in Scripture, rather than just watching a man unqualified to expound (no matter how many seminary degrees he has or pulpits he’s spoken from) dig himself a deeper hole.

  41. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    Finally, a perfect definition for irony:

    An ‘egalitarian’, standing in front of a group of followers, delivering a lecture to them on why and how they should live without hierarchies.

  42. Boxer says:

    At least you guys are confronting these various pastorbators, and providing them a link to what is being said here. In the past, it seemed that most subjects of these articles never knew that they were being dismantled here…

    If you wanted to contribute on the @dalrock_txt twitter account, you’d be welcome. I’ve been trying to run it in a respectable way that shows the intellectual and moral talent of this community. I don’t see myself having time to capture every post as it happens, though. Let me know.

  43. Lyn87 says:

    Another update:

    It seems Mister Powell has no stomach for correction: he dropped the ban-hammer on me. For the good of the order I will post his absurd response to the post I left up-thread, my detailed response to him in return, and his petulant dismissal:

    Sam Powell
    September 21, 2016 at 8:11 am

    You have a foundational misunderstanding of the gospel, of authority and peace. God did not bring peace with the law, but with love. Moses never brought peace. That came with Christ.
    Second,i pity you, that you cannot fathom two Christians serving God in harmony and love. It’s sad. I literally have no time to argue online. Thank you for your comments. Please read John’s first epistle. He says it better than I can

    To which I replied:

    Lyn87
    September 21, 2016 at 10:38 am

    As the kids say… “L-O-L, dude.” I’ve been married for 28 years to a fine Christian woman, and we have never so much as raised our voices to each other, so feel free to retract your statement that I “cannot fathom two Christians serving God in harmony and love.” I suspect I understand it a good deal better than you do.

    The simple fact is that, even in the Garden of Eden, Eve, under the direct authority, provision, and love of God Almighty Himself, rebelled. By YOUR logic, that makes the grace of God insufficient to “keep the peace,” because (your words again):

    And you can see a woman who is loved by her husband. She is alive, fully human, confident, and joyfully doing whatever work God has called her to with spirit and life.

    Yet there was Eve… created sinless, living in an unimaginable paradise in perfect harmony with the entire Universe, in daily direct communion with God Himself, and not subject to any Earthly authority… and she rebelled anyway because she was not content.

    Yet you posit that a mortal husband is RESPONSIBLE for his wife’s contentment (indeed, you make her contentment the de facto litmus test of whether the husband is doing his job correctly, and you judge her level of contentment by her “confidence, joy and doing whatever work God calls her to do”). Eve was neither confident, nor joyful, nor doing what God told her to do, but YOU place that responsibility on husbands even though their wives are NOT free from Original sin (as Eve was), and husbands do NOT have the resources God has, and married couples do NOT live in a perfect, sinless paradise, and a husband is finite in his capacity to love her – unlike God. You are quite literally holding husbands to a higher standard than God.

    (But apparently I’m the one who lacks “a foundational misunderstanding.”)

    Given that, and since you dodged my questions last time, I’ll ask you again, “What does wifely rebellion look like? Or do you believe that it even exists?”

    By the way, if you think you can defend your position against men who know the scriptures rather than just preaching to the [feminist] choir, head on over here (link to this thread), where this piece is the center of discussion right now.

    To which he replied:

    Sam Powell
    September 21, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Bye bye.

    There’s some real conviction for ya’!

  44. noblegoat says:

    A member of Lutheran Social Services strikes again. You’d think an organization with ‘Lutheran’ in the name would be a little more…conservative, perhaps. At least, I would have thought so.

    But it turns out they’re also responsible for a large portion of the Somali immigrants in St Cloud, MN, home of the recent religion of peace outpouring in a mall.

    https://anncorcoran2016.org/2016/01/06/lutheran-social-services-expanding-somali-muslim-population-of-minnesota/

  45. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87 it appears that Powell has banned you from comments there. He prefers his echo chamber of girls and manginas to be unsullied by men, obviously.

    Meta: Skimming through some of the documents linked off of Powell’s church, it appears that the CREC is a conservative Protestant denomination. It’s the kind of church that tradcons would point to as a good example. Similar to the church that tossed Jenny Erickson out.

    Yet a mangina like Powell is accepted and given a church to preach in.

  46. feeriker says:

    I called [Powell] out on his dodging my questions and told him to come here if he wanted to discuss it with men who knew the scriptures rather than his feminist echo-chamber.

    We’ll see.

    It would make my month if he does come here, but stand by for a bloodbath if he does. This place is littered with the intellectual carcasses of churchian manginas who showed up to a gunfight armed with a butter knife.

    I doubt that he has the stones to make his way over here, but if he does and tries to use the “logic” he uses in his own back yard, he won’t last long.

  47. BubbaCluck says:

    Mr. Powell is now putting up a post from an earlier time in which he doubles down on the concept of the husband taking the “lower position” in the marriage.

  48. feeriker says:

    One hopes to “regain a brother” by showing him the truth found in Scripture, rather than just watching a man unqualified to expound (no matter how many seminary degrees he has or pulpits he’s spoken from) dig himself a deeper hole.

    I’m not curious enough to be bothered to research his background, but I’d wager that Powell has at lesst one advanced degree from one of those heresy mills otherwise known as seminaries or Bible colleges. It’s becoming ever more noticeable that the more exposure a pastor has to the toxic indoctrination environment of these places, the more wharped his understanding of Scripture becomes (recalling Kierkegaard’s trenchant observations about biblical scholarship).

  49. feeriker says:

    Mr. Powell is now putting up a post from an earlier time in which he doubles down on the concept of the husband taking the “lower position” in the marriage.

    Satan laughing with delight. (Apologies to Don McLean.)

  50. nechaev82 says:

    All leftist ideas are about assaulting hierarchy. This approach to Christianity is one of them, and always has been. I’m surprised it took you this long to see the “hierarchy equals abuse” idea in all its grotesque glory, Dalrock.

    It’s messy to approach Christianity from any traditionalist or hierarchical perspective, simply because Christianity has so many anti-hierarchical ideas at its core. It was, after all, a religion initially inspired to appeal to women and slaves. But while I understand that there is a certain order to Christian ideas, from natural law to the commandments to a million other normative elements of church doctrine, most Christians see their faith as liberationist. So how do you defend the aspects of the faith which are, ultimately, coercive? The order of marriage is just one of them.

    I don’t think you can. The more some Christians try to preserve the elements which require obedience, the more other “Christians” want to divorce themselves from these ideas and pare the faith down to equality, unconditional forgiveness, and a view of innocence which entitles them to unconditional protection and welfare from those around them. They hate the powerful far more than they love God’s law, and Christian ethics only ever appealed to them because the meek shall inherit the earth and it’s easier for a camel pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.

    Never mind that hierarchy is the most consistent feature of all human civilization and social order is impossible without it. They subconsciously know it’s inevitable, and they aren’t really trying to make society equal.

    The sjw’s and “modern” Christians MIGHT have some trouble if people saw what they were actually doing, saw what they were really working for, not justice or equality but simply a change in the order of the hierarchy that benefits themselves and those they empathize with. But they probably still wouldn’t have a BIG problem, because when given the choice, I think Western civilization would rather allow itself to collapse than admit its utopian dreams of egalitarianism are idiotic and those who push them are terrible, opportunistic, deeply dishonorable neurotics.

    American hyper-patriots scream about national loyalty while perpetually scoffing at the government and the results of the democratic system, as if principle and the Rawlsian general will of the people was forever on their side. Right-wing Christians are in the same position, fighting libertinism despite their avowed belonging to a culture which invites it at every turn.

    Good luck, Christians. You’ll need it.

  51. Avraham rosenblum says:

    There is nothing disjunctive about והוא ימשול בך “and he will rule over you and to him will be your desire” which God said to Eve is a regular Hebrew phrase and its meaning is not ambiguous.

    מושל there is used many times in the Bible. One example is להשם המלוכה ומושל בגוים To God is the kingship and ruler-ship over the nations. The idea comes up also in the book of Esther the letters that were sent out by Xerxes “that ever man should rule over his own home and speak in his own language.”
    Why would a pastor claim this is disjunctive when it is clearly not so is beyond me.
    It could not be more clear.

  52. Carlotta says:

    I await Pastor Powell beginning to wash everyone’s feet, cleaning their bathrooms and awaiting the instructions of his congregation since rank and headship are so detestable.

  53. Feminist Hater says:

    Oh Lyn, don’t you get it?! You don’t understand scripture like Sam. He just gets it, you don’t and that means ‘bye bye’.

    Standard Churchian flair. Not even an attempt to correct or inform. If you don’t debase yourself and worship the vag, it’s off you go…

    Don’t even worry, the guy couldn’t last a second defending that tripe to anyone who really reads the Bible. This is all just a means to keep the coffers flowing, got to pay those bills. Whether a Pastor misleading his flock or the government and divorce courts holding men down while the wives divorce them and take their wealth, it’s all the same. They have turned the Churches into a money making racket and marriage into a wealth transfer.

    No God in there and men are infinitely better off leaving them to turn to dust.

  54. Carlotta says:

    @Cindy
    Interesting isn’t it? If you work as a nurse for strangers, cook for strangers in a restaurant or teach other people’s children those are heroic career choices. Do any of it for your flesh and blood and you are an oppressed idiot slave.
    I reframe it this way when femenists start their crap. I tell them I am a strong and independent women who has made a choice to live my own lifestyle and their bullying and intolerance of my liberated choices will not be tolerated in my safe space. I tell ya, the expressions are priceless.

    @Heidi
    They are bringing that one down the pike too.

  55. Carlotta says:

    @Avraham
    They do this because they don’t actually read the Bible. They read books about it, listen to teachings about it and go with their feelings about it. They are very loyal to their brand (Osteen, Macarthur, Driscoll, etc) and study their books instead. It is a business and not a religion.
    I mean I just had a Pastor tell me, straight faced, that fasting is mentioned no where in the old testament. He is getting his Masters Degree in the Bible. He then went on to simultaneously demand tithes and offerings be increased by the congregation because of the book of Malachi (hilarious), berate the men of the congregation for not working on Church projects on Saturdays instead of being with their families and resting while declaring Sunday the Sabbath of the Bible and demand that people quit jobs that won’t give them off. He doubled down by expounding on the Bereans being students of the New Testament, until someone proved repeatedly that that was impossible. He seemed to come to a genuinely shocked recognition on that one.
    He finished off with the gifts of the spirit don’t actually exist because he doesn’t have them and they only existed for the 12 apostles while Jesus was on earth. When it was pointed out to him that it was mostly Paul writing about them, therefore after Jesus (I call Him Yeshua) was dead and resurrected…he said it doesn’t matter because John Macarthur said it was wrong.

    This is not even the craziest things he has said. I could go on. The guy teaching the Bible Study on Revelation for two years admitted he wasn’t sure what the mark of the beast was or where it is mentioned. He said they had not gotten that far yet….in two years. And apparently he doesn’t read ahead. I am still stunned by that one.

  56. Anon says:

    Bye bye.

    Rarely does someone earn the WAFF tagg (What A Fucking Faggot) so swiftly. But this pastorbator managed to do that.

    Anyway, there is still Twitter. All effort spent in shining the light of day onto this cockroach might save lives down the line.

  57. DeNihilist says:

    When I go to a clients house to propose a bid, I mostly look at the husband, but speak to the wife.

    In at least 90% of households now, it is the wife who makes the large economic decisions.

  58. RPchristian says:

    I’ve been having a conversation with my pastor and some of my Christian friends about the headship/submission issue, and the more general problem of feminism in the church. These men are very blue pill, and I’ve had limited success, but I’m still trying to chip away. It’s amazing the amount of ego investment a lot of Christian men have in the idea of being submissive. It’s like a martyr complex.

    What I’ve been trying to explain to these guys is that headship is much more than just being a tiebreaker when there is a disagreement. Headship/submission are also POSTURES. This means that in a couple’s practical day-to-day interactions the wife adopts a position of meek submission, respect, and deference to her husband, and the husband adopts a posture of strong, confident, leadership. As we all know this is often reversed.

    Dalrock’s latest blog post is especially relevant because one of my friends keeps bringing up the Jesus/Church analogy for marriage and claiming that because Jesus washed the disciple’s feet, and humbled himself and was obedient to death on the cross, that this means that Jesus’ relationship with the church is one primarily of servitude (as if everything else Jesus did is irrelevant to the analogy). He then uses this idea to basically justify husbands submitting to their wives, and to imply that Jesus’ primary posture toward the church is one of meek submission, i.e. a complete REVERSAL. This thinking is so common! The Deceiver has really been at work in the modern church.

    My counter argument is that the best illustration of Jesus’ posture toward the church is found in the book of Revelation, where he actually talks directly to various churches. What sort of language does he use? Here are a few examples:

    Church in Ephesus: “But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.” (Rev 2:4-5)

    Church in Sardis: “I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.” (Rev 3:1-3)

    Church in Laodicia: “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. 8 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.” (Rev 3:15-19)

    Ask yourself, do these sound like the words of a “servant leader?” Or do they sound like the words of someone with real power and authority?

  59. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    The most intelligent, independent and sincere men leave the feminist flock early, which serves to concentrate the congregation with cucks, single moms, empowered feminist bull dykes, and henpecked losers.

    As it should. Manginas bearing increasingly onerous costs and eventually cracking under the burden is the best possible outcome among the realistic choices.

  60. Brenden says:

    From Powell: “God did not bring peace with the law, but with love. Moses never brought peace. That came with Christ.”

    I’m hardly a Biblical scholar but I know Jesus specifically said he didn’t come to bring peace.

    34“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn

    “ ‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
    a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
    36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’c

  61. It’s obvious that modern day Chrisian pastors are going out of their way to not reference the scriptures and to molly coddle the ladies in the church pews who with few exceptions have feminism, righteous indignation and “you go gurl” at front-of-mind.

    On the headship of the family (household), the wealthy Ephesian women were given a very clear message in Ephesians 5: 23-24 about it.
    Also 1 Peter 3 explains well to wives exactly what they must do and how they must behave with their husbands. Actually, as written, these are not harsh words for women. They are kind and wise prescriptions.

    But in modern day western society – America in particular – instead of understanding our respective strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and our roles in the family, it’s as if all women and wives expect to be named the starting quarterback and to call the shots. And unfortunately, all too many husbands don’t know anything more than to comply with that sequence.

    The tenets of feminism are incompatible with Christian doctrine, just as it is with Judaism and Islam.

  62. Snowy says:

    Powell spews unadulterated evil from his wicked mouth. His appears to be a deliberate wresting, twisting, distorting of the Scriptures: abominable filth. I believe he is knowingly participating in the destruction of the family. What a mongrel bastard Powell is. He will get his comeuppance when he stands before the judgement seat of Christ. Do you think Christ will say to him, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant”?

  63. RichardP says:

    So many words, here and elsewhere, over such a simple issue.

    1. There is no place anywhere in the Bible where it states that the husband is the head of the home. It only states that he is the head of the wife. Men would do well to understand that, since to argue that they are the head of the home betrays a lack of understanding of what God actually said, and creates an argument where none should exist.

    2. Genesis 2:1 (kjv): And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (“meet” is Old English for fitting and proper) That is the reason a man shall leave mother and father and cling to his wife. To get the help that he needs.

    How can one be a help without receiving intructions from the helped? In a situation where one gives instructions and the other receives them, can we argue that no heirarchy exists? Nowhere does the Bible say that Adam was the help, and Eve was the helped.

    That God made one to be “a help” and the other to be “the helped” immediately implies a heirarchy in marriage. While there is no scripture declaring that the husband is the head of the home, Genesis 2:1 makes it absolutely clear that the husband is at the top of the heirarchy that exists within the home.

    3. Christ, speaking to the Church, says to those who did not sufficiently obey his commands (paraphrased) – depart from me, I never knew you; you are lukewarm so I will spew you out of my mouth. Heirarchy? What heirarchy? Just a man (Christ) going his own way. Now, a husband is to treat his wife as Christ treats the Church?? Well, that is part of it. Obey me or suffer the consequences. Pretty blunt, but it is the bottom line. Will the church who blows off Christ and ignores his commands be part of those welcomed with the words “well done, thou good and faithful servant”? (What’s with that word “servant” anyway?) Should a wife expect to be treated any better by the husband she blows off than the church that blows off Christ will be treated by Christ??

    I am baffled by those who only see a one-dimensional relationship between Christ and his Church (loving enough to wash the feet) and either can’t or won’t see the rest of the relationship – which boils down to “obey or suffer the consequences”.
    ———–

    A bit off-topic, but here’s a side-note for MGTOW who wish to serve God in monestaries or other solitary places: God and Adam were alone together. God saw that that relationship was not enough for the man he had created. God admitted that he alone was not enough for Adam by stating that it was not good for Adam to be alone. Something to think about.

    God himself says he alone is not all you need. Go get your own help. Just don’t expect her to be better than the help Adam’s father gave to him.

  64. RichardP says:

    I said Genesis 2:1. s/b Genesis 2:18

  65. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    This might be a idea for you to explore in another post, but these churcians really are the creators of their own monsters. They insist there are only two options for Christian men: be submissive to your wife or you’re an abusive husband. There is no middle ground, no nuance, no alternative option. Nothing.

    When churchian boys and men embrace cavemen caricatures, it is because they reject the submissive role yet know of no other concept of masculinity beyond that which serves the feminine except for the “misogynist.”.

    It is a very dangerous game to play. When you insist there is only the choice of servant or abuser, you’re assuming they will always pick the servant option. Also, they will actively discourage men from adopting positive masculinity in order to brand them as “abusive” and browbeat them into submitting.

    On a side, what makes these teachings so dangerous is that it only requires a wife’s conversion to these beliefs to destroy a marriage. Were it not for no-fault divorce, this nonsense could be dismissed without worry. Now, a husband has a legitimate reason to fear any theological doctrine encouraging his wife to rebel because she has the perpetual power to succeed anytime she wants.

  66. Oscar says:

    Note that the very first comment on Powell’s blog is the following.

    “Elizabeth
    September 14, 2016 at 3:41 pm
    Printing and presenting to my counselor. Excellent. Thank you!”

    Elizabeth’s husband is so screwed.

  67. RedPillPaul says:

    Richard P

    Im curious to know why you make the distinction that man is the head of the wife but not the head of the house.

  68. OKRickety says:

    So, Sam Powell, in his article Headship is not Hierarchy, uses 1 Tim. 2:13 (not 1 Tim. 2:1 as his post states) as his first scripture. It states “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.” He then writes “This I wholeheartedly confess, believing the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of God.” I find this extremely interesting as verse 13 is in the midst of a section (1 Tim. 2:9-15) where Paul gives instructions about women, and is immediately preceded by this:

    [1 Tim. 2:11,12 NASB] 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

    Does Sam Powell actually read the Bible?

    Note: When I saw Barbara Roberts (of “Not Under Bondage” infamy) was a frequent commenter praising him, I had additional confirmation of Sam Powell’s position on the roles of husbands and wives.

  69. Oscar says:

    @ Cindy says:
    September 21, 2016 at 9:30 am

    “Couple of things. First of all, Jesus washed his disciples’ feet ONCE. He wasn’t inverting all servant/master relationships for the rest of time, but making a statement about how low he was about to become for the sake of those he loved. He became sin. That’s as low as it gets. But then he was exalted, and now he’s giving the orders from heaven.”

    Actually, you’re missing the point. The point is that service does not equal submission. Let’s look at the parts of the scripture that Powell deliberately, deceptively left out.

    John 13:6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

    7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

    8 “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”

    Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

    9 “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”

    10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

    Jesus wanted to wash Peter’s feet. Peter said no, “never”. Jesus told Peter to let Jesus wash his feet or else “you have no part with me”. Peter obeyed.

    THAT is submission. Submission is marked by obedience. Peter obeyed Christ, not the other way around. Peter submitted to Christ, not the other way around. This is the example we’re supposed to follow, as Christ himself said.

    John 13:12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

    Note that Powell also leaves out verse 16; “Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him”.

    Clearly, there is a very obvious hierarchy there. The master is above the servant, and the one who sent the messenger is greater than the messenger. If “headship isn’t hierarchy”, as Powell claims, then what Jesus modeled for us is not an example of headship. But Powell claims it IS an example of headship and even used it as an example of headship.

    The scripture Powell quoted proves him wrong. He just left out the verses that most obviously prove him wrong.

  70. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Avraham rosenblum: How many people are willing to state the truth fearlessly? Not many. Most teachers would lose their livelihoods.

    Most people, in any position of authority, would lose their livelihoods if they publicly disagreed with prevailing morals on feminism, homosexuality, or even transexuality. If the police chief of New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, or any major city was to let slip that he did not believe transwomen were real women, he might be hounded from office.

    A recent story in the National Enquirer reported on Brad Pitt’s current “gay scandal.” Apparently, his parents attend a church with a “bigoted” pastor who says the Bible condemns homosexuality.

    The Enquirer actually called that pastor “bigoted.” That’s what constitutes a “gay scandal” these days. That you attend a church that says the Bible condemns homosexuality. And the Enquirer is a paper sold to, and read by, Middle America.

  71. Gunner Q says:

    RichardP @ 4:33 pm:
    “A bit off-topic, but here’s a side-note for MGTOW who wish to serve God in monestaries or other solitary places: God and Adam were alone together. God saw that that relationship was not enough for the man he had created. God admitted that he alone was not enough for Adam by stating that it was not good for Adam to be alone. Something to think about.”

    One word: friends.

    The Question @ 4:52 pm:
    “…these churchians really are the creators of their own monsters. They insist there are only two options for Christian men: be submissive to your wife or you’re an abusive husband. There is no middle ground, no nuance, no alternative option. Nothing.”

    I see it as the modern version of history’s longest-running game: Kings and Pawns. The kings want to rule, the pawns want to be ruled and together, they hate the freemen who care to neither rule nor be ruled.

  72. RPchristian says:

    The way Barbara Roberts keeps defending Sam Powell in the comment section against every perceived attack is pathetic and speaks to the backward dynamic he has with women in general. He’s now trying to back out of the discussion with a long diatribe full of false humility and minimizing the poisonous effect his ideas have on the people in his congregation or who read his blog. He INTENDS well, so lets just leave the poor guy alone. Great deflection strategy. Clearly he’s getting uncomfortable with the blow-back.

  73. Lyn87 says:

    Apparently I am not banned there (although I and one of his hen-harem girls got the impression that he had done so). Anyway, he claimed a willingness to answer legitimate questions, which I found ironic given that I asked him several and he didn’t even attempt to answer a single one. Anyway, I posted this in response:
    _______________

    If you have questions (legitimate) I will try to answer, but I don’t have a lot of time.

    I asked you two legitimate questions – twice. I’ll try a third time:

    “What does wifely rebellion look like? Or do you believe that it even exists?”

    The reason I ask is that it seems inescapable that you are essentially giving wives carte blanche to be rebellious (practically to the point of declaring them to be without sin – unless forced by their “abusive” husbands, naturally) on the grounds that if she’s “fouling the nest” it can only be because her husband isn’t being Christ-like enough.

    You DO think wives are capable of rebellion, don’t you? You DO think that women are fallen creatures perfectly capable of veering into sin all by themselves, don’t you? You ARE aware of the scriptures you left out of your quotes that others have posted elsewhere in this thread, are you not?

    Frankly, I don’t expect you to answer, because it’s easier to just call me, “A piece of work” and keep tickling the ears of your female followers by absolving them of all responsibility and placing it on their husbands. After all, what I wrote would have been considered utterly unremarkable – obvious even – for the past two millennia within Christendom, so clearly I’m the loon in this discussion.

  74. RPchristian says:

    @Lyn87

    Part of the problem is these people have a completely different frame regarding scriptural interpretation. They believe that Genesis 3:16 states that the curse of the woman is that her husband would rule over her, i.e. as her “lord, king, captain,” words they use pejoratively despite 1 Peter 3:6 which hold Sarah as a model for Christian wives who called her husband “Lord.”

    So, in their eyes, a wife’s rebellion is virtuous because it means she is doing her part to return the relationship to its supposedly egalitarian pre-fall condition. I honestly believe that they do not believe wifely rebellion is an ACTUAL THING.

    This interpretive frame is purely political and emotional and completely disregards the consensus of the apostolic writings regarding marital hierarchy.

    So, while you pose excellent questions, I guarantee you they will go in one ear and out the other.

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    Question, that’s just the covert feminization of the churches at work. It’s not enough to sing “Jesus is my BFF / lover / provider” (yes, I am comparing modern praise songs to PUA approache techniques, no it is not by accident) because some men still are suffering from toxic masculinity. Since the churches tend to lag the larger culture by about 20 years, it’s about time for 3rd wave sex-pozzie / don’t microaggress me! feminism to start showing up.

    So “toxic masculinity” with all the “testosterone poisoning” retreading of 2nd stage feminist cant will simply have to recycle, but with the volume and sensitivity turned way up. Any mention of male “headship” except in the total floor-mopping, foot-washing, toilet-bowl-licking sense will be an aggression against the exquisitely sensitive detectors of the mangina / feminist cult. This preacher Powell in Yuba City, California may just be a few years ahead of the curve.

  76. Anonymous Reader says:

    Aaaan right on schedule, Bytes has lined a pingback to Powell’s “Headship” posting. No, I do not know what she babbled, nor will I bother to look. But it should be obvious how she found Powell’s obscure blog.

    Dalrock, your aging, feminist groupie is still loyally reading here, so you got that going for you.

  77. feeriker says:

    Carlotta says:
    September 21, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    “Pastors” like this one get away with spouting the nonsense that they do because they have successfully kept their congregations in a state of dark ignorance of the Bible (not difficult to do these days, as most churches are populated in the main by lazy pretenders to the faith). It’s heartening to hear that the pastor in your example was actually called out on his nonsense on several occasions; in my experience that has never happened, but definitely needs to happen far more often. It really hurts to sit through a sermon or lecture on the Bible where it takes all of your self-control and then some to keep yourself from jumping up and raising the proverbial “BS flag” in the loudest and most obnoxious way possible. As I’ve pointed out countless times before, this is why, at least in evangelical churches, the study of the Bible is so often replaced by churchian Oprah Book-of-the-Month Club bestsellers instead.

    @constrainedlocus

    It’s obvious that modern day Chrisian pastors are going out of their way to not reference the scriptures and to molly coddle the ladies in the church pews who with few exceptions have feminism, righteous indignation and “you go gurl” at front-of-mind.

    They are frauds and cowards, EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM, who are ashamed of the Scriptures and who fear (wo)man more than they fear –or have faith in– God. They are hirelings who look upon their position as a career, not as a calling from God Hmself. This fully explains their lack of faith and trust in God to give them the guidance, wisdom, and fortitude to do His will and fight on His behalf against the satanic worldly rot that is the enemy’s weapon against the Body of Christ.

    To put it in the military terms that churchians are so enamored of, these “pastors” (I think Anon’s term “pastorbators” is a better descriptive term here) are the equivalent of imposters who have the audacity to put on Generals’ uniforms and pretend to lead troops in battle against a truly formidable enemy, even though they are cowards without any knowledge of military tactics or doctrine, have no combat experience, are easily deceived by the enemy’s tactics, and will surrender without putting up any kind of serious fight. I don’t need to tell anyone here what kind of fate will befall an army that is under that kind of “leadership.”

  78. DrTorch says:

    “Yet a mangina like Powell is accepted and given a church to preach in.”

    Powell is an entryist. An archtype. He wrote a very conservative piece in a journal, gaining trust and credibility w/in his organization. Now that he has authority, he’s re-thought his position and recanted on that article. He’s now teaching the opposite of what he wrote.

    Not just application, but theology. So he’s saying the traditional theology he espoused and supported in that article is wrong.

    His leadership should take him down. He wants to rebel? Find a new denomination to rebel in. No shortage of those.

  79. feeriker says:

    Dalrock, your aging, feminist groupie is still loyally reading here, so you got that going for you.

    She does seem rather unduly obsessed with our host, as just about every third-or-so post she makes is an anti-Dalrock screed.

    Flak, target, and all that …

  80. feeriker says:

    He wrote a very conservative piece in a journal, gaining trust and credibility w/in his organization. Now that he has authority, he’s re-thought his position and recanted on that article. He’s now teaching the opposite of what he wrote.

    Not just application, but theology. So he’s saying the traditional theology he espoused and supported in that article is wrong.

    The only reason he hasn’t been completely discredited and laughed out of the public sphere is because he is tickling ears with the prevailing heretical orthodoxy. Funny how that works…

  81. Snowy says:

    In no particular order: feeriker, Lyn87, Gunner Q, Red Pill Latecomer, The Question, Feminist Hater, Boxer, Novaseeker, and other regular contributors, it’s always a pleasure reading your comments. The light shines. It brings an inner smile. Thank you. Gratitude. Praise the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ in you, the hope of glory.

  82. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    At least you guys are confronting these various pastorbators, and providing them a link to what is being said here. In the past, it seemed that most subjects of these articles never knew that they were being dismantled here…

    Very often I think they do know, especially if their blog is fairly slow on traffic. I just checked the stats and in this case there were just over 100 clicks over to his site from here (with over 1,700 views on the OP so far). That isn’t much. But other times it is manyfold higher, and a spike in traffic shows up at the top of a blogger’s wordpress page even when just looking at their own site. With this in mind, the easiest way for a reader to send a message that the post in question is being discussed is to click through on the link.

  83. Boxer says:

    And now, a very public rebuke of our brother Lyn87, from feminist pastor Sam Powell:

    Dear Lyn87. I’m on to you. Your speech is abusive,which Scripture calls reviling. You are a narcissist, by incessantly demanding that I cease everything that I am doing and play your game. You are demeaning to women and anyone who treats them with respect.
    In other words,you are an abuser. All I can do with you is call you to repentance. I have erased your comments beyond this one,and will block any further comments. You have no power here. Good-bye.

    Yes, Lyn, you’re an “abuser”. How dare you DISAGREE with the anointed Pastor’s ONE TRUE WAY of feminism.

    Trite, predictable, and hilarious.

    Boxer

  84. @SnapperTrx:

    On the assumption you catch this, have a very basic outline of the obvious places the Pastor has rejected Scripture. Then be straight forward: the Pastor has err’d deeply. Either repent or you are going to have him removed.

    When he doesn’t, call a meeting of the Deacons. Explain it very clearly this is heresy that he his preaching. Either he repents or you dust off your sandals and walk, as this place is now a “synagogue of Satan”.

    Then, let them make their decision. If he repents, welcome him back and explain the error is that he has drunk deep from the well of the World and has deep errors to correct. If not, you bounce. The Pastor & Deacons have made their bed and their souls are forfeit.

  85. Lyn87 says:

    RPChristian,

    That’s why I framed the questions as I did: since he brought up his view of the pre-Fall marital relationship, the only way to maintain his view that a wife’s rebellion is always and only due to the husband’s abuse of his authority, he has no-one to blame other than God Himself for Eve’s transgression (since Adam was sinless until later). Obviously he cannot come right out and SAY that, but it certainly puts him in a blind. I took my queue from the time in Matthew 21, Mark 11, and Luke 20 when Jesus asked his attackers to choose between the only two options their position logically left available to them, and since they were both unpalatable for various reasons, they declined to answer. I put Mister Powell in the position where he had to either 1) blame God for Eve’s transgression, 2) admit that he holds husbands to a higher standard than God holds Himself, or 3) admit that wives are capable of sinful rebellion. Since he can’t very well say that God is deficient, nor that husbands are more capable than God, nor is he willing to publicly admit in front of his female readers that their marital woes are not necessarily their husband’s fault, he (like the chief priests and scribes), simply refused to answer. That doesn’t make his dilemma go away, but it soothes the feelings and tickles the ears of his “flock,” which seems to be the real point, anyway. So rather than coming right out and admitting that he couldn’t answer like the priests and scribes did, he just went Tumblr-speak on me and went back to preaching to his feminist choir.

    His female followers continue to shower him with affirmation, though – so it’s small wonder why he keeps doing it.

  86. Lyn87 says:

    Boxer,

    Abuser? Yawn.

    One wonders how he offended he would have been to see Jesus making a whip of cords and laying about at the Temple at Jerusalem, or his treatment of the scribes and Pharisees. Frankly, I was a little surprised that he let me slip a little truth under the door at all. I posted everything I wrote to him and his responses here in this thread, so anyone who cares to read past his deletions may see who made cogent points and who responded with evasions and ad hominem attacks.

    Banned by Mister Powell? I consider that time well spent.

  87. Boxer says:

    Banned by Mister Powell? I consider that time well spent.

    Welcome to the rabblerouser crew. I’m proud to have been banned by WF Price at The Spearhead, by Futrelle’s old Manboobz, by Catholic Answers, by Christian Forums, and by twitter, about twenty different times (while I don’t trespass private blogs once they ask me to leave, I take twitter at its word, that it’s a public utility, and use it as such as I like).

    Let the curses of the feminists strengthen you, and may their whines and moans at your name be sweet music to your ears.

  88. Lyn87 says:

    How did you got banned by Bill Price? I can see the others (Dave Futrelle wrote an entire piece whining about one of the three-or-four guest articles I wrote for The Spearhead). He always seemed like a sensible guy to me.

  89. Oscar says:

    Banned me too. Coward.

  90. Boxer says:

    How did you got banned by Bill Price? I can see the others (Dave Futrelle wrote an entire piece whining about one of the three-or-four guest articles I wrote for The Spearhead). He always seemed like a sensible guy to me.

    Bill Price banned me to placate a chucklehead named Rob Fedders, who flamed the comments section endlessly while I poked fun at him. Fedders “doxxed” me, erroneously outing me as a totally unrelated professor at Simon Fraser University. I don’t really hold it against Price for banning me.

    Also, just for the record: I used to send Bill Price money in the early days of his divorce. Price not only knew Brother Boxer’s name, but his home address, telephone number, and the number of one of the accounts where he kept his money. While Fedders came to Dalrock many times, gloating about getting ol’ Boxer banned, Price never gave him any of this information, which is to his credit.

  91. feeriker says:

    And now, a very public rebuke of our brother Lyn87, from feminist pastor Sam Powell:

    That would be Samantha Powell, right?

  92. Carlotta says:

    @feeriker
    Yes, apparently the “Pastor”reads a verse or two each week and then gives a nearly 2 hour speech about how you should understand it. They have been on the book of Matthew for 2 years. The rest of the time is spent studying John Macarthur books.
    As for him being called out on his lunacy, much of it was done in genuine shock at what he was saying as he was either an outright liar or idiot. He is a combination of both. Hilarity ensured when he decided to “counsel” my Husband on my headcovering because his wife didn’t like it. I tell ya, how anyone can NOT take these fakes on face to face is beyond me. It is our duty. Could never sit there tolerating lies.

    As for the Pastor in the OP, has anyone asked him about the Messiah whipping the daylights out of the thieves in the temple? I mean if he is going to use footwashing as an example he has to go all in then, no?

  93. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    Bill Price banned me to placate a chucklehead named Rob Fedders, who flamed the comments section endlessly while I poked fun at him. Fedders “doxxed” me, erroneously outing me as a totally unrelated professor at Simon Fraser University. I don’t really hold it against Price for banning me.

    Does Rob Fedders still stalk you as ‘Linx’ and other handles?

  94. rdchemist says:

    So what is your guys take on the Catholic and eastern orthodox religions? I’ve been finding my way back to the church recently and have been attending mass for about a year or so, including father’s day and mothers day services. I have to say that I don’t notice much feminization of these churches or complimentarian messages. Am I mistaken or did I find some good churches? Any catholics or orthodox here that want to sound off on this?

  95. Jim says:

    This guy isn’t a pastor. He just a Leftist maggot and is one of the worst pussy fags I’ve seen in Churchian circles. He’s a poster boy for Feminist Churchianity. What a piece of shit loser.

  96. Lost Patrol says:

    Knew this one would be a corker. If you come late to the party you’ve got a lot of speed reading to do. I enjoyed the thought policing over at Pastor Powell’s blog.

    From Pastor Powell’s comments to Dear everyone: “it is not pleasing to the Lord to attack a man’s character because he wrote something on the internet that you don’t agree with.”

    Upthread from his blog: Toiler – Since I can’t reply anymore to Lyn87…I just wanted to say that I followed his link over to the Dalrock site…and all I can say is that it totally makes no woman want to go out an marry a Christian man.

    Sam Powell in reply: Yeah. He’s a piece of work.

    I don’t know if Toiler means Lyn87 or Dalrock. I don’t know if Sam means Lyn87 or Dalrock. But I believe I do see attacking a man’s character because he wrote something on the internet that you don’t agree with…

    Also on Sam Powell’s blog, buckyinky must have thought it meant Dalrock, and defended the site; noting that both he and his wife have benefited from Dalrock’s posts.

    To this, the blog deputy sheriff Barbara Roberts wrote: “I appreciate Sam Powell for telling Lyn87 “bye bye”. I hope you do the same to buckyinky.”

    We will have conformity.

  97. Spike says:

    “Hierarchy Equals Abuse”
    The Armed Forces are hierarchical, with the Generals, Air Marshals and Admirals abusing all of the lower ranks, in order to efficiently defend the country in the chosen medium – Land Air or Sea.
    By churchian / chick logic, there shouldn’t be any ranks, because this constitutes abuse. So an army should just be a bunch of people (men, women transsexuals intersexuals and the 49 other sexual orientations documented on that prestigious medium, Facebook). They should have no rank.
    So, when one shoots, they all shoot…..
    …and with more women I the Armed Forces, might this be a possibility?

  98. Boxer says:

    Does Rob Fedders still stalk you as ‘Linx’ and other handles?

    Yeah, occasionally he’ll show up, weakly mimicking GBFM also. Naturally, he doesn’t do this very well. When GBFM used to troll/flame me, he was funny and made some solid points. Fedders is just Fedders, a broken pool of ressentiment… I feel more pity for him than anything.

  99. Haha, oh, I just got a great thought.

    Take a Whip to church if you think the Pastor is going to pull the stunt with the footwashing. Then hop on stage to show two can play this game. And that you advise the evil man preventing the faithful from coming to the Lord’s House better start running.

    Clearing the Temple is generally more applicable than the one time Jesus washed the Apostles’ feet. (Note who’s feet He washed, the context and the fairly clear message of the action. Then compare how it’s abused.) Which is a topic I’m sure the Churchians would never want to touch.

  100. Lyn87 says:

    Oscar, you said you were banned, too, but it fell in with other comments about the same time. Did you mean Mister Powell or WF Price?

  101. Lyn87 says:

    Re: foot washing.

    I haven’t been in a church that practiced foot washing in many years, but it was fairly common among old-school Pentecostals when I was growing up. I’m going to confess that it made me uncomfortable… then again, that’s kind-of the point, I think. (One has to swallow one’s pride to allow someone who is not below you to serve you in such an intimate fashion. In that way I think it’s a model for God’s grace, which can only be accessed by admitting one’s failures. One of the great heresies of our age is the idea that the magnitude of Christ’s sacrifice for us is merely and indication of our great innate worth, rather that being indicative of our great sin and God’s great love.)

    In any case, Christian foot washing does not indicate servility to the person whose feet are being washed.

  102. I just read all those comments over at Sam’s blog. Wow. With the way he treated Lyn, he is not pastor of anything. He’s just a spoiled, bully, with too much pride to allow anyone who is smarter than he is about God’s law on his blog. And he assumes the worst in his own gender. The only response is to shun.

  103. feeriker says:

    From Pastor Powell’s comments to Dear everyone: “it is not pleasing to the Lord to attack a man’s character because he wrote something on the internet that you don’t agree with.”

    Says the hypocrite who then proceeded to attack the character of a man who wrote something on the internet that he didn’t agree with.

    As the boys in the ‘hood would say: “People be noticin’ dat shit.”

  104. feeriker says:

    “…and all I can say is that it totally makes no woman want to go out an marry a Christian man.”

    How fortunate, in that none of us here would care to marry that which dares call itself a “Christian woman,” as represented by the denizens of Samantha Powell’s blog.

    Keep up the good work, guys. When we’re considered pariahs in the eyes of churchian feminist harpies, we can rest assured that we’re on the right track.

  105. feeriker says:

    They have been on the book of Matthew for 2 years.

    Two years???!!! What, are they tryimg to read it in the original Greek?

    The Book of Matthew shouldn’t take more than two WEEKS to get through, even for your average room temperature-IQ churchian. It ain’t Das Kapital (although that would probably resonate more with today’s modernists than any book of the Bible).

    Then again, the Bible demands at least a little bit of patience and effort to read and absorb, two things that are NOT most people’s long suits today. I’m also not surprised to hear that they are spending more time on John McArthur than on the Bible, which is absolutely par for the course, as I mentioned upthread. Choosing McArthur (or any other churchian literature) over the Bible is like choosing a comic book over a textbook, or choosing junk food over a healthy balanced meal.

  106. Jim says:

    “…and all I can say is that it totally makes no woman want to go out an marry a Christian man.”

    Those cunts aren’t Christian and neither is that so-called pastor. But they’d make a good witches coven.

  107. infowarrior1 says:

    If hierarchy is abusive.

    Then government and people

    Parents and children

    Boss and employee.

    God and man

    Christ and church

    Are all abusive relationships by definition.

  108. infowarrior1 says:

    @Spike
    ”So, when one shoots, they all shoot…..”
    Ya know that would still be abuse.😀

    A person that shoots 1st by definition commands the rest hence he is abusing them by shooting 1st.

  109. infowarrior1 says:

    @Anonymous Reader
    Meta: Skimming through some of the documents linked off of Powell’s church, it appears that the CREC is a cuckservative Protestant denomination. It’s the kind of church that tradcucks would point to as a good example. Similar to the church that tossed Jenny Erickson out.

    There fixed it for ya.🙂

  110. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    RichardP: A bit off-topic, but here’s a side-note for MGTOW … God admitted that he alone was not enough for Adam by stating that it was not good for Adam to be alone.

    I agree. I’ve often stated that I’m a reluctant MGTOW. I’ve read some men say that a “true MGTOW” chooses the lifestyle from a position of strength, otherwise you’re just a Gamma male and it doesn’t “count.” But I think most MGTOW accept the lifestyle with resignation.

    What man wouldn’t want to marry an attractive, pleasant, devoted woman, should he find one? I wanted to be married before I was 30, but I failed at that goal. The women I can get, I don’t want.

    So I’m a reluctant MGTOW in my 50s. I’m financially well off. I no longer have to work. I can travel. But I don’t like traveling alone. Sleeping alone in hotel rooms is depressing. MGTOW is no fun, but it’s either that or date the dreadful women available to me. Mostly overweight, divorced, haughty, opinionated, irresponsible, often tattooed, and laden with children and/or animals.

    Yes, man was not meant to be alone. But good helpmeets are hard to find.

  111. Spike says:

    infowarrior1 says:
    September 22, 2016 at 1:25 am
    @Spike
    ”So, when one shoots, they all shoot…..”
    Ya know that would still be abuse.😀

    A person that shoots 1st by definition commands the rest hence he is abusing them by shooting 1st.

    -Incredibly infowarrior, it was the command given to German police at Ferstenfeldbruck AIr Force Base during the 1972 Munich Olympic Hostage crisis. But then again, it was the 1970s and feminism was riding the crest of the wave…

  112. Avraham rosenblum says:

    In this essay http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GodGrandchild.HTM Steven Dutch discusses some of the problems with subversion within.

    Also he writes (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ComplexAdaptive.HTM):This interaction of top-down and adaptive components results in what I call the Paradox of Authority-in-Democracy. Overall, despite its failings, we live in a democratic society. Nevertheless, most of the day to day decisions in our society are made by authoritarian means. Students don’t elect their teachers or vote on grading standards, workers don’t elect their bosses, we don’t elect our police officers or set speed limits by market means. Yet there are enough adaptive mechanisms to keep authority in check.

    What Steven Dutch is seems to be saying is there is a hierarchy in any group but the group works better if there is feedback. Feedback is something you find in electrical engineering and negative feedback in a circuit helps promote stability.

    In any case hierarchy is an issue that Hegel goes into and it seems to correspond to his Metaphysics.

  113. mike says:

    Sadly, too many seminaries are being invaded by feminist evangelical women eager to teach the chimpanzees feminist theory. The men take the teachings seriously and then go infect every church they enter with their convoluted exegesis approved by Mary Kassein, who was simply given an affirmative action job. “I was never meant to be taken seriously!”, she says to herself.

  114. scientivore says:

    I’m just going to throw this out there, because my googling failed to produce anything on him, but in my experience this hierarchy-phobia is stereotypically ethnically Jewish (regardless of faith). Not exclusively, but to a surprisingly large extent, and I gradually came to understanding of why.

    It has to do with their multiple millennia as nomads. Simply, they came to see subsidiarity as anathema, because it excluded them. So the right and proper ordering of priorities to any moral person is actually a fearful trait to a normal Jew, because he is last on the list.

    And there are a couple of easy tells. First, that they conflate nationalism with authoritarianism, even though those are two separate axes; because if you’re concerned about pogroms instead of serfdom, then the distinction might be lost on you. And second that they find hierarchies to be anathema per se, despite that being a necessary component of subsidiarity, which is virtuous.

  115. I read Sam Powells article and he leaves out the entire Tanach, ignored the NT writings, and centuries of history.

    How can one ignore 1 Cor 11:3, Eph 5:23, ?
    But I want you to understand that Mashiach is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 1 Cor 11:3

    For the husband is head of the wife…. Eph 5:23

    In regards to Genesis 3:16 – he missed the Hebrew entirely.
    Hebrew is a very TERSE language with multiple meanings for the same words and without vowels.
    Many words, idioms, don’t translate well and could mean multiple meanings.
    תְּשׁוּקַת/teshuqah / desire also includes “ruling” as seen in the other times it is used.
    The NET, Douay-Rheims, and the Septuagint(oldest translation of the Tanach) translate Gen 3:16 as such

    And to the woman he said, In multiplying I will multiply your distresses, and your moanings. In distresses you will bear children, and to your husband your submission, and he will dominate you. (Septuagint)

    To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. (Douay-Rheims)

    To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.” (NET)

    History and experience shows the desire that wives have for husbands is contempt and rule over them. Women rulers in Israels history (Jezebel, Ataliah, and Salome Alexandra were evil to the nth degree)

    Western evangelical Christianity is twisting the scriptures which are written by holy Jewish men in a middle eastern patriarchy to fit the current narrative and it isn’t working.
    The NT setting wasn’t a pagan Sunday go once a week “church” celebrating x-mass and easter.
    It was in a Jewish “synagogue” religious setting where Moses & Prophets are read by “men” on the Sabbath, kept the YHVH feasts days, women kept quiet (you have ignored “all” the Church Councils and centuries of history).

    If anyone thinks Western women are abused – please come live in the Middle East (Israel) and compare the Jewish Haredi women to the Islamic Mulism women and families and to American women and families.
    The USA divorce & child abuse rates are among the highest in world – which is a pretty good indicator what is in place “isn’t working”

    ~Shalom

  116. scientivore says:

    So just to be clear, I’m only saying that I’m making a prediction that sound research on his family tree would find that he is ethnically Jewish in a large proportion. That’s my hypothesis. It’s good to make predictions, because only then can you find that you’re wrong.

  117. One more…
    A women is owned/kept by her father and then husband (Jewish courtship is vastly different than western). The husband is then “baal/owner”.

    This baal (lord / owner) is noted in Gen 20:3, Ex 21:3, 21:22, Deut 22:22 which corresponds with 1 Peter 3:6:

    But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is married to a baal” Gen 20:3

    “just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord” 1 Peter 3:6
    2962 kýrios – properly, a person exercising absolute ownership rights; lord (Lord).

  118. Opus says:

    Being accused of abuse (as was Lyn 87) is usually a sign that the writer of the remark – surely an ad- hominem remark at that – has no answer to the criticism made and I must say that I read Lyn 87’s trenchant comment which struck me as unanswerable – as proved to be the case by his banning and comment removal. Meanwhile: courtesy of Google Maps I had taken a virtual vacation to Yuba City, Northern California – somewhat attracted by the name and to the idea of a First Reformed Church (was there a second or a third?) where Powell is pastor. On to my screen came landscape that reminded me of the crop dusting scene in North by North West. Impressed as I always am by the sheer amount of space that America has: there was the church – what might have been a few Nissen Huts thrown together – seemingly in the middle of nowhere. Can that really be a church, I wondered, coming from a country where so many churches, built with brick, are the better part of a thousand years old if not older and look as if they will still be around in another thousand? Is that really the fount, I pondered, of an authoritative reading of the New Testament? I lacked confidence that it might be. Lyn 87 sees JC as a military figure: naturally, I see JC as Counsel for the Prosecution.

    To get banned by Bill Price – the most patient of Blog owners – when even Peter Andrew: Nolan couldn’t get banned is surely some perverse achievement on the part of Boxer.

  119. scientivore says:

    Oh shoot. If I’m making a precise and disprovable hypothesis, then I need to define “large”. Well, if I take Exodus 20:5 in an expanded sense of how genetics (and epigentics) works, then my “large proportion” is “punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” So no less than a 16th, given my co-hypothesis that God is taking them as hating him.

  120. scientivore says:

    I have never spoken anything but the objective Truth, and I wish you all the best. Over and out.

  121. Gidon Giacobbe:
    “תְּשׁוּקַת/teshuqah / desire also includes “ruling” as seen in the other times it is used.”

    Had a heated argument with my Baptist pastor a couple of months back over this word. He insisted that it should be the meaning used in Song of Songs but I explained that “ruling” made more sense in Gen 3:16, using Gen 4 as a reference. Without any sense of irony, he argued that why can’t (the curse) be something positive, i.e., women were cursed by God to be pining for their men.

    He also made one very telling comment during our argument: “Why are you making it harder for our women to submit to their husbands?”

    Maybe it’s a sin I have to deal with, but I’ve lost a lot of respect for this pastor since we had our argument.

  122. freebird says:

    With the parable of the fishes Christ essentially said to take care of the physical body first so the spiritual body can then receive the word.
    Here we’re talking about the spiritual Duluth Model while failing to address the physical Duluth model which is perpetuated by Men With guns.

    All power comes out the end of a barrel.
    fin

  123. Oscar says:

    @ Lyn87 says:
    September 21, 2016 at 11:31 pm

    “Oscar, you said you were banned, too, but it fell in with other comments about the same time. Did you mean Mister Powell or WF Price?”

    I meant Powell. I’m your “enabler”, donchaknow?

    Lyn87 says:
    September 21, 2016 at 11:43 pm

    “Re: foot washing.

    I haven’t been in a church that practiced foot washing in many years, but it was fairly common among old-school Pentecostals when I was growing up. I’m going to confess that it made me uncomfortable… then again, that’s kind-of the point”

    That’s my experience as well with the Apostolics (very popular among some Latin Americans). They’re really old school. Their women don’t cut their hair, wear prayer shawls and don’t wear pants.

    Do you think foot washing should make a comeback? I’m leaning in that direction.

  124. Oscar says:

    Gents,

    Here’s a thought that’s been bouncing around my head lately. Please provide a sounding board if you’re so inclined.

    Men tend to be very comfortable with hierarchy. We like knowing who’s in charge of what so that we know whom to address if we need something or if something goes wrong. It simplifies things.

    Women aren’t so comfortable with hierarchy. For reasons I don’t understand, they like things to be vague… fuzzy… unclear. I don’t get it, but I don’t need to. I just accept that’s the way they are.

    If Cane is right – and I believe he is – that pastors tend to be mama’s boys, that would mean they’re more likely to be uncomfortable with hierarchy. They’re more likely to see it as incompatible with, or antithetical to the love and unity that brothers and sisters in Christ are supposed to exercise with each other.

    I’ve served in many Army units. Some had that “Band of Brothers” feel. Others didn’t. The structure of the hierarchy was the same in all units. The differences between these units were two-fold.
    1) Some had higher-quality leaders than others.
    2) Some were all-male, while others were mixed-sex.

    Leaving the second aside for now, the fact remains that hierarchy DOES NOT impede love or unity between people. Men in combat, after all, grow to love each other like brothers, especially when led competently. And when led competently, they also grow to love their leaders with a fierce loyalty you don’t see anywhere else. In fact, under good leadership, hierarchy facilitates love and unity.

    Men get that. Women don’t. And apparently, most pastors no longer get that either.

    Those are my not yet organized thoughts. What are yours?

  125. Patrick says:

    Leave it to Beaver, Lassie, The Andy Griffith Show and my grandparents’ marriages constitute “the kingdom of the devil” in his fucked up world. The Kingdom of Heaven I suppose must be the egalitarian marriages of most of my friends which have ended in unhappiness and divorce. What a fraud.

  126. Avraham rosenblum says:

    The Haredi world ought to be divided conceptually into two parts. The Litvak (Lithunian) yeshiva world which is basically loyal to Torah and try to keep its values. Marriage there tend to have a kind of synergy because of devotion towards God and his Law. There are however other groups which are strict abut rituals but are cults and in fact the marriages are quite abusive in both directions,

  127. Lyn87 says:

    Oscar,

    I haven’t been back to heresy.com since I made my last post (that Brother Boxer tells me was deleted), so I didn’t see Mister Powell’s response to you. So you’re my “enabler,” then? And I’m an “abuser.”

    How very droll. I guess that means we need to add “abuser” and “enabler” to deplorable/racist/sexist/terrorist/homophobe/islamaphobe/misogynist/privileged/cis-het scum/bigot. My signature block is going to take up three lines if this keeps up. If those guys knew that we collect these labels like we used to collect baseball cards they would probably stop handing us new ones all the time. I have a few copies of the coveted “Pharisee” card already – it’s not surprising that he went with “abuser” instead, though, as the only people who’ve ever called me a Pharisee are those who at least try to maintain a religious frame of reference, while “abuser” is the go-to slander of reflexive feminists.

    As Dalrock noted, he’s up to his eye-balls in the Duluth Model as well. Examining his word choice makes me wonder if there is any pop-psyche fad (or “wind of doctrine”) out there he isn’t prepared to embrace.

    As for foot washing… I think it should make a comeback for the simple reason that Jesus told us to do it. As for the old-school group you mentioned: since my father is a retired pastor, my mother was a pastor’s wife. To this day she wears her hair long, wears a head-scarf when she’s praying in church, and does not wear pants except when she’s cleaning the house.

    I also agree with you about how men and women generally view hierarchy. As men, we function in large, hierarchical organizations fairly easily. Women understand hierarchy, too, otherwise they wouldn’t go for aloof, take-charge men. Women are hard-wired to seek men who can provide leadership (that they then often chafe under per Genesis 3:16), but few of them seem capable of operating above the “fire team” level (nuclear family), or maybe the “squad” level (extended family), to use your analogy.

  128. Pingback: Complementarians are worse than egalitarians | Christianity and masculinity

  129. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    If it is abusive to make a claim to authority or to enforce a hierarchy, then it is also abusive to have pastors and elders teach and rule. In other words it is abuse for this man to tell others anything is abuse, because to do so is to make a claim to authority but that claim itself is abuse.

    It is the death of reason – for reason itself is a claim to authority and has an inherent hierarchy. The only way to keep reason in tact and to keep this man’s claim that hierarchy is abuse, is to accept that abuse (hierarchy) as both good and necessary.

  130. feeriker says:

    Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:
    September 22, 2016 at 9:04 am

    Very solid points. I strongly suspect that if you were to lay these nuggets of unassailable logic out in front of Powell that his head would almost explode. And of course you would be labeled “abusive” for doing so.

  131. feeriker says:

    @Barnabas

    I got as far as the byline and saw the name “Paul Maxwell,” at which point I refused to read any further (it’s like seeing the header of a blog entry written by “InsanityBytes22.” You know right away that it’s pointless to read any further because it’s just going to be a lot of errant nonsense).

  132. SnapperTrx says:

    I have compiled some points and scriptures which I hope he will at least consider. The church is extremely small, and has no deacons. On a good Sunday night we may have 20 people in there.

    I figure its going to go one of three ways: Either he will show me where I have erred and I’ll change my mind (likely not to happen, as a basic reading of the scripture shows there IS a hierarchy between God-Man-Woman), I will show him where he has erred and he will change his mind (and, hopefully apologize to the congregation and espouse correct doctrine) or, lastly, he will completely blow me off, continue to call me a Pharisee and tell me I’m spiritually dead, in which case I and my family leave the church. No skin off of my back, though he is a fairly good friend.

    The fallout from the whole issue is that the people will still be learning bad doctrine and, likely, my wife will continue to rebel and go about attending the church anyway, where she will likely be told that the whole incident is proof that I am spiritually unfit to lead thus giving her justification for continued disobedience and disrespect.

    Remember when people thought the life of a Christian was easy? How we just put our faith in a big, old man in the sky whom we cant see but we believe takes care of everything for us while we walk around with our head in the clouds?

    I like to tell people “If you think being a Christian is so easy, you do it.”

  133. @ Barnabas

    Yes, women need man-boys. Like the child that blurts out “judgment” when they see you sinning.

    In fact, men would do well to call out sin more. Adam took the fruit and ate it instead of admonishing Eve.

    That’s what “sanctification” is, which, quite ironically is mentioned in Ephesian 5 for husbands-wives and Christ-Church. Set apart… to make holy… Call out the sin and rebellion so it can be addressed.

  134. @ SnapperTrx

    The fallout from the whole issue is that the people will still be learning bad doctrine and, likely, my wife will continue to rebel and go about attending the church anyway, where she will likely be told that the whole incident is proof that I am spiritually unfit to lead thus giving her justification for continued disobedience and disrespect.

    The irony about that is 1 Peter 3, which wives should be chaste, respectful, gentle, quiet and obedient to husbands that do not believe.

    Not even Paul “the woman hater” wrote it. One of Jesus’ closest disciples Peter did. You know, the rock Jesus built His Church on.

  135. SnapperTrx says:

    True!

    Indeed I need prayer, as I am starting to get cold feet over the whole issue. I feel like a guy picking at the small stone that holds up an avalanche of rock overhead.

  136. SnapperTrx says:

    I think Paul saw the whole argument over women in the church and the hierarchy of God-Man-Woman being persistent for all time, and he addressed it right away:

    1 Corinthians 14:(36) Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? (37) If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. (38) But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

    “….let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

    This was directly after he informed them that women should be silent in the churches, because it is shameful for them to speak.

    The amount of effort it takes to see scripture like this and completely ignore it could create the pyramids of Egypt in a day.

  137. @ SnapperTrx

    I’ve been praying brother.

    Luke 12:11 When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say; 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.”

    Ephesians 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against [e]flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

    Stay strong, stand firm.

  138. Robert What? says:

    As per usual, “Traditional Conservative Christians” and Radical Feminists make the most curious of bedfellows. You can barely tell them apart anymore. And as per usual, all the responsibilities and obligations are on the husband and all the freedom of action is on the wife.

  139. Boxer says:

    To get banned by Bill Price – the most patient of Blog owners – when even Peter Andrew: Nolan couldn’t get banned is surely some perverse achievement on the part of Boxer.

    You can’t say I don’t have mad skillz. I also have never regretted supporting him, and think it’s a shame that he quit writing. The comments section there was usually shit, but I would argue that he had some of the best original articles that I’d ever seen. The Spearhead was a rival of Dalrock for pure quality of writing (though the content didn’t really intersect).

    I suppose it’s just a function of SCALE or atomization that people come and go. He won’t be soon forgotten, though; and I wish him well, in his new marriage and his life.

    Boxer

  140. sipcode says:

    “Hath God Said?” was abuse according to the serpent. It has never changed. A woman bought it then. They are buying it more and more now with their increase ‘wealth’ of frivolity.

  141. Boxer says:

    Dear SnapperTRX:

    I’m very interested in how your meeting goes. It’s easy for us to imagine the very worst in people, and I admire you for giving your minister the benefit of the doubt, and approaching him honestly, rather than wandering off to let the congregation continue to decline

    I like to tell people “If you think being a Christian is so easy, you do it.”

    Over a year ago I moved across the continent for work. I’m now in an extremely Catholic town. One of my best friends is a guy who went through seminary (not a priest, but completed his degree before leaving). I go to Saturday evening mass with him.

    He regularly (politely) likes to encourage me to go to RCIA. I’m like, bro, I could never live like this. It’s not that I wouldn’t want to. I just know that I don’t have the self-discipline for it. The beauty of the service inspires me, but I’m far too weak to jump in all the way. (It’d also be sort of an insult to all my ancestors).

    It’s not easy. It’s very difficult. Anyone who denies that just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    Boxer

  142. feeriker says:

    “….let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

    This was directly after he informed them that women should be silent in the churches, because it is shameful for them to speak.

    The amount of effort it takes to see scripture like this and completely ignore it could create the pyramids of Egypt in a day.

    What both the complementarians and the egalitarians really think, and what they want to say about this but can’t, because the church has not quite yet reached the point where overt blasphemy is acceptable, is “that was just Paul’s opinion and how dare he claim it as a divine commandment! He was just a mere mortal and even Jesus didn’t make such an assertion!”

  143. SnapperTrx says:

    I will likely post some follow up on my blog. I am really hoping things go well, but given the passion that was obvious in his delivery of the message, I don’t know if the pastor will be accepting or not. Personally I think his being a alpha type male is a big part of his belief and push of this false doctrine. I am organizing my thoughts on it, and may post them on my blog, even though I’m supposed to be taking a break. It’s not a bash against alpha males, but I think there’s a bit of a ignorance for pastors who were alpha bad boys before coming to Christ. Not really an ignorance, but…well, I can explain it better once I get myself organized.

  144. Boxer says:

    Personally I think his being a alpha type male is a big part of his belief and push of this false doctrine. I am organizing my thoughts on it, and may post them on my blog, even though I’m supposed to be taking a break. It’s not a bash against alpha males, but I think there’s a bit of a ignorance for pastors who were alpha bad boys before coming to Christ. Not really an ignorance, but…well, I can explain it better once I get myself organized.

    I think I understand. As a congregation gets more feminized and weak, it’s surely a huge ego-boost to these preachers. Brother Anon will explain this as a good thing (at least from his somewhat nihilistic perspective) and he makes a good point. Good men, like you, get to leave before the thing becomes a full on cult, while the weakest of men (male feminists, etc.) will shoulder more and more of the costs.

    I think an ethical case can be made for a positive duty, on the part of the good men of the group, to confront the leader as you are doing. You’re going about it in the very best way, approaching him not as a hostile asshole, but as a concerned member.

    If he doesn’t heed your good advice (and let’s face it, that’s a serious possibility) then he has a limited amount of time before his own hubris, combined with the decadence of his followers, gets him into trouble. Many of these men eventually get caught having sex with women (or men lol) in the group. It’s also very common for these cult leaders to be arrested for embezzling money and tax evasion. It’s amazing how regularly this seems to happen, but that’s the end result of surrounding yourself with brainless acolytes: you start imagining yourself above all law and morality, and eventually act accordingly.

    Best,

    Boxer

  145. SnapperTrx says:

    2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    They can argue all they want. At some point they either have to concede that the words of the bible are the words of God, transcribed by man or admit they flat out don’t believe any of it. To discount any scripture, after 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is to call God a liar.

    Remind me not to stand next to those folks during the next thunderstorm.

  146. Dave says:

    The amount of effort it takes to see scripture like this and completely ignore it could create the pyramids of Egypt in a day.

    That is the natural mind trying to understand the things of God, unaided by the Holy Spirit. The mind keeps “seeing many things, but does not perceive, and hearing many things, but does not understand”.

    The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:14, NIV).

    Earlier this morning, I was reading a sermon by Charles Finney. He explained in his usual logical method why the Holy Spirit is needed to explain spiritual things to us. Without the Holy Spirit, teaching spiritual things is like trying to describe an exquisite painting to a congenitally blind person. You may use all the flowery language in the book, and you won’t be able to accurately describe the painting to them.

    But sometimes, it is God Himself who blinded their eyes and deafened their ears so that they could go on and remain in their rebellion, and receive the fullness of God’s judgement.

    And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
    Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
    Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, and the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.

    (Isaiah 6:10-12, KJV)

  147. sipcode says:

    Following this ‘abuse’ theory to its logical conclusion — or source — we come to God. God is abusive, and He documents it in writing in Scripture. The argument is only against scripture, against God Himself, come as the Son — the Word. AKA, ‘the Rock of Offense.’

    This is not abuse. It is simply offensive. God is offensive to those whose father is the Devil.

  148. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, Original Laura has a question / request up in “age of crossdressing”, you might want to look at it.

  149. SnapperTrx says:

    @Boxer

    I have posted my thoughts on my blog. I think I have said things in a way that conveys my thoughts on the issue in a format that is easily understood. Not that my words must be dumbed down, but sometimes I go off on wild tangents that could make Einstein confused. Please feel free to give your input. As of right now, its the only rational excuse I can give myself as to why my pastor is doing this.

  150. PuffyJacket says:

    @Lyn and others

    Reading Lyn’s struggles above, perhaps a change in strategy is required.

    A mangina is a creature who lives and breathes on female approval. They evaluate the correctness of an idea solely on the basis of whether it generates female approval (yes, they really are this stupid).

    This provides us with the perfect Trojan horse for anti-misandry views. Commenters should pose as female, then write disapprovingly of the mangina in question. This will work better because:

    1) Manginas are incredibly stupid. They fear the disapproval of any female, and will not speak poorly of her no matter what she says. If a man says the same thing, the mangina will ignore him and see this as a validation of his ideas.

    2) When the commenter is a “pretty young thing” (pictures help), everyone gravitates towards reading (partly, at least) what she says. This gives anti-misandry far more exposure and weight than what it would earn on its own merit.

    In other words, use the greatest weakness of manginas against them. If a mangina disagrees, simply point out he is a misogynist for disagreeing.

    (Note: This may be how the worst excesses of feminism will end anyways. When enough women turn against manginas they will become confused about their marching orders and finally crack.)

  151. SnapperTrx says:

    I understand what you are saying, but I present another possible view. I have been with this church for a long time and, to date, I have given great trust to the teaching of our pastor. Please visit my blog, where I have posted my reasoning on the subject, and please comment if you have any insight on what I have said. Time is of the essence, as I will be speaking to my wife this evening and informing her of my intended course of action (not to receive her blessing or support, but so that she cannot claim that this has been sprung on her by surprise. I do not expect she will support me in my endeavor), and tomorrow I will be asking for a meeting with the head and associate pastor, and perhaps one other man from the congregation. Thanks ahead for any input.

  152. PuffyJacket says:

    If enough women tell a mangina the sky is green, he will surely believe the sky is green. This is how a “faggot-brained” mangina thinks.

  153. @chokingonredpills I wouldn’t be losing sleep regarding your pastor. Your interpretation of the Hebrew is correct. If your pastor doesn’t know the Hebrew name of LORD ie YHVH with vowels (it isnt Yaweh) then there is a really strong chance he is incorrect of proper Hebrew language and usage.

    Western evangelical pastors don’t follow the scriptures and hence there is the problem. This isn’t a slam WEC (Western Evangelical Christianity) but they don’t teach nor follow ANYTHING from the 1st century scriptures.
    If they did – women would be wear some sort of head covering as women in the Middle East do today and as they have for centuries (1 Cor calls when praying or prophesying vs. ALL THE TIME).

    Søren Kierkegaard called out Christianity a long time ago
    “The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly.”

  154. feeriker says:

    @Gidon Giacobbe:

    Your interpretation of the Hebrew is correct. If your pastor doesn’t know the Hebrew name of LORD ie YHVH with vowels (it isnt Yaweh) then there is a really strong chance he is incorrect of proper Hebrew language and usage.

    Short of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, I would assume AS GIVEN that a pastor is as ignorant of Hebrew (or Greek, or Latin, or Aramaic) as I am of Mongolian. American pastors, in particular, are just that: Americans, the World’s Champion Monoglots whose grasp of their own native tongue is sufficiently lacking that it’s foolhardy to expect them to be knowledgeable or proficient in any other.

    Western evangelical pastors don’t follow the scriptures and hence there is the problem. This isn’t a slam WEC (Western Evangelical Christianity) but they don’t teach nor follow ANYTHING from the 1st century scriptures.

    Even if you did mean it as a slam, it would have been fully justified (I are an evangelical, and I slam them for their faults as much as any non-believer would). For all that it gets right, one thing evangelical Christianity gets VERY, VERY WRONG is its apologetics – or horrifying lack thereof. Anyone who follows my regular posts in these parts has read my endless rants about the substitution of Bible study in evangelical churches for group readings of churchian best-selling books, This is both a symptom and a cause of the zoological Scriptural ignorance that plagues the EC and that renders its effectiveness in being what it claims to be (“evangelical”) completely moot.

    If they did – women would be wear some sort of head covering as women in the Middle East do today and as they have for centuries (1 Cor calls when praying or prophesying vs. ALL THE TIME).

    Despite its rhetoric to the contrary (thundering and fulminating endlessly about porn and abortion, to cite just two such examples), the evangelical church (at least its North American version) is all about being “relevant” and “seeker-friendly,” which of course means pandering to the culture in order to keep butts in the pews and collection plates full. To demand actual standards of comportment from believers that are contained in clear text in the Scriptures would not only require detailed knowledge of said Scriptures that most evangelical pastors obviously don’t have (to say nothing of laymen), but would also fly in the face of the worldly modernism that most congregants, to say nothing of unbelievers, are part and parcel of and have no intention of abandoning. It’s less offensive to just pretend that Paul’s directions to the churches of Greece and Asia Minor were just “relics of their day and culture” than actual God-given commandments, issued through an apostle chosen by God to relay them, that would require pew-warmers to walk the talk. In the example that you specifically cite, even the five or ten percent remnant that truly believes rejects the whole head-covering command for women. Apparently the idea of having some serious ‘splaining to do on Judgment Day as to why they thought they would be allowed to cherry-pick God’s commandments isn’t a concern.

    Søren Kierkegaard called out Christianity a long time ago

    Yup. This is why seminaries and Bible colleges have become such cesspools of heresy and corruption. The more degrees from such places that a preacher has, the more suspicious and skeptical I am of anything that comes out of his mouth.

  155. Gunner Q says:

    Oscar @ 7:13 am:
    “Leaving the second aside for now, the fact remains that hierarchy DOES NOT impede love or unity between people. … Men get that. Women don’t. And apparently, most pastors no longer get that either.

    Those are my not yet organized thoughts. What are yours?”

    Original sin was the upsetting of the woman->man->God hierarchy. Woman took charge, man followed, all so the servants could become equal to the master. Rebellion.

    Women who keep their role in the hierarchy end up in a safe, happy and honored place… but only after she’s hit the Wall and no longer has alternatives. She must have faith that her husband will keep her once her youthful beauty is gone. This despite knowing her husband is so unchanging, he doesn’t even like to replace his worn underpants. Same with humanity. By the time Christ saves and rewards us, we’ll be dead and frozen into our chosen paths, forced to accept whatever He cares to give us.

    Maybe it’s like an enlisted man hoping for a pension but thinking he’ll be canned at 19 years, 10 months for some trivial reason. Maybe he should do some illegal battlefield looting while he has the opportunity, just in case?

    As for Churchian pastors, when they say women shouldn’t have to submit to men, they’re secretly arguing they shouldn’t have to submit to God. They justify their own rebellion by proxy.

  156. Oscar says:

    @ Lyn

    You can’t get away from hierarchy in the Bible. It’s inescapable. The name most used for God – by far – is Lord. What is a Lord? According to Mr. Webster, a Lord is “someone or something having power, authority, or influence; a master or ruler.” In other words, he is at the top of a hierarchy.

    Hierarchy even exists in the Godhead.

    Christ is God the Son, but He isn’t literally God’s son. God didn’t have sex with a woman who gave birth to Christ, as the Mormon’s believe. Calling Him God the Son is a divine condescension that indicates to us that the Son is in submission to the Father just as an earthly son is in (or supposed to be in) submission to his earthly father.

    John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever [e]the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

    24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

    Clearly, the Son is in complete submission to the Father. If even the Godhead is a hierarchy, how can hierarchy possibly be inherently abusive? Obviously, it can’t. In fact, it’s just the opposite. The fact that the Godhead is a hierarchy means that hierarchy is inherently good, but we sinful humans pervert it, just as we pervert everything else.

    That’s why this idea that hierarchy is inherently abusive is a lie from the pit of Hell. I mean that literally.

    If you convince people that hierarchy is inherently abusive, and they read the Bible and see hierarchy EVERYWHERE in the Bible, they’ll arrive at one of two conclusions.

    1. God is abusive, or…
    2. The Bible doesn’t actually say what it says.

    It’s the Serpent’s lie in the garden all over again. “Has God really said… ?”

  157. Oscar says:

    @ Lyn,

    I know I’m preaching to the choir here. I just need to bounce my thoughts against godly men who’ll call BS if I step in it.

  158. Lyn87 says:

    Oscar,

    No worries m8, I knew where you were going with that. If I recall correctly, Mister Powell is dead-set against the idea you laid out there as well. I’ll be the first to admit that Trinitarianism is a concept none of us will really understand this side of Jordan, and is one of the allegories found in Scripture that allows us to understand something well enough for this life. I believe he threatened to drop the ban-hammer on someone else in the thread who suggested what you did just now, but I don’t wish to go check and give him the satisfaction of seeing my IP address pop up after he banned me – I imagine he’s eagerly waiting for that.

    But Mister Powell seems dead-set against any kind of hierarchy at all (except, presumably, his position as “pastor” – and the power he wields as the administrator of his blog, obviously). I imagine the real reason he hasn’t tried to do what he should probably regard as his duty – come here and show us why he thinks we’re wrong – is because he would not be at the top of the food chain here and would have to face us as equals. He knows good and well how that would turn out:

    Like this

    Although perhaps this is a better illustration.

  159. RichardP says:

    @ RedPillPaul says: “I’m curious to know why you make the distinction that man is the head of the wife but not the head of the house.”

    I’ve made the distinction you describe elswhere on this and other blogs. I’ve admitted that it seems to be splitting hairs – but to argue that the man is the head of the house (when the Bible doesn’t state anywhere that he is) allows women who want to to place all the responsibility on the husband for many things – including spiritual leadership – “because he is the head of the house”. I’ve previously offered this point in support of the specific point that the Bible makes in many places where it admonishes both fathers AND mothers to raise up their children in the knowledge and fear of the Lord. Wives can’t escape the requirement to be spiritual leaders / educators of their children by saying it is the husband’s responsibility because he is the head of the house. If wives are also responsible for the spiritual education of their children, this means that the wives themselves have a responsibility for education themselves in spiritual matters. This truth has implications that lead to a discussion that belongs in a different thread, so I didn’t / won’t elaborate here.

    Example: The head of Disney is the head of the head of the ABC television network.
    In this heirarchy, the head of Disney can influence what goes on at ABC.
    But, the head of Disney is NOT the head of the ABC television network.

    Sort of like “head of wife” but not “head of home”
    (could be, but the Bible doesn’t say he is)

    RedPillPaul – to repeat, I’ve made the distinction you describe elswhere on this and other blogs. HOWEVER – in this particular instance, I DID NOT make the distinction that man is the head of the wife but not the head of the house. Rather, I pointed out that the BIBLE makes this distinction. For those going gunning for pastors and other folks in positions of religious authority, their argument had better be Biblical or they not only won’t win their argument, they will come off looking seriously uniformed.

    Therefore, if you are going to debate with a person in a position of religious authority, know this: nowhere does the Bible state that the husband is the head of the house. But it does state that the husband was created to be helped by the woman God gives him. And – nowhere does the Bible state that the woman God gives him was created to be helped by the man God gives her to. That is a very distinct heirarchy, stated by the Bible, that CAN be argued with much confidence and vigor.

  160. @feeriker The reason for bringing up head coverings of which is very very unique – exousian/ authority in 1 Cor 11:1-15 is to show there is a hierarchy between Elohim, Mashiach, man, and woman.
    It is the divine fiat chosen by YHVH.
    To change it in anyway is anarchy of which Satan had in mind in the Garden of Eden. It looks like another power grab but instead of giving the fruit, she is shoving down his throat with the help of others.

  161. SnapperTrx says:

    I have a feeling my pastor is aware that his message was intended to be delivered with me in mind, as he has sent me a couple of cryptic messages within the past few minutes: One indicating that he felt really good about last Sunday (to which I had not yet responded), then another shortly after asking me if I was okay. I think at this point he expects me to voice an opposition. I cannot say for sure that is his intent until after I talk to him, but I think I will need to respond with a summons to meet.

  162. Anonymous Reader says:

    SnapperTx, bear in mind the recent experience with Preacher Powell. I skimmed his site a bit, and re read the thread. To sum up: a big frog in a small puddle. He’s in a small church, part of a rather small denomination, with a few girl groupies that hang on his blog. Given the level of ego stroking, no surprise at his hostility.

    I don’t know how big your church is, I don’t know what kind of governing structure you have, and I don’t know how old your preacher is. Bear in mind you might be splashing around in his puddle. Yes, “men of the cloth” are supposed to be nearly without ego, but I ain’t met one yet that really is, so watch his toes and don’t stomp on them too hard.

    Bear in mind that we breath feminism in the air and drink it in the water, and so the default position for anyone today is “for the women is good”, anything else is … strange, and maybe hostile. Stick to the Bible entirely if you can, because he’s supposed to respect that. Although from what I hear, some seminaries don’t teach it as much as they used to, and some future preachers have to go through Bible classes more than once to pass the tests.

    Keep us posted.

  163. Anonymous Reader says:

    Powell uses threading in comments. One of his girls has declared that it is “creepy” to even ask what rebellion in a wife would look like, since that’s between her and God. Powell agrees the question is creepy, and asserts it’s a loaded question with no answer.

    Pretty much puts a bow on top of the package. I also note that a plurality of the comments come from one woman, Barbara Roberts, who has essentially taken over Powell’s blog.

    This is the face of matriarchal churchianity.

  164. greyghost says:

    The reason women rule and the church complied is family law. Like it or not by law women rule the home. The church took the cowardly way (to keep the tax free status) rather than truly rely on faith. Most of the conversation here is just the strained work a rounds for the law. These conversations have been a huge eye opener and a learning experience. I had an Idea voiced on an earlier post on a work around to the law that may get by politically. The same Idea may work to flip the church. A constant drum beat needs to be made for the church to up talk and respect committed family men and fathers. Cheers to be for women that honor their respectable husbands and fathers. Maybe this Powell guy will discuss something like that rather than give up his pussy worship.
    The bottom line is the law.

  165. SnapperTrx says:

    Well our church is small compared to small churches. The associate pastor is my age, I am 41. We have no girl groupies older than 16, maybe, and only one or two of those. The majority of the church is either people my own age or older. It’s not far out of town but its back in the hills far enough that likely nobody beyond the people we visit in town know its there. Heck, the entire town population in which the church resides is probably less than 50, and most church visitors come from out of town (from the big city, or the slightly bigger city to the West).

    I give a little bit more info on the associate pastor on my blog, as well as a more detailed explanation of what has led up to this. I would appreciate anyone who would visit and give me insight.

    I have compiled a list of scriptures and some other small points to bring up, mostly so I don’t lose track of where I am going with all this. I cannot say that I am not nervous about the whole situation. Certainly five or six years ago this would not have been me, but circumstances within that time have caused me to take a much different look at myself and where I am headed with my life and my own work for the Kingdom.

    I will likely post and update on my own blog next week, after everything dies down, and thanks for the input.

  166. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Dalrock, Original Laura has a question / request up in “age of crossdressing”, you might want to look at it.

    Thank you. I hadn’t seen that. Fixed.

  167. Gunner Q says:

    SnapperTrx @ 4:33 pm:
    “I have a feeling my pastor is aware that his message was intended to be delivered with me in mind, as he has sent me a couple of cryptic messages within the past few minutes”

    Don’t overthink it. You’ll politely make your case, he’ll helpfully explain we’re much smarter now, rinse & repeat a couple times and that’ll be the end of your attendance. It’s important but won’t exactly make headlines.

    @RichardP,
    “I’ve admitted that it seems to be splitting hairs – but to argue that the man is the head of the house (when the Bible doesn’t state anywhere that he is) allows women who want to to place all the responsibility on the husband for many things – including spiritual leadership – “because he is the head of the house”. ”

    Yes. The husband has total power and therefore, total responsibility. Wives are supposed to submit to husbands completely–Sarah being the slave of Abraham being the Bible’s chosen example.

    “For those going gunning for pastors and other folks in positions of religious authority, their argument had better be Biblical or they not only won’t win their argument, they will come off looking seriously uniformed.”

    Martin Luther is 499 years ahead of you.

  168. Dalrock says:

    @SnapperTRX

    The fallout from the whole issue is that the people will still be learning bad doctrine and, likely, my wife will continue to rebel and go about attending the church anyway, where she will likely be told that the whole incident is proof that I am spiritually unfit to lead thus giving her justification for continued disobedience and disrespect.

    Have you considered having another church lined up before showing your hand? I don’t know your wife, but I think it would help if you had somewhere to lead other than just “out”. I think this would make your conversation with the pastor easier as well, as it would take some of the pressure off of you, and if you are more relaxed you are also less likely to come across as confrontational.

  169. Lyn87 says:

    AR notes,

    One of his girls has declared that it is “creepy” to even ask what rebellion in a wife would look like, since that’s between her and God. Powell agrees the question is creepy, and asserts it’s a loaded question with no answer.

    Not surprising. He knew I had him in a box with that question, but he can’t say what he really thinks, which is this: as a practical matter, he believes that women are sinless (otherwise he would not find it so difficult to envision a wife sinning – he certainly has no trouble pointing out the alleged sins of husbands). How telling that a husband’s alleged sin is worthy of multiple blog posts, but the very idea of a wife’s sin – even in the abstract – is too bizarre and “creepy” to even contemplate.

    Oh well… not my circus – not my monkeys. I’ll note that he still has not deigned to speak in a forum where he is not at the top of the hierarchy with his finger on the “ban” button to squelch any argument. I thought of this limerick to describe his “brave” stance involving telling silly women what they want to hear while silencing men who might tell the truth:

    There once was a “pastor” named Powell,

    Who exposited error most foul,

    He encountered some men,

    Not in thrall (like his hens),

    And straightaway threw in the towel.

  170. SnapperTrx says:

    My wife will not follow me to another church. Though we have been attending this church solely for the past three or so years we have been attending on and off for maybe ten. Prior to three or so years ago we attended a closer church that, after a brutal situation in my life, helped me to recover and seriously grow in Christ. My wife would not attend at first, then she did for a while, grudgingly, then not at all again. Since that time I have learned a lot about several of the big churches in our town and how corrupt and not-Christian they are and refuse to attend them. There are smaller churches, which I would be happy to check out and check their fruits.

    Regardless of how this goes, my wife is the type of Christian woman who believes she is “just submissive enough” and “just respectful enough” to be a good Christian wife. On more than one occasion I have approached her about an issue where she has been blatantly disrespectful, even with scripture, and her answer has been to inform me that she will not “baby me”. I suspect that, as I inform her of what is transpiring (at the suggestion of Deep Strength, so as to avoid her being able to come back and say I sprung this whole thing on her), her words will be akin to “why do you do this” and “why don’t you just leave things alone” as well as informing me that it doesn’t matter what I do, she will continue attending.

    For the time being I will study with my children in our home until I can find a suitable place. IF I can find a suitable place.

    Thanks for your input. If not for you and others, I don’t know that I would even be doing this.

  171. Jeff Strand says:

    Damn Crackers said: “It’s come full circle. Beck spent 2 hours discussing how Trump has corrupted Christianity”

    Beck is a cuck’s cuck. He is such an embarrassment, and such a blubbering pile of Jell-O at this point that I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.

    The only appropriate response to the guy is to laugh in his face.

  172. Spike says:

    “Anonymous Reader says:
    September 22, 2016 at 4:51 pm
    Powell uses threading in comments. One of his girls has declared that it is “creepy” to even ask what rebellion in a wife would look like, since that’s between her and God. Powell agrees the question is creepy, and asserts it’s a loaded question with no answer.”

    Perhaps the good pastor can get some help from statistics on what Women’s Rebellion looks like:

    -45 million abortions are performed annually. Men have nothing to do with the decision to abort – it’s strictly “my body, my choice” as far as women go. One million, give or take, are performed in the USA, 100-120 000 in Australia.
    -The above appalling statistic aren’t the results of immaculate conceptions. Most of them come from unwed women, and with current rape laws, it literally takes Two To Tango, and fornication is a sin.
    -70% of all divorces are initiated by women on a no-fault basis. That is, the man ISN’T violent, abusive or adulterous.. She is simply bored with him and wants to move on.
    -This causes the children of the relationship to have lower academic achievement, higher incarceration rates, higher drug and alcohol consumption, higher promiscuity, higher rates of teen pregnancy, and generally makes for a population of mutilated beggars rather than a generation of future responsible adults.
    -Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: 10 000 babies are born with brain damage in Australia, 30 000 in Britain, and an undisclosed but significant number in the USA, due to pregnant women binge drinking despite doctor’s warnings. If a man inflicted that much damage on a baby, he would be caged like an animal.

    Is the above “Creepy” enough for you?

    The majority of men hate going to church. I don’t blame them.

  173. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    You can’t say I don’t have mad skillz. I also have never regretted supporting him, and think it’s a shame that he quit writing. The comments section there was usually shit, but I would argue that he had some of the best original articles that I’d ever seen. The Spearhead was a rival of Dalrock for pure quality of writing (though the content didn’t really intersect).

    WF Price was a great writer and contributor to the ‘sphere. A good guy too. He just could not moderate his comment section, because when there was a fight, he could not distinguish between the harasser (e.g. Rob Fedders) and the person acting in self-defense (e.g. Boxer). Some people just cannot make that distinction when they see conflict. This played out often, and The Spearhead’s comments hence became a haven for full-time harassers like Rob Fedders (who was unable to make more than a dozen comments on any other blog without getting banned), which drove other participants away. It was odd, because Red Pillers are supposed to be more aware of fairness vs. the general population.

  174. Oscar says:

    @ Lyn,

    I particularly like the retort, “my blog, my rules”. Does that mean I’m allowed to say, “my house, my rules”?

  175. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    More fodder for the Dalrock blog community’s contemplation, perhaps:

    Amy Schumer, Blake Lively Slam Girls’ Life Magazine for Sexism

    .

  176. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    DrTorch @ September 21, 2016 at 10:13 am discussed the OP and the earlier comments, in the context of “unpardonable sin”.

    My (perhaps feeble) understanding of the concept, is that the only “unpardonable sin” — aka “The Sin against The Holy Spirit”, is a refusal to accept Grace. God — “mysteriously” — is so respectful of our Free Will, that He will not force Redemption on us, but instead we must accept it Freely. And if we do not, then (1) doing this itself is Sin, for thereby we cut ourselves off from God; and (2) there is nothing God can do to help us, then, for we have rejected His Grace.

    So, as even the most egregious of False Teachers might stumble upon an awareness of the error of their ways, and choose to accept Grace, say perhaps only in the last two hours of their Earthly life, then even swapping Divine Writ and Satanic Lies might be forgiven … if they will accept that forgiveness (including repentance, etc., etc.).

    Does that seem reasonable to you?

  177. RA says:

    I agree Price was an excellent writer. He is missed but he has his new life so I wish him well with that. But his comment sections weren’t worth squat most of the time so I always skipped them.

    Women are often a bit short on the “actions have consequences” front … what else is new? Doesn’t help they get enabled to continue having short sight.

  178. Dalrock says:

    @SnapperTrx

    I am facing this same situation right now in that the pastor of our church delivered a scathing message last Sunday on how, if men are not able to accept wisdom and teaching from women, whether wives or women at the pulpit, they are both Pharisees and “spiritually dead”. Along with that was the warning that men shouldn’t “be surprised when your wives are smarter than you spiritually and don’t be surprised when they do and they no longer submit to you”.

    My advice would be to focus on the damage he is doing to the wives. The attitude you describe is common, and it is a sort of sports training camp version of Christianity. Coach pastor is going to whip the men into shape so they deserve their women. As such, he wants/expects/needs you to come at this from the point of view of what he is doing to you. He will want to make this about you not getting your way, or not being worthy of a submissive wife. Don’t go there with him, and do not let him drag you there. This isn’t about you, it is about the word of God.

    Focus on the fact that he is (like the serpent in the garden) tempting the wives to rebel. The Bible offers three specific reasons wives are to submit to their husbands, and I would focus on these:

    1) This makes them beautiful to God. (1 Pet 3)
    2) That they might bring their husband to Christ* (1 Pet 3)
    3) “they will not bring shame on the word of God” (Tit 2:5)

    Focus on the cruelty of tempting these women to sin and make themselves ugly to God, and bring shame to the word of God. No pastor should be willing to encourage such a thing, let alone in his own congregation. Your focus in bringing this to him should be to help prevent a brother in Christ from making (continuing to make) a serious error (Matt 18:1-7), and to help prevent him from doing harm to your sisters in Christ.

    *Notice also that reason 2 is ostensibly the reason he is doing all of this. Not only does the end not justify the means, but he is choosing the very opposite of the means scripture specifically prescribes.

  179. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Kind of replying to no one specifically or in particular here, but: although I personally have never witnessed any evidence of actual, genuine diabolism at first hand, when I read the sort of things that Dalrock quotes from out of his research (as, e.g., Pastor Sam Powell’s rubbish & rot, criticized profoundly up above in the OP and the comments), I really have to wonder whether or not some of the “reverends”, “priests”, “pastors” and “deacons” spouting this insane, counter-scriptural, destructive “teaching” aren’t literally and actually demonically possessed.

    I mean, if you really “merely” believed that the Bible is a boring, ancient book full of falsehoods, you would walk away from it, maybe calling yourself an atheist or whatever. But that’s not what these sorts of Pastorbators do: they are plainly “religious”, and can’t walk away from it, and yet are clearly deeply hostile to it, in a way that sometimes seems to surpass the limits of the human capacity for malice, dishonesty, and deceit.

    I guess all will be revealed at The Judgement — but in the mean-time, I really wonder …

  180. Lyn87 says:

    Silly Oscar,

    It’s not YOUR house, donchaknow? It’s either God’s or hers… just because you’re responsible doesn’t mean you have the right to have expectations. What are you, a misogynist?

    O-M-G! WowjustwowIcan’teven!

    BTW, I guess I get to add “creepy” to my resume now.

    Yesssss! Another merit badge! Thanks, Church Lady!

  181. Boxer says:

    I mean, if you really “merely” believed that the Bible is a boring, ancient book full of falsehoods, you would walk away from it, maybe calling yourself an atheist or whatever. But that’s not what these sorts of Pastorbators do: they are plainly “religious”, and can’t walk away from it, and yet are clearly deeply hostile to it, in a way that sometimes seems to surpass the limits of the human capacity for malice, dishonesty, and deceit.

    I think what you’re calling demon possession is a gradual thing in most cases. You can see that very clearly in the progression of the huckster Marc Driscoll, who was deconstructed brilliantly on this very blog, about a year ago.

    The specific demon is hubris. Most of these guys start out as sincere fellows, but they get themselves caught in a trap when they (not entirely consciously) surround themselves with fawning yes-men and wide eyed adoring women. They start drinking their own kook-aid, eventually believing that they’re indestructible, then sometime later the press descends (and often the sheriff too) to burst their bubble.

    This makes it easier to understand, from the outside, but it’s actually more frightening to behold. You don’t have to sacrifice a goat to the devil to be possessed by this demon. It’s lurking inside all of us. You just have to forget your own humility in the grand scheme of things, and it’ll grab hold of you too…

    Boxer

  182. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oscar
    I particularly like the retort, “my blog, my rules”. Does that mean I’m allowed to say, “my house, my rules”?

    No, that would be hierarchy. Bad Oscar! Bad! You don’t expect a mangina to apply the same rules to you that he applies to himself, surely?

  183. SnapperTrx says:

    Yes. I hope to touch on both points, both the inciting of the wives to rebellion and his encouraging the ladies to perform works that are shameful to God. The rebellion part directly affects my home, but the other not so much. It does, however, affect the other ladies in the church. He has been lamenting what he feels has been a “leaving of the spirit” for the past year or so, but with this revelation I can see why he may be feeling that.

  184. Snowy says:

    @ Red Pill Latecomer:

    I’ve been doing a little more research on MGTOW lately. I hadn’t looked at it for a couple of years. I’ve come across a YouTube channel called “MGTOW 101”. He sounds like a fellow Aussie to me, perhaps of Italian or Greek descent. I think you’d appreciate his piece called ‘Rules for Every Man Leykis 101 MGTOW Related’, where he reminds us that MGTOW does not have to equal celibacy. It can if you want it to, but it doesn’t have to. His piece on Leonardo DiCaprio (‘Men Get Better with Age Featuring Leonardo DiCaprio’) highlights this take on MGTOW. Also, take the time to watch his Playlist ‘MGTOW Motivation and Success for Men’. They’re short but pithy messages. They are very inspiring, and put paid to many of the myths surrounding MGTOW. He can be quite blunt and brutal, but really just calling a spade a spade. Not everything he says resonates with me, but much does. As with life in general, it depends where you’re at on your journey. You’ll likely find that the knowledge and skills you’ve already picked up that have enabled you to be successful financially are simply the same ones that you will reapply in different areas of your life, including women and the ‘MGTOW’ lifestyle/attitude. You won’t be reinventing the wheel for yourself. I’ll be 50 years of age this year, and I’m finding myself now entering into an exciting change where I’m embracing maturity and actually looking forward to my bright future where growing older is no barrier to success in whatever I apply myself to, and an upward climb rather than the downhill slope that most see it to be.

    “Sandman” is excellent too. The honesty of Sandman regarding his personal life and experiences are refreshing, and a real inspiration that you are not alone on your journey. And “Captain Nemo” comes out with some eye-openers. They’re all genuine Red Pill.

    All the best with it, and I always enjoy reading your comments. Many thanks.

  185. greyghost says:

    Boxer
    The Spearhead was a special place for the reason of free to speak as men speak. It was crass and real talk full of raw emotion of men getting hit with the red pill against their will. It was the only game in town. Bill price was the only blogger I sent money to and that was back in the dark days of time when I was looking for answers. Dalrocks blog came about towards the end of The spearhead and was good because he tied in the secular red pill with the bible and scripture. Remarkably they pretty much parallel. Red pill truth is already written in the bible.

  186. Anon says:

    From Heartiste : Women go to the Calais Jungle to have sex.

    This should be shoved in the face of all manginas and blue-pilled pedestalizers everywhere. To see the true nature of women is to lose much of one’s attraction for them.

    US female voters will not stop until the US has tons of such camps. Women see the role of government is nothing more than to make AF/BB a reality.

  187. Lost Patrol says:

    We’re never going to make way for modernity if we keep dragging The Bible into it. Sam Powell is just the latest, but Dalrock has shown this is thematic, and there are lots of these guys busy trying to reconcile modern secular feminism with The Bible. It’s a hard job. Those scriptures won’t cooperate as is, and often have to be tweaked. As a Babylon Bee article once pointed out – The Bible is millions of years old, we can do better.

  188. Oscar says:

    Lyn87 says:
    September 22, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    “Silly Oscar, It’s not YOUR house, donchaknow?”

    Anonymous Reader says:
    September 22, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    “No, that would be hierarchy. Bad Oscar! Bad! You don’t expect a mangina to apply the same rules to you that he applies to himself, surely?”

    Well….. . . . . fuck.

  189. Lost Patrol says:

    Another incisive post accompanied by massive amounts of quality commentary. Is it any wonder we love it here?

    @Gunner Q:
    “…the husband is to take the lead in taking the lowest place in the home. ”
    “Kinda says it all.”
    Yeah it does. And what wife isn’t going to be happy to make those words her battle cry?

    @Fifty Seven:
    “If you have no authority to change anything you are not ‘head’ or ‘in charge’ or ‘leading’ in any way that means anything.”
    Exactly. Christ loves His Church, and sacrificed Himself for her. So love and serve your wife like that. But also this — “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” Matthew 28. All authority.

    @Carlotta:
    “I reframe it this way when femenists start their crap. I tell them I am a strong and independent women who has made a choice to live my own lifestyle and their bullying and intolerance of my liberated choices will not be tolerated in my safe space.”
    This is great. Feminists, ostensibly the SIW, are neither strong nor independent. There is only the imitating of men, and needing the church and state to validate and uphold it for them. Any woman who decides to maximize her God given talents as wife and mother, talents unique to women; is now become the revolutionary. She’s the one bucking trends and operating outside the approved regime. The actual SIW is wife and mom.

    @Dalrock:
    “My advice would be to focus on the damage he is doing to the wives.”
    You’ve made this point before in several posts and replies. This really is a superior strategy and I’m trying to change my thought process to approach from this angle. Re-engineering these things to show how they are harmful to the very women being glorified, is a brilliant way to hang the feminist pastor on the horns of a dilemma. One of his own making.

    I could do one of these for every commenter. But nobody likes a windbag here so I’ll sign off.

  190. Boxer says:

    Now that I’ve made a Spearhead Fanboy Subthread here…

    WF Price was a great writer and contributor to the ‘sphere. A good guy too. He just could not moderate his comment section, because when there was a fight, he could not distinguish between the harasser (e.g. Rob Fedders) and the person acting in self-defense (e.g. Boxer).

    That’s right. I’m the innocent victim! hahaha!
    http://movie-sounds.org/famous-movie-samples/sound-clips-from-12-monkeys-1995/hey-i-m-the-innocent-victim-here

    I certainly had a good time at Fedders’ expense. If I were WF Price I’d have banned both of us long before he eventually did. Come to think of it, If I were the Dalrock author, I’d have banned me years ago too (along with most of the other people who comment here).

    The Spearhead was a special place for the reason of free to speak as men speak. It was crass and real talk full of raw emotion of men getting hit with the red pill against their will. It was the only game in town. Bill price was the only blogger I sent money to and that was back in the dark days of time when I was looking for answers. Dalrocks blog came about towards the end of The spearhead and was good because he tied in the secular red pill with the bible and scripture. Remarkably they pretty much parallel. Red pill truth is already written in the bible.

    I think it’s fair to see the old Spearhead and Dalrock as parallel, but disjoint. It was much more about secular life and sexual politics than about religion, but both blogs are woke af. Aside from Price, there were other top shelf bloggers who guested over there. Jack Donovan wrote early articles over there about masculinity.

  191. Konnie says:

    Could not, would not, be married to a pussy-whipped man. I love my role, I love his role.

  192. feeriker says:

    I really have to wonder whether or not some of the “reverends”, “priests”, “pastors” and “deacons” spouting this insane, counter-scriptural, destructive “teaching” aren’t literally and actually demonically possessed.

    I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that many are “secular humanists -lite” who haven’t yet come out of the closet and apostasized.

  193. Anon says:

    Konnie,

    Good. Then you should be fighting mad about what is being done to the timeless formula of marriage. The damage is already fatal and probably irreversible without violent upheaval.

    So are you educating other women?

  194. Oscar says:

    @ Anon

    Let’s not bee too hasty about asking women to teach other women these principles. Let’s remember that it’s supposed to be older women who teach the younger, and as some have pointed out (I believe it was Cane and Dalrock, though I don’t remember clearly), that probably means grandmothers teaching young wives and mothers.

    Yes, those wise older women are in short supply these days.

  195. Carlotta says:

    @Oscar,
    I second that wholeheartedly. I have had all I am going to take of 20 something, newly weds who now want to take on the mantle of a Titus 2 teacher and turn it into a career. I also have had enough of retired whores and bitter feminists who got married as the wall hit to a “Christian” with no children and no grandchildren ever coming so they are now heading up the women’s ministry and trying to convince everyone that Esther and Deborah are warrior princesses. There are clear qualifications and they are rigorous and valuable. Everyone else step aside and shut up.

  196. Carlotta says:

    @Lost Patrol
    Exactly! Yahweh has made me the happy Wife and Mother I was told I should despise. The best way to combat this disease is to strike envy and fear in the younger women by being joyful in my roles and face the older demonic ones head on. I will not stand silent for their lies. Someone looking for the truth may be listening.

  197. feeriker says:

    Carlotta says:
    September 23, 2016 at 8:23 am

    Amen!

    It’s a testament to how tragically rare such women are these days that when I meet one, it’s actually a very emotional experience. I find myself thinking “blessed be the younger women who receive your counsel, but how tragic that there is only one of you – so many, many others out there who so desperately need you!”

  198. infowarrior1 says:

    @SnapperTrx
    Your wife displays the characteristics of an unbeliever. Paul’s advice on this:

    2To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If a brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

    15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him go. The believing brother or sister is not bound in such cases. God has called youa to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

    1 Corinthians 12:7-16

  199. Cane Caldo says:

    Re: Snappertrx’s Dilemma

    I think it is a mistake to go to the pastors, and it is better to have them come to him. This is especially true if this a small independent church. Generally speaking, pastors gauge their success on how many butts are in the pews and that goes double for independent churches; whether non-denominational, or radically independent like Independent Baptists and others who believe the local church is the sole concern of church leadership.

    -It is easier to defend than it is to attack. Make them approach (“attack”) you.
    -Resolve to crush their viewpoint if approached/attacked. This doesn’t mean to be rude. It means use the overwhelming force and numbers of scripture and tradition. So don’t limit yourself to a argument on female-led worship, but crush their whole worldview wherever it diverts from the Bible; especially diversions from the NT. And it is STRONGLY preferred that you go to battle with a friend and ally.
    -Realize you must either win, or cede the field. A pastor is already in position of leadership and respect. He doesn’t have to crush you. He just can’t allow you to win. As Dalrock said: Have a new church in mind.

    Dalrock’s proposal of directing the conversation to the consequences of women might work, but it could become a stalemate issue. All he has to to is retort that Snappertrx is trying to keep women down, and that is the “real problem”. That is a false argument, but it would probably be enough to stymie a man alone; certainly if he is the one approaching/attacking.

  200. SnapperTrx says:

    I have considered this possibility, but am uncertain how one comes to terms with the realization of such. Additionally, how does one deliver THAT message to one who believes they ARE a believer? Certainly Jesus said “If you love me keep my commandments”, and that tends to make one believe if your not keeping His commandments then you have no love for Him, which mean you are not His, but a huge problem I see with churches nowadays is that none of them are on the same page with regard to what His commandments are! One church teaches one “interpretation” of a scripture while another teaches a different “interpretation” of the same scripture. People can find what they want to hear. My wife believes Paul hated women, and she can find a pastor who will support her in that, thereby causing her to believe she is justified in her belief.

  201. Oscar says:

    @ Cane Caldo says:
    September 23, 2016 at 9:43 am

    “It is easier to defend than it is to attack. Make them approach (“attack”) you.”

    How does one do that?

  202. AnonS says:

    “2To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If a brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

    15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him go. The believing brother or sister is not bound in such cases.”

    So what if the husband decides to move the family. She must agree to move if she is actually willing to live with him or else she would be leaving if she refuses to move. Why not move away from a toxic church?

  203. feeriker says:

    People can find what they want to hear. My wife believes Paul hated women, and she can find a pastor who will support her in that, thereby causing her to believe she is justified in her belief.

    Your dilemma here also lends creedence to the assertion that in any given church, only about five percent of the congregation (ten percent at most) are truly born-again Christ followers who absorb and live the message of the Scriptures. Tragically, too many pastors are part of the 90-95 percent majority.

    Question: are you certain that there are no other men in the congregation that synmpathize with your position? While I don’t doubt for a second that you are a lone and lonely soldier in this situation in a church of such small size (thinking of Gary Cooper in High Noon), it might be a good idea to take one final survey of your brothers to see if there are any possible allies to assist you.

  204. SnapperTrx says:

    It was suggested: “Just pack up your family and stop attending, then allow them to approach you and ask if there is something wrong.”

    This won’t work in my case because my wife will continue to attend regardless of whether or not I tell her not to.

    I am hoping that in meeting with the pastor that I can adequately use my words to draw him into asking me (attacking me) why I feel the need to push this issue. I spent some time as a salesman and am somewhat familiar with tactics that should keep me in a non-aggressive position, allowing me to defend myself while still forcing him to answer to the questions about what scripture says. I don’t know if it will work, but its all I have at this point beyond simply going offensive and telling him he is flat out wrong. That, however, is a recipe for disaster.

  205. Boxer says:

    Good. Then you should be fighting mad about what is being done to the timeless formula of marriage. The damage is already fatal and probably irreversible without violent upheaval.

    So are you educating other women?

    This is true. Konnie should not underestimate the power she has of shaming by example. Nothing seems to make one woman more miserable than to see a happy sister, and little demonstrations of the happiness found in having a functional family with a strong husband will go a very long way.

    At some point, we all have to accept the fact that society is in its present state because of our own apathy. We can blame the degenerate entertainment media and feminism, both of which are problems, but ultimately we choose to let ourselves become atomized. Criticism of the status quo is a very powerful thing, and effective critique is possible without any personal confrontation.

    Keep doing what you’re doing!

  206. SnapperTrx says:

    I could move away from the church to another, but my wife will not follow. In fact, I had, at one time, taken my children to another nearby church where they experienced much growth, but my wife first refused to attend, then grudgingly attended, then stopped attending again. In fact, and this is part of the madness of humanity, I want to say that she decided to stop going because some of the ladies there were arguing AGAINST headship and she didn’t want any part of it.

    Of my three children I can really remove only one. My oldest son is on his second week of Marine boot camp and my oldest daughter typically works Sunday night graveyard shifts, so she hasn’t been attending for some time. My youngest son goes with us to church, but I could easily tell him that we will be doing a study at home for now and he would probably feel better about it.

    I realize that some of this is my own fault, having not had control over my family in the past. Now that I try to get things back in order, however, I find myself facing much opposition from the one person who is supposed to be helping me – my wife. I have a feeling she will not change her mind any time soon.

  207. feeriker says:

    So what if the husband decides to move the family. She must agree to move if she is actually willing to live with him or else she would be leaving if she refuses to move. Why not move away from a toxic church?

    A toxic church is a source of nourishment to a rebellious wife. Think of the wife as a heroin addict and the toxic church as her dealer. A move to a more biblically grounded church robs her of the source of her high and thus she will fight it with all of her being.

  208. SnapperTrx says:

    I am certain. The only other consistent men in the congregation are the pastors father, the head pastor and one other guy who I would consider to be in the position of deacon, but not in official capacity. The other men, of which there are few, are either fairly new believers or not consistent visitors.

    The one who I would consider deacon maybe, just maybe, would side with me on this, but given his more friendly relationship with the pastor I would tend to say no, he wouldn’t.

  209. Boxer says:

    Getting twitter feedback on @dalrock_txt encouraging the community to criticize this fellow. Submitted for review. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O7mW8pMzhk

  210. SnapperTrx says:

    In my case I believe my wife considers herself my spiritual superior and thus feels justified in not following me out of the church. In fact, a move to leave the church could, to her, be an indicator that I am not fit to lead. The fact that in such a small church we are friends with the pastor, his wife, and others in the congregation, makes it that much easier for her to continue to go without my being there, as they will all, no doubt, gather and pray for the redemption of my soul and that I will have my eyes opened to see the truth – that God made no differences between husbands and wives and that, as my spiritual superior, I should seek her guidance until I can prove my worth.

  211. feeriker says:

    I realize that some of this is my own fault, having not had control over my family in the past.

    Don’t beat yourself up over this. The ugly reality is that in this day and age, a man’s control over his family is more limited than it ever has been before, and there’s really nothing he can do about it. Working as hard as you can to follow Christ’s example is about the best you can do. Your rebellious wife WILL be called to answer for what she is doing, in the next life if not in this one.

  212. Cane Caldo says:

    @Oscar

    The usual way is to withdraw. You could also taunt/troll them, but you must be careful to be clear and above all true.

    @Snappertrx

    I could move away from the church to another, but my wife will not follow.

    You can’t control your wife, but you can tell her what to do.

    So you were not a good leader before: So what? You will be now. If you can take one child, that is better than none. Don’t over-estimate your wife’s resolve. Women are rarely as resolved as they seem–especially if they lose clout. And don’t be afraid to tell the other members of the congregation that you are trying to lead your wife, but she won’t listen. Give true and specific examples. No one likes to admit to others that their wife is rebellious, but that is pride. Don’t be afraid of what they think. In the long run, her rebellion will sour her in their mouths.

  213. feeriker says:

    And don’t be afraid to tell the other members of the congregation that you are trying to lead your wife, but she won’t listen. Give true and specific examples. No one likes to admit to others that their wife is rebellious, but that is pride. Don’t be afraid of what they think. In the long run, her rebellion will sour her in their mouths.

    Remember too that most wives are in rebellion to one extent or another – even if their husbands don’t realize it or are loath to admit it. In fact, being open and honest about the rebellion in your own wife just might cause some of your brethren’s eyes to open and make them realize that they have problems even more serious than yours. It might even gain you some new allies!

  214. SnapperTrx says:

    “And don’t be afraid to tell the other members of the congregation that you are trying to lead your wife, but she won’t listen.”

    Not very effective when the congregation, at the instruction of the pastor, believes that a husband must qualify himself to lead by meeting some invisible litmus test, and that failure to meet that test is justification for a wife to be disobedient. Otherwise the first words out of the pastors mouth when presented with the issue my wife brought to him would have been “obey your husband”, not “here, let me equip you with ammunition for rebellion. Oh, and offer support fire.”

  215. Dave says:

    While hierarchy may be considered oppressive and abusive when the man assumes the commanding role, it is actually a great thing when the genders are reversed. A thoroughly emasculated man who claimed to be an ex-Alpha narrated how his wife turned him into a simpering beta, and the women, as usual, celebrated him as “a guy who gets it”.

    See here:
    http://www.rolereboot.org/sex-and-relationships/details/2014-11-25-years-alpha-woman/

  216. Cane Caldo says:

    @Snappertrx

    Not very effective when the congregation, at the instruction of the pastor, believes that a husband must qualify himself to lead by meeting some invisible litmus test, and that failure to meet that test is justification for a wife to be disobedient.

    It’s not very effective in the short term, but it is effective in the long term. Those who take her side at first will see her fruits eventually even if they themselves are like her.

  217. SnapperTrx says:

    I wish I could adequately explain the situation of the church here. When it boils down to it I would say that, technically we really only have eleven core members. More than half of those members are women. Older women who, no doubt, have been more than helpful in assisting my wife in her rebellion. Two of those women are the wives of the pastors, two more are near death in age, one is a consistent member while the other women are floaters who may or may not be there on any given Sunday.

    In the past we had more members and the church did more outreach for the needy. In the past couple of years that has drastically changed. The pastor has stated that he feels we no longer have the presence of the Holy Spirit in the manner we used to, and this whole situation could certainly be part of the reason why that may be the case.

    Under normal circumstances I would say your strategy would be effective, but in this case I do not believe so. It is my honest opinion that, given the age of the current members and the lack of new members, this church will end up very my like my wife’s grandpas – literally dying out as its members literally die.

    There are no young adults in the church beyond my own, and since two of my three are gone, that means one.

  218. Cane Caldo says:

    @Snappertrx

    The pastor has stated that he feels we no longer have the presence of the Holy Spirit in the manner we used to, and this whole situation could certainly be part of the reason why that may be the case.

    Can you grant life to what the Holy Spirit has let die? Let the dead bury the dead and go find the living!

    If the dead follow after you for argument or understanding (what I have called “attack”), then you have the advantage.

  219. Carlotta says:

    Interesting isn’t it? If you work as a nurse for strangers, cook for strangers in a restaurant or teach other people’s children those are heroic career choices. Do any of it for your flesh and blood and you are an oppressed idiot slave.

    That was the first “red pill” for me, when I realized that women were praised for, say, starting a catering company, but shamed for catering to their own nuclear and extended families.

    The same with cubicle work. A woman is praised for submitting to her boss at work, but shamed for submitting to her husband at home.

    The second red pill for me was discovering the “1950s Household Kink.” This is a “kink” where husbands and wives “role play” a 1950s style family dynamic. It’s not “real” of course, it’s just a “kink” – a “kink” they live “24/7.”

    But people are quick to assure, it’s not “real” it’s just “playacting.” Uh-huh.

    I await Pastor Powell beginning to wash everyone’s feet, cleaning their bathrooms and awaiting the instructions of his congregation since rank and headship are so detestable.

    Like the Leviathan state, they want to break down every natural hierarchy because it is in competition with their own. These whores pastors don’t want men as head of their own families, they want to be the heads of everyone else’s families. These “churches” are always one step away from being a bona-fide cults-of-personality, and they finally arrive when the cult leader pastor starts claiming the right to have sex with the wives of the congregations.

    I bet the pastor wouldn’t turn down one of his congregant’s wives cooking dinner for him, and washing up afterward, too.

  220. Boxer says:

    Off Topic

    More submissions from twitter. This false teacher is sorta entertaining.

    2000 years later, much of the Church still has only applied God’s redemption to one gender and relegated women to the ball and chain of the Garden tragedy. The fact is that in the last hundred years, many countries of the world have begun to champion women, giving them places of leadership in politics, in business, in education, and in most every realm of society, while much of the Body of Christ won’t even allow them to be elders in a church of fifty people. We have failed to realize that Jesus founded the Women’s Liberation Movement. He taught women, spoke to them publically, protected them from the religious community and empowered them to minister.

    Much more at…
    http://krisvallotton.com/women-leaders-in-the-church/

  221. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Don’t over-estimate your wife’s resolve. Women are rarely as resolved as they seem…

    Great point.

  222. Boxer says:

    In my case I believe my wife considers herself my spiritual superior and thus feels justified in not following me out of the church. In fact, a move to leave the church could, to her, be an indicator that I am not fit to lead. The fact that in such a small church we are friends with the pastor, his wife, and others in the congregation, makes it that much easier for her to continue to go without my being there, as they will all, no doubt, gather and pray for the redemption of my soul and that I will have my eyes opened to see the truth – that God made no differences between husbands and wives and that, as my spiritual superior, I should seek her guidance until I can prove my worth.

    This is so much worse than I thought it was at first.

    Hoping the best for you, bro.

  223. SnapperTrx says:

    “…in the last hundred years….”

    Yes, and what a fine, FINE example the world has become because of this. Hell, why WOULDNT the church want to follow in the worlds footsteps and let the flood of women take over, transforming the church to match the landscape of the politics, business and education in most every realm of society.

  224. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    And don’t be afraid to tell the other members of the congregation that you are trying to lead your wife, but she won’t listen. Give true and specific examples. No one likes to admit to others that their wife is rebellious, but that is pride. Don’t be afraid of what they think. In the long run, her rebellion will sour her in their mouths.

    You might convince me otherwise, but my own gut feel would be not to do this, at least not now. The reason is his wife’s rebellion is in large part irrelevant from why he is approaching the pastor/preparing to move to another church. If his wife were not rebelling, would this change his decision in any way? The reason he should do this is to protect his family from willful false teaching, and to hopefully help a brother in Christ avoid a very serious error.

    The pastor will desperately want to change the subject to whether or not he is “spiritually mature” enough to be worthy of her submission, and make this about him wanting submission. Allowing the pastor to do this enables the pastor’s own rebellion, because Scripture is quite clear that submission isn’t related to the husband’s spiritual maturity. Enemies of Scripture pretend that 1 Pet 3 means that wives only have to submit to non believing husbands, and that Eph 5 means that wives only have to submit to Christlike husbands. It is nonsense, and I would take this rationalization off the table.

  225. The American Protestant churches are somewhat unique in comparison to to Europe, as they were, in many cases, the only civil society institution. Even the secular people have come around to understanding what we lost due to women in the workplace:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/what-women-lost/500537/

    What America Lost as Women Entered the Workforce

    Civic organizations were built on the voluntary labor of women. As the demands on women’s time increase, communities are suffering.

    Women have long formed collective organizations intended to improve American society. They volunteered their time, waged political campaigns, and advocated for the poor and elderly. They organized voters, patronized the arts, and protested the government. In the years since women’s liberation, this kind of civic engagement has dropped precipitously. The kind of community involvement that has replaced it, where it has been replaced at all, is a weak substitute: When women advocate, it’s often on behalf of their own kids or families. And when they get involved in causes, they tend to cut checks rather than gather in protest. The most vulnerable members of society have lost their best allies—women—partly because those women are too busy working.

    Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone explained the decline of America’s civic institutions decades ago. What you are seeing now is women using the local church as a substitute for their loss of civic institutions. The whores pastors know this, and know they can keep the money rolling in if they provide a cheap substitute.

    If a woman has a family, and spends her free time engaged in a civic institution where she can be useful to the wider community, she won’t be tempted to turn the Church into a pseudo-religious social club – and the snake-oil salesmen pastors would have to get a real job. For American Protestant churches at least, pastor is a one day a week job. That’s why your pimps pastors spend so much time and energy writing books, giving “conferences” and doing videos – so they become the next Oprah Winfrey.

    I knew a pastor that got fired from his church for a sex scandal. He didn’t miss a best – he went right into being a stage magician and a self-help motivational speaker guru. The actual Christianity was just the first gimmick until he moved on to a more lucrative “ministry.”

  226. Anonymous Reader says:

    When it boils down to it I would say that, technically we really only have eleven core members.

    Is that really a church or is it a social club that meets on Sunday?

    The social proof that your wife surely gets from the other hens in the club can’t be good for her or you or your youngest son.

  227. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    You might convince me otherwise, but my own gut feel would be not to do this, at least not now.

    I expressed that thought as something to be done if Snappertrx leaves, and she does not. It’s not a tactic to show the pastor he’s wrong, or that he’s enabling rebellion. You’re right, that won’t work and it misses the point.

    It gets confusing because their are multiple vectors of wrong to address.

    The pastor will desperately want to change the subject to whether or not he is “spiritually mature” enough to be worthy of her submission, and make this about him wanting submission. Allowing the pastor to do this enables the pastor’s own rebellion, because Scripture is quite clear that submission isn’t related to the husband’s spiritual maturity.

    We’d have to know more about the pastor to form a proper strategy. My advice here is meant to be taken as viable options which most Christians eschew on false premises. Men labor under the delusion that men in error are to be immediately and publicly scolded, but women in error are to be suffered in silence. That’s false. Both are false.

  228. RPchristian says:

    @ Boxer

    Re: Getting twitter feedback on @dalrock_txt encouraging the community to criticize this fellow. Submitted for review. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O7mW8pMzhk

    Wow, that is some hardcore diabolic bullshit. Hearing all the women whooping and hollering sent chills up my spine.

  229. RPchristian says:

    My wife showed me this article that has been making the rounds on Facebook in my extended family. Many of my “Christian women” in my family are loving it, and even some of my supposed Christian male friends gave it a thumbs up. No one pushes back of course. Makes me want to get a Facebook account just to fight this garbage.

    http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/09/21/how-i-lost-my-conservatism-without-losing-my-religion/

  230. Boxer says:

    Wow, that is some hardcore diabolic bullshit. Hearing all the women whooping and hollering sent chills up my spine.

    Two thousand years of church fathers, philosophers, philologists and literary theorists were/are all 100% wrong. The text doesn’t mean what it says it means. Only this kooky feminist preacher has the true method of translation.

    Makes total sense.

  231. feeriker says:

    This false teacher is sorta entertaining.

    I got about two-thirds of the way through that first video link (the Bethel church one) and decided that enough was enough. This guy’s personality, body language, tone of voice, and demeanor remind me of several acquaintances and co-workers I’ve dealt with in the past who can be described in just three words “arrogant, ignorant asshole.” Of course that’s sure to make him popular with the women, so it all makes sense.

  232. sipcode says:

    Dalrock , Cane Caldo:

    I agree with CC – about exposing the wife — in many circumstances. This charade has to be smoked out of the church. It will be awkward and ugly but it starts to clean the wound. It will hurt more before it will hurt less. But only do this after repeated and in-depth communications of all kinds by the husband to the wife. Church counsel regarding marriage is effectively lies; I have NEVER seen any pastor or counselor get it biblically right …and I’m in my 60’s and been around church all my life as my father was a pastor and me an elder for 10 yrs.

    I personally played that card and exposed my wife to my extended family. It got to the point that after years of simple discussion with her [really decades as I look back over 37+ yrs of marriage] I said ‘I’m not living this lie in front of others any longer.’ This is after 2-3 years of detailed talk, then a year of putting it in writing, including months of ‘you are leaving me no choice but to air this to those close to us.’ She blew that off several times with ‘I don’t care.’ I gave her the exact words I would use. When I put them in writing for the family she said ‘how could you?’ Well, those words included scriptural reference to rebellion and to nagging … you guessed it: a practicing rebel is a witch [rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft] and a practicing nag is a bitch [many Proverbs]. And everyone said ‘How could you?’ What, tell the truth?

    A year after that with no change [actually worse] I have told her to get her Hell [you read right] out of my house. She won’t leave, which is hard …but OK [she’s my wife and I love her – it’s been 18 months since then]. I’m not leaving like most men do [the thought never occurred to me]. This is my house and my assets to be responsible for even though man’s laws say otherwise. I am not going wandering. She is the whore.

    You got that right: she is a whore. And the church has a Spirit of Harlotry that feeds her. I read Hosea and said ‘That’s me!” In all this I’m learning a ton about the church and about God at the same time. And God is getting ready to blow this whole God damned [that is what it is] mess up. He is calling in His loans and women will have to pay big time. Their harlotry toward husband, to men in general, and to God is an incredibly large prostitution ring. [No men; we do not get off scott free. We have sinned in a different way; keep your heart humble]
    Essentially every husband has had some level of Hosea experience. Thanks, Dalrock for setting this venue up, and all those that comment. God is now breathing life over the dry bones of men and they will rise into His great army as church persecution takes hold of us.

    And …most everyone in my family involved in this has been challenged to see God and are maturing in their own way. I’ve really been challenging them with unconventional wisdom [alias Biblical wisdom]. Their jaws have dropped with what scripture really says – after blindly believing the fables of the church – but I can tell it is sinking in …to all but my wife. She has to desire to submit, not simply compelled. Ouch. Not my will but Thine be done Lord.

  233. RichardP says:

    @ Snapper: “My wife believes Paul hated women …”

    Which is why I prefer to focus on Genesis 2:18.

    God created one to be helped, and he created a help, and he made clear which was which.

    The helped gives requests and the help carries them out. That creates the heirarchy between husband and wife right there. No one can argue that this is part of “the curse” and is no longer relevant. No one can argue that it is an arrangement created by a human who hates women. For one who believes that God is our creator, this verse tells us what he created us to be: a help, and the helped. To argue against that is only to argue against God, no one else.

    By focusing solely on Genesis 2:18, one can keep the debate focused on “this is how God created the world to be; if you insist that you accept God’s claim on your life, then you cannot deny that this is one of his claims”. This approach avoids getting sidetracked onto all the other baloney issues.
    ——————-

    All can see what the Bible says. Not all agree on what it means. Which is one of the reasons why we have so many denominations world-wide. See my comment to Gunner next, where I point out that the Bible calls each one of us individually to salvation. Since we don’t all have the same understanding of what the Bible means, we are not all going to agree on what salvation means. As I said on your blog, all we can do is humbly present the word. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit. You will not find a woman anywhere in the world where this truth is any different than it is with your current wife.

    Note that the Bible says that God walked and talked with Adam AND Eve in the cool
    of the evening. Eve heard first-hand from God. Not your pastor. God. And she still
    did what she did. Be careful about expecting to find a help better than the one Adam’s
    father gave to Adam.

    We are called to be the salt of the earth, the light to the world (Matt. 5:13-16). How can we be either if we withdraw from the earth / world?

    @ Gunner: “The husband has … total responsibility.”

    You are wrong on at least three counts here:

    1. The husband is not responsible for his wife’s salvation. She alone is. The husband cannot respond to the Holy Spirit’s call to repentance on behalf of his wife. She must respond herself. And she must respond on her own to the call to educate herself about God’s requirements that are found in God’s word (You can teach her, but she alone is responsible for whether she listens and learns).

    2 Corinthians 5:10 states we must all, individually, give account for what we have done, whether good or bad. When a wife stands before the Judgement Seat and says “I sinned because my husband made me do it”, God is not going to answer, “Oh, OK then. Enter this day into the joy of the Lord”.

    3. The Bible tells wives / mothers, and well as husbands / fathers, to bring their children up in the fear of the Lord (paraphrased). The husband / father does not have “total responsibility” for doing this.

  234. Oscar says:

    Dudes, this is great stuff.

    http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/09/12/when-christianity-was-muscular/

    Here are just a few quotes.

    “There is not enough of effort, of struggle, in the typical church life of today to win young men to the church. A flowery bed of ease does not appeal to a fellow who has any manhood in him. The prevailing religion is too comfortable to attract young men who love the heroic.” –Josiah Strong, The Times and Young Men (1901)

    “No church today is fully alive to its mission that has not in connection with it some kind of men’s organization, call it Club, League, Brotherhood, or what you will… Churches forced men to listen to ministers whom they might not respect; lodges offered men the chance to talk freely, and on timely subjects. Churches assigned men committee work that belittles their manhood; lodges undertook ‘weighty’ charity work and assigned men to ‘important’ positions. Church religion was too otherworldly and feminized; lodge religion was ‘practical’ and fit ‘the legitimate demands of a man’s religious nature.’” –William Scott, “Men in the Church” (1909)

    “Our [Brotherhood of Saint Andrew, Chicago Chapter, 1903] seats are full, and any Sunday morning may be seen forty to fifty men sitting together in a solid phalanx, four or five to a pew, worshipping God and singing His praise, shoulder to shoulder.”

    It’s part of The Art of Manliness’s series on Christianity and masculinity. If you haven’t already, please take the time to read the previous installments.

    http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/08/01/christianitys-manhood-problem-an-introduction/

    http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/08/08/is-christianity-an-inherently-feminine-religion/

    http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/08/22/the-feminization-of-christianity/

  235. anna26 says:

    I have a hard time trying to figure out what on earth are feminists talking about. I don’t mind the hierarchy for a second. It does nothing but give me privileges. This is a NON PROBLEM!

  236. SnapperTrx says:

    Matthew 18:

    20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

  237. SnapperTrx says:

    Yes, well, I don’t quite understand how ANY Christian, believing that scripture is God breathed (which is to say Gods words/heart transcribed by man) can look at Paul and say “well that guy just hated women”. If indeed they are Gods heart, written down by Paul then you have called God a hater of women! He who created women and instructed husbands to love wives as Christ loves the church! I cant even begin to wrap my mind around how that is supposed to work! Whether Genesis 2:18 or not, ALL scripture is God breathed!

  238. BubbaCluck says:

    Wow, that is some hardcore diabolic bullshit. Hearing all the women whooping and hollering sent chills up my spine.

    I was warned over a year ago by my nephew and his wife [yes, both of them!] to be very careful with the teachings from Bethel Church in Redding. They seem to put an emphasis on the Holy Spirit and the prophetic. Reading just that post above from Mr. Vallotton was upsetting. It really gives me the creeps wondering what “spirit” he is listening to.

  239. SnapperTrx says:

    I was, at one time, considering starting a men’s bible study group that would also consist of some type of physical activity such as swordplay or something similar. Not only does the physical aspect help men to keep in shape, but it also has the unique benefit of creating a strong, brotherly bond. I mean, its one thing to sit in a room and read with another guy, its another thing when you pit yourselves against one another in friendly competition and training, much like the bond you see soldiers forming. They don’t just sit around and talk about tactics, they are out performing those tactics, ribbing each other over dumb mistakes and pointing out where improvement could be made. I never got around to looking into finding someone who could teach us how to use swords though. Maybe the local Scottish Society? I started making wooden swords a few years ago for young men/boys. I felt they needed something to spur them into getting outside and away from all the video games and movies, and what better way than to put a sword in their hands! To date, however, I have only sold a few, but continue to make them. I considering just giving them away. When I sit at the park I can see little boys eyes light up when the see them, but their parents don’t often stop to buy.

    I got off track, but, all this to say, I can certainly see where the natural setting of men being men and not confined by church codes would have been beneficial.

  240. feeriker says:

    @sipcode

    And …most everyone in my family involved in this has been challenged to see God and are maturing in their own way. I’ve really been challenging them with unconventional wisdom [alias Biblical wisdom]. Their jaws have dropped with what scripture really says – after blindly believing the fables of the church – but I can tell it is sinking in …to all but my wife.

    Your family is certainly not unique.

    What does it say about the state of church and its REAL regard for the Bible that people who have been attending church all of their lives are “dropping their jaws” at what the Bible HAS ALWAYS SAID, IN PLAIN BLACK PRINT, FOR ANYONE WHO TAKES THE TIME TO READ IT AND ENGAGES THEIR HEART AND BRAIN TO COMPREHEND IT?

    Going into broken-record mode again, this gets back to the whole churchian Book-of-the-Month-Club-offering over the Bible thing.

    Just plain sickening and pathetic.

    @SnapperTrx

    Yes, well, I don’t quite understand how ANY Christian, believing that scripture is God breathed (which is to say Gods words/heart transcribed by man) can look at Paul and say “well that guy just hated women”. If indeed they are Gods heart, written down by Paul then you have called God a hater of women!

    They are calling God a hater of women, as well as calling Paul a misogynist fraud. It’s obvious that they neither respect, love, or fear God, nor do they have any intention of either seriously absorbing or abiding by His commandments. They’re just like the apostate Israelites of the Old Testament, except that their god is Modernism, represented in idol form by Woman.

    Again, what’s even more sickening than their hypocritical blasphemy is their inability to just be HONEST about what is so obvious to anyone paying any attention.

  241. Boxer says:

    Dear Bubba Cluck:

    I was warned over a year ago by my nephew and his wife [yes, both of them!] to be very careful with the teachings from Bethel Church in Redding. They seem to put an emphasis on the Holy Spirit and the prophetic. Reading just that post above from Mr. Vallotton was upsetting. It really gives me the creeps wondering what “spirit” he is listening to.

    Guess what? Preacher Vallotton is on twitter!

    Hopefully he’ll make time to stop by and school us all on how every last church father and philosopher has interpreted the NT wrong, until he graced the world with his inerrant word. Should be fun!

    Regards,

    Boxer

  242. RichardP says:

    Rather than clutter this thread, I will link to two places where I am talking with Snapper. Our comments there are directly related to the larger subject being discussed in this thread. But a point that I make to Snapper there I will briefly make here also, because it is important.

    When 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “all scripture is God-breathed” – the only Scriptures in existance at that point were the Jewish scriptures stored in the Temple. The New Testament would not be assembled for a few hundred more years. All that existed at that time were the various letters that the new church leaders were writing to the various churches. These letters at that time were not widely available to all. And Paul makes reference to letters that have been lost to history (unless they are in the vaults at the Vatican) and are still not available to anyone. At 60-90 A.D., when 2 Timothy 3:16 was written, these letters and other writings were not viewed as “scripture” in the way that the Jewish writings in the Temple were. All scripture may be God-breathed. But upon what standard do we base our decision that a given writing is scripture beyond doubt? It is not the writing that is the problem. It is the process by which we decide what that writing is that is the problem.

    Who got to decide what was included in the New Testament, and why did they choose as they did? It is from this perspective that folks make arguments against Paul and the patriarchy of the Church. They are arguing that folks had a hidden agenda that led them to present as “God breathed” writings that were not covered by 2 Timothy 3:16. And, for the most part, they are correct to focus on those folks rather than on 2 Timothy 3:16. It is from the study of how the New Testament was assembled (what was included, what was left out) that we need to form our belief that the New Testament is “God breathed”, not 2 Timothy 3:16. Because, depending on whom you believe, much of what became the New Testament wasn’t written when those words were written down. For many church folks, if you argue for Paul without addressing the issue presented in this paragraph, you won’t be taken seriously.

    Thought experiment: where Paul says “this is me speaking, not the Lord” – do we really want to claim that that statement was “God breathed”. That Paul couldn’t have said those words without the Lord providing them to him? I think those statements by Paul are at least some things in the New Testament that we can’t claim are “God breathed”. Anyway, here are the links. See my comments there.

    https://blendingame.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/standard-or-double-standard/
    https://rgdev.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/a-call-for-prayer/

  243. Anonymous Reader says:

    SnapperTX

    20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

    It’s not the size of the church although that is surely a factor, it’s the social situation. A church that consists of your wife, a handful of older women and the pastor’s wife, plus you, the pastor and one other man — is it a church or a social club that meets on Sunday?

    Put it another way: you and the pastor and the other man/men are engaged in church, are the women also? Or are they just having a Sunday social club? See how this fits in with your report of contentiousness?

  244. RichardP says:

    For the sake of those who won’t go to the links I provided, I’m going to double-post this here (comes from the second link). This provides the rationale for many of the comments that I make.

    @Snapper says (at his blog): “… there is also the issue of allowing women to take positions in the church they are prohibited from taking.”

    Helping someone can involve instructing someone how to do something that they don’t know how to do. So the help CAN give instructions to the helped. And if the helped is to be helped, he would do well to receive that instruction. But, in the larger sense, the dynamic between the helped and the help is that the helped gives instructions and the help receives them. You really need to see that all of Paul’s comments on this issue are building on Genesis 2:18 – they are not placing a new requirement on husbands and wives that had not existed before. Within the Church, except for special circumstances, generally the helped are to give the instruction and the help is to receive the instruction. Not the reverse. This is what creates the male-led heirarchy in the Church. And it is based firmly on Genesis 2:18. So both of the issues (rebellious wife; women in church leadership positions) you raise in this thread can be dealt with according to what Gensis 2:18 says.

  245. Gunner Q says:

    “They seem to put an emphasis on the Holy Spirit and the prophetic…”

    Yeah, Charismatics are weird and so open-minded, their brains fell out long ago. But it isn’t a reliable indicator of occult behavior. Remember the devil left Heaven with 1/3 of the angels, meaning he’s outnumbered 2:1 with no foothold among the loyalists. He doesn’t have the manpower to possess people when a simple deception will get the job done.

    For the curious/nervous, the most common indicators of actual occult involvement in a church are open sexual perversion and denial of Christ as God & Savior. Simple stuff, common sense.

  246. SnapperTrx says:

    Perhaps I didn’t explain properly. I say “core group” as in the people in whom you can rely on being there on a Sunday night. The others float in and out, but it is 99% always going to be this “core group” + some others.

    Though there is some social time before the service (ie: dinner is served from 6-630 in the kitchen) we have time for worship, praise, learning and prayer. After service there is typically quite a bit of socializing before we all head home.

    No doubt my wife has been contentious, and no doubt the beliefs of the other women in this core group have attributed to it.

  247. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Gunner Q said [September 23, 2016 at 4:31 pm]:

    “[…] For the curious/nervous, the most common indicators of actual occult involvement in a church are open sexual perversion and denial of Christ as God & Savior. […]”

    Well, so much for the Church of England (in England), then. :^(

  248. SnapperTrx says:

    Woah!

    – When Mom is a regular churchgoer but Dad attends infrequently (or never), just 2 to 3 percent of their kids go on to become regular churchgoers.
    – When both Mom and Dad attend church regularly, 33 percent of kids grow up as regular attendees.
    – Here’s the shocker: when Dad is faithful but Mom never attends, 44 percent of the kids end up as regular churchgoers. This is the highest outcome of any scenario.

  249. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer says:
    September 23, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    “Guess what? Preacher Vallotton is on twitter!”

    Did he just plagiarize a fortune cookie?

    @ SnapperTrx says:
    September 23, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    “Woah!”

    Kind of encouraging and discouraging simultaneously, isn’t it?

  250. SnapperTrx says:

    Well it certainly gives new light to the ancient practice of “men only” in the temple.

  251. iamadamalan says:

    The stats are worse than that. If neither parent attends 4% of children become regular church attenders. If just the mother attends but the father not, the result is worse: 2%.

  252. feeriker says:

    Hopefully he’ll make time to stop by and school us all on how every last church father and philosopher has interpreted the NT wrong, until he graced the world with his inerrant word. Should be fun!

    We should be so fortunate.

    “Pastor” Vallotton is very likely cut from the same bolt of thin, flimsy cloth as Samantha Powell: all fire and thunder and all-powerful when in the AMOG seat in front of a roomful of people he controls and who gobble up his every word in unquestioning and unthinking eagerness as unassailable truth. However, put him in a venue where he will be challenged in his assertions and he knows that he’ll be turned into a naked eunuch. Needless to say, he isn’t about to risk that.

    If it isn’t already the case now, I have a feeling that very soon this site will gain a reputation among pedestalizing pastorbators that will instill in them the same fear that an invitation to visit the Lubyanka gave to Muskovites during the Stalin era.

  253. Boxer says:

    If it isn’t already the case now, I have a feeling that very soon this site will gain a reputation among pedestalizing pastorbators that will instill in them the same fear that an invitation to visit the Lubyanka gave to Muskovites during the Stalin era.

    That’s exactly what needs to happen.

    This comment section (at least right now) has all the trappings of a serious department of theology, where all the scholars work for free. The only problem is publishing and publicizing the good work y’all do, to give hope to the faithful, and to strike fear in the hearts of the grifters.

  254. Anon says:

    This comment section (at least right now) has all the trappings of a serious department of theology, where all the scholars work for free.

    The makings of an extremely virtuous (and financially lucrative) megachurch are completely contained within this blog and its comments. Mega-gatherings, TV channel, books, everything.

    It is there for the taking by anyone who a) is willing to use his real name b) knows all the Biblical material c) is a good entrepreneur.

  255. infowarrior1 says:

    @Anon
    How about just sticking with the confessional protestants like the PCA. The reformed churches that stayed true to the creeds of old to hold scripture as supreme and never faltering.

    God’s Kingdom is not about any man’s personal empire.

  256. infowarrior1 says:

    @SnapperTrx

    Just so you know:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_in_America

    Check if this church is in your area.

  257. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Snapper, from what I remember women were were allowed in the Temple. The women section was the way you walked in to Ezrat Israel. There was no other entrance. And the women’ section was very large. then there was a part 15 yards (amot) in width for the men’s section. Very small. Then the main area was only for priests. No one else was allowed. In any case there was no preaching by anyone.There were two burnt offerings one to start out the day and one to end the day.

  258. mrteebs says:

    If hierarchy is so bad, why does it exist in the Godhead? (1 Cor 11:3)
    In pre-fall angelic ranks? (Rev 12:7-9)

  259. mrteebs says:

    I worked at what we shall refer to as EvilCorp for about 10 years when teams without bosses and matrix organizations were all the rage. Translation: the strongest (invariably female) personality in the room could dominate without having to carry the official title of “boss” – but don’t dare make the mistake of ever speaking the truth and calling them “bossy” – it’s so sexist.

    Worked exactly like most marriages. All the privileges and none of the responsibilities.

  260. Jeff says:

    Snapper,

    I agree with Dalrock. I have been through exactly what you are going through. My inclination was to just stay home. Like I mentioned, I do a home study 2x/wk with my wife and kids. The original church that exploded had one pastor having an affair, the head pastor was greedy and got let go eventually divorcing and selling ins. 2nd church the pastors oldest committed suicide, the 3rd we found out the pastor had an affair (decent teaching). 4th the pastors are liberal cucks, 5th that we just left is Macarthurites who can do no wrong, even confronted with scripture.

    I would be inclined to continue to pound 1 p 3:1-6 on her. There is a reason that God wrote that before 1 p 3:7-11. Also eph 5 is in order as well. Wife to respect then husbands love your wives.

    Why bother convincing a pastor steeped in wrong beliefs? If you can find something negative about him that your wife has brought up at some point and add to it slightly and build her lack of confidence in him/them you will be on your way. Most women neg something on everyone.

    Like CC said her resolve is not as strong as you think. I found this out after 19 years if marriage. Finding the chink in their armor isnt hard and goes a long ways

  261. Pingback: They hate everything that God calls blessed | Christianity and masculinity

  262. sipcode says:

    I’ve seen several references to Paul ‘hating’ women and God ‘hating’ women. BOTH ARE TRUE. And the recent PC term “hate speech” nails it exactly. Those Libs and Fems actually get it. It is “hate” in the sense of ‘opposed to God’ and ‘foe of God’ and also in the sense of ‘not favored’ or ‘loved less.’

    What does Rom 9:13 and Malachi 1:3 mean about “Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated”?

    First we have to learn the language of God [and drop the language of man]. There are only 2 kinds of hate: righteous/godly vs. unrighteous/ungodly. One is God’s way, the other is any other way but God’s. A loving God hates some things. God hated Esau righteously. Esau hated unrighteously [hated God: Gen 27:41], by hating Jacob for his special blessing from his father, and thereafter plotting to kill Jacob for that blessing and birthright. This is what has and is happening with women. They hate God for giving the birthright to men and have been killing and plotting to kill men across all time, starting with Eve killing Adam.

    God has chosen some to honor and some to dishonor. I suggest this goes beyond His selection of ‘elect’ and those that are not ‘elect’ and a subset, if you will, within the elect. God has chosen some for higher positions and some for lower. Looking at Strong’s for the word ‘hated’ in the Romans/Malichi scriptures: #s 3404G ‘miseo’/ 8130H ‘sane’ include not only ‘opposed to God’ but ‘to love less.’ I suggest that means that God has simply placed them in different or higher/lower position for His reasons. So in that sense I believe Paul [as God’s voice] and God ‘hate’ women. Unrighteousness arises when women [and others] hate God back with #2319G ‘theostugis’ = “impious, hater of God” [as in Rom 1:30] as opposed to His righteous [for reasons we do not know] plan. It is no small matter that the Hebrew word for the hate of Esau in Gen 27:41 is #7852 “satam” meaning ‘to lurk and persecute,” is closely related to the Hebrew #7853 “satan” meaning “attack or accuse.” That is certainly what Satan did in the Garden: he lurked around looking to attack and to accuse and persecute God. And I can think of no better way to describe what the woman has done to man and God.

    Now this is very heavy for a church that has bought and sold Christ as Savior and not as Lord, and that His Grace has dropped the Law and the Prophets. God reserves the right to do what He wants and it is all good: elect/not elect, men as leaders/women as followers, etc. Stop drinking milk and get over it. Get mature. Get God.

    And …good thing His word is ever repetitive to remind us that He is very quick to forgive those that surrender to Him and keep His commandments. That said, I point all, but especially women to Hosea2:16 “And it will be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi, and shalt call me no more Baali.” Strong’s: ‘Balli’ #1180H means “Jehovah, master”; and Ishi #376H means “man, husband.” In other words: when we surrender to Him, God goes from being a threat as Lord to being ‘one’ with us as husband, a non-threatening man. Same with a wife; when she surrenders to her husband, he goes from being a threat – her lord, as Sarah said — to being an intimate and nonthreatening husband. IT IS ALL IN THE PERSPECTIVE [the heart] OF THE ONE WHO MUST SURRENDER. Surrendered or resistant, which will it be? We all must ask that.

    And, if it is still irritating you: women come to the ‘level’ of men at resurrection when ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female.’ But only then.

    Parting thoughts: Men have not been reading the Bible for themselves. That does not mean they now become loners in the Word. Iron must sharpen iron, like in this blog. Part of what will help the foundational understanding of marriage [and God! – His language] is:

    1) Scripture never says that Adam transgressed in the Garden; that he knowingly ate of the fruit
    2) Scripture never says that the woman was MADE in the image of God
    3) Scripture was written to men for them to exhort, reprove, etc. themselves, wives, and children.
    4) Marriage is fundamentally about the man just like it is with Christ and the church; it is fundamentally about Christ
    5) Men glorify God [‘lifting up holy hands 1Tim2:8]; women glorify men
    6) The church with the steeple is history; it is dead and effectively over [even though the building is standing]
    7) The church is now individual men studying and meditating on God’s word for themselves, then being sharpened by the Holy Spirit and other men seeking God, all to build up their individual families to withstand the coming persecution. The day of the traditional pastor is over.

    May His truth be revealed to men and lies promoted as ‘Him’ fall by the wayside. Jesus, have Your way.

  263. feeriker says:

    sipcode says:
    September 24, 2016 at 11:34 am

    Amen! Powerful words, brother!

  264. Anonymous Reader says:

    Just as an aside, I see that the average attendance in Joel Osteen’s church is 52,000. That’s not per year, that’s each week, the biggest megachurch in the US.

  265. Lost Patrol says:

    That’s a crazy big number! Is there a stadium or something?

    I don’t know too much about Osteen’s church, but there is not necessarily strength in numbers.

    Matthew 7: 13“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14“For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

  266. BubbaCluck says:

    They purchased the old Houston Rockets arena and renovated. It’s pretty big.

  267. Gunner Q says:

    “If it isn’t already the case now, I have a feeling that very soon this site will gain a reputation among pedestalizing pastorbators that will instill in them the same fear that an invitation to visit the Lubyanka gave to Muskovites during the Stalin era.”

    Next up: In-person 4am visits. “Pastor, I have a few questions about your recent Mother’s Day sermon…”

    “Can’t this wait until dawn?”

    “No, I’m burning witches at dawn.”

  268. feeriker says:

    Just as an aside, I see that the average attendance in Joel Osteen’s church is 52,000. That’s not per year, that’s each week, the biggest megachurch in the US.

    Great are the numbers of those whom Satan’s servants deceive.

  269. Isabelle says:

    Another masonic charlatan disguised as “Christian ” whose teachings are spreading very fast all around the Western world ..
    How many are there today ? Christian bookshops are saturated with such emasculating teachings that dishonors men as the glory of God.
    As a woman , I find those teachings to be horrifying . The very idea of being “served” is such a turn off to me (and many women actually ).
    The church serves Christ , it is not Christ who serves his church !!
    Christ guides and instructs his church but does not “serve” it.
    In Israel , the people was encouraged to Serve the LORD with joy . Nowhere is it written that the Lord served his people !

    Since Satan cannot attack God /Christ , he attacks men . He is after men like maybe never before.

  270. infowarrior1 says:

    Existence of opinion does not deny orthodoxy, nor does it deny the existence of RIGHT opinion. That his wife can find someone to affirm her rubbish simply means she’s finding someone to appeal to her itching ears. And if she thinks Paul hated women, then she really is unsaved.

  271. sipcode says:

    Isabelle says:

    September 24, 2016 at 4:26 pm

    “The church serves Christ , it is not Christ who serves his church !! Christ guides and instructs his church but does not “serve” it. In Israel , the people was encouraged to Serve the LORD with joy . Nowhere is it written that the Lord served his people! Since Satan cannot attack God /Christ , he attacks men . He is after men like maybe never before.”

    Very refreshing to see a woman get this. Thank you, Isabelle.

    Man is attacked because he was made in the image of God to have dominion, at God’s command to him, over what God created. Scripture never says the woman was created in His image. And, as Isabelle also notes, men glorify God — the reason for their emasculation.

    Slowly, the Word is getting out …..!

  272. Original Laura says:

    Many thanks to Dalrock for fixing my problem, and many thanks as well to Anon Reader for calling Dalrock’s attention to it!

  273. will says:

    It is assumed that men will die for the women, but has no ‘priviliges’ and they are ‘equals’. For kicks I am currently looking for a long term to marriage gf on a site called ‘seeking arrangement’ where I read princesses talk about how they want ‘real men’ AKA money with no effort but their bodies breathing. There are more young (18-30) women there than I have seen ANYWHERE on any other other site on the web we’re talking nurses, nursing students, stewardesses you name it. Is it wrong that I enjoy offering a stable future with a woman who wants the convenience of glorified prostitution knowing 99/100 see nothing wrong with taking modern marriage to the next stage?

  274. Pingback: Service is not submission | Christianity and masculinity

  275. SnapperTrx says:

    I spoke with both the pastors last night (Monday), and have posted on my blog a brief synopsis of what was discussed.

    Overall it was as expected, everyone trying to talk over one another, but in the end they said I was concentrating on words and scriptures without understanding their cultural relevance or their true meaning. We agreed to pray some more and maybe meet again. Though I did not walk away from the church, I have had some time to think over some of their questions and statements and I don’t see myself staying there for much longer.

    Anyhow, you can check out the post on my blog if your interested. I tried to keep it clean and tight, but Ill answer any questions about things I can remember in the comments. Thanks everyone for your input.

  276. Lyn87 says:

    “Cultural relevance”

    If there is anything less relevant than “culture” in deciding whether one should obey the clear teaching of scripture, I’m not sure what that would be.

  277. feeriker says:

    If there is anything less relevant than “culture” in deciding whether one should obey the clear teaching of scripture, I’m not sure what that would be.

    EXACTLY.

    @SnapperTrx:

    Bless you, brother, for having moved forward with this. You might feel somewhat “battered and defeated” at the moment, but remember this: you are probably the VERY FIRST man to have ever directly challenged these guys and their way of thinking. Whether they respond positively to your points or not, you have sown seeds of food for thought and prayer. They may not like or agree with what you’ve said, but they CANNOT “unhear” it!

  278. Oscar says:

    Lyn,

    Feelings would be less relevant.

  279. Lyn87 says:

    Oscar,

    I thought about that, but had to take Philippians 2:13 into account, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

    (Not that ANY reason to obey the clear teaching of scripture is relevant, of course, but a Christian should feel the desire to do what he thinks God wills him to do.)

    If someone “feels” like doing something in violation of a scriptural command or prohibition, theoretically that can be solved by simply showing him where scripture says otherwise, but if someone rejects scripture because he consciously considers “cultural norms” to be more important than what scripture clearly says, there’s nothing solid to base one’s counter-argument upon that he will accept, since cultural norms differ over time and space.

  280. SnapperTrx:

    What’s ironic? My pastor said the same thing (NT verses about a wife’s submission and female leadership in church were all because of “culture”) and we are from the Far East.

  281. infowarrior1 says:

    @chokingonredpills

    Heretical apostate ”Christians” spreading a false gospel it looks like in the Far East as well. Tares among the wheat.

  282. sipcode says:

    SnapperTrx, etal:

    Classic Post-modernism church 1) ‘there is no truth’ [alias ‘I want my way whenever it suits me] 2) God was not powerful enough to see that culture was going to change and have some of His word ready for that new culture [so we had to create a new ‘Word’ for the situation] 3) God, as the Word, is NOT “the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

    Bless you SnapperTrx, for “Blessed are those that are persecuted for righteousness sake” for YOURS is the kingdom of Heaven. THEIRS is the pit of Hell …and Satan is their father.

    Continue remaining unmoved, firmly affixed to “THE ROCK OF OFFENSE.” Glory to God on High !

  283. sipcode says:

    “If you are not catching flack, you are not over the target.”

    Frankly, in today’s church ……if we are NOT regularly offending people who call themselves Christians, we are NOT preaching the “simplicity that is Jesus.”

  284. GetItGoing says:

    This Sam Powell guy has all the signs of an SJW, and I wouldn’t say that unless I’m pretty sure.

    I left a rather neutral comment at his site (with the exception of mentioning his banning the first poster earlier) in which I asked “Why would a man want to sign up for this kind of deal” and stated how the west is slipping away, pushed further by anti-male agendas by the same men claiming to speak for the scripture, as was in the article. I anticipate he won’t post my reply.

    There was quite a bit of SJW misrepresentation of the manosphere there, claiming red-pill men are into abusing women and other terrible things. That is a sign of the SJW dysfunctional mind and propaganda: lie about one group’s beliefs, make an extreme claim in order to create a “boogeyman” and deem the other side evil while attempting to portray yourself morally superior and justify your ideology, etc.

    These types are a menace to society (pushing a destructive ideology) along with being holier-than-though, condescending, and attempting to censor dissent.

    Guys like this honestly need to be called out in real life, face to face, and possibly worse. They fear reprisal from real men and will not change until backed into a corner in the real world. They are keyboard warriors, and will not, and cannot, face masculine men who aren’t beta bitches. I find such “men” infuriating, and always enjoy taking them down a notch or two.

    My $.02.

    Thanks for calling out this Powell guy, Dalrock. I always enjoy reading your material and yet unfortunately find it depressing to know what’s going on. But at least I know what to beware of now.

  285. SnapperTrx says:

    The whole thing I find odd about the situation is that this church is so small the pastors really have nothing to gain from this kind of mentality. I mean, during the evening service there are typically around 6-10 ladies, all of them in their 40s or older. Unless both pastors are both henpecked husbands I don’t see what it benefits them to hold this line of thinking. I know for sure the head pastor is whipped, as his wife is always talking about the work she has for him around the house and such. The guy gets up at 3am every morning to go drive a truck hauling asphalt all over the county, gets home 3-6 every day and his wife likes to make him lists of housework he has to do when he gets home. The assistant pastor, however, isn’t like that at all. As I said in my blog post, he used to be a stone-cold thug. Selling drugs, getting in fights, run ins with the law. He has cleaned up a lot since those days, but still a guy that, if you didn’t know him, you would want to avoid him on the street. Head shaved, covered in tats, not ripped, but he lifts and it shows.

    This whole thing has me thrown for a loop. I mean, I don’t think I can stay at the church if they are blatantly disregarding scripture that you need to bend and twist to reach the conclusion they are reaching, but I’m lost as to why it’s so important for such a tiny church to prop women up in such a manner.

  286. BillyS says:

    Looks like I missed most of the conversation, but a few comments:

    No one can argue that this is part of “the curse” and is no longer relevant.

    People, including Christians, will argue for all kinds of foolishness. They remain human.

    “They seem to put an emphasis on the Holy Spirit and the prophetic…”

    Yeah, Charismatics are weird and so open-minded, their brains fell out long ago. But it isn’t a reliable indicator of occult behavior. Remember the devil left Heaven with 1/3 of the angels, meaning he’s outnumbered 2:1 with no foothold among the loyalists. He doesn’t have the manpower to possess people when a simple deception will get the job done.

    For the curious/nervous, the most common indicators of actual occult involvement in a church are open sexual perversion and denial of Christ as God & Savior. Simple stuff, common sense.

    I guess I lost my brain a long time ago based on this claim. Funny I missed that.

    A belief that God still moves and that the Gifts of the Spirit did not pass away does not make one accept the modern perversion of much of the Scriptures. I rely on God to personally move in my life and have participated in many of the practices you would decry.

    Since when did your brain become the only thing you rely on?

    You would have to make the Biblical case better for those things being gone than just your own assertion and guilt by association. Plenty of cessationists are whacked on male-female stuff.

  287. BillyS says:

    SnapperTx,

    I believe many pastors with the background of your assistant pastor feel guilty about their past actions, so accept lunacy in this area.

    sipcode,

    Frankly, in today’s church ……if we are NOT regularly offending people who call themselves Christians, we are NOT preaching the “simplicity that is Jesus.”

    We should regularly challenge people, but offending those in the Church is not a regular requirement. Please cite the Scriptural support, if you have it, for that claim. (Offending those in the church, not those outside.)

  288. 2 Peter 2:1
    But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

    Revelation 2:18-23
    18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
    19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
    20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
    21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
    22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
    23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

    “You Go Grrl” culture and Feminism that teaches that fornication is not a sin when women do it, but is “empowerment,” brought into the church, brings the very wrath of Christ Himself.

    Any teaching that denies the Lord comes from a false prophet or a false teacher. If they’re saying that God didn’t mean what He said because it’s not fair or politically correct, is damnable. Any who follow it will end in destruction. The end.

  289. Feminist Hater says:

    Billy, can you read a little further? The offense comes from keeping to Scripture, not in trying to give offense. Are you offending by that?

  290. Feminist Hater says:

    I rely on God to personally move in my life and have participated in many of the practices you would decry.

    Such as? What are you trying to say? Be a little more specific.

  291. feeriker says:

    I know for sure the head pastor is whipped, as his wife is always talking about the work she has for him around the house and such. The guy gets up at 3am every morning to go drive a truck hauling asphalt all over the county, gets home 3-6 every day and his wife likes to make him lists of housework he has to do when he gets home.

    This might be a huge part of the problem right there. It’s also not at all unusual either. As I pointed out in a post on Dalrock’s latest thread, more and more pastors’ wives are attempting to claim “co-ruler” credit within Protestant churches today, espdcially evangelical ones. This, to me, is indicative of the fact that the typical pastor’s wife is a rebellious, loud, controlling type who is the polar opposite of the Scriptural perscription for what a Christ-following wife should be. If pastors can’t be discerning enough to choose Godly wives for themselves, then it’s no wonder that the failure has become systemic. This also further explains the scarcity of Titus 2 wives in today’s church. If the wife of the flock leader is as bad as any non-believing woman, then what model or incentive is there for any older women in the congregation to set an example?

  292. BillyS says:

    FH,

    Billy, can you read a little further? The offense comes from keeping to Scripture, not in trying to give offense. Are you offending by that?

    I quoted the statement. I have seen several groups over the years that claimed causing offense was a good goal. I take issue with that because it is foolish. Preaching the Word and letting offense happen is fine, but preaching the Word should not cause offense in most churches. It may not because of the false teaching the abounds, but it should not.

    As to the Holy Spirit and prophecy: I am a tongue talking Spirit-filled believer and have prophesied in the past (see I Cor). None of that requires accepting the feminist imperative and such. I would definitely be considered charismatic, though I don’t fit in well with many there either since I hold firmly to what is written.

    Does that help?

  293. Feminist Hater says:

    Yes it does. That’s what I thought his post stated, perhaps not clearly but the intent was there. Most Churches these days do not stick to Scripture at all. Not in the least. Therefore telling them that wives must submit to their husbands would cause offense, each and every time it is said. That is good.

    Tongues, don’t even want to get started on that. Just don’t see the need for God do make such incoherent noises through people. Either it’s a gag being played or something else.

  294. Feminist Hater says:

    The Holy Spirit filled the Disciples with the ability to speak so called tongues so that a wide range of different languages could be heard. If someone were to speak tongues, you as an individual wouldn’t know the difference as you would hear only your language. Only with others there who spoke other languages would you be able to determine the difference and not through hearing.

  295. sipcode says:

    BillyS

    Matt 10:34: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Swords slice and dice. And Christ was the ‘rock of offense’ — ‘in season and out of season. We do not start confrontation [for the most part] with an angry hostile attitude, but it may well come to that. “BE ANGRY” is a command, a command to confront blasphemy. The “but sin not” part simply means we do not do it for our glorification — to be better than someone — but to proclaim the truth of the Gospel. We represent the anger and offensiveness of God at times.

  296. Original Laura says:

    COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC, but excellent chart on marriage and divorce rates in the USA since 1870.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/

  297. feeriker says:

    My pastor said the same thing (NT verses about a wife’s submission and female leadership in church were all because of “culture”)

    The 11th Commandment, “THOU SHALT NOT OFFEND WOMEN,” has become so deeply embedded in church(ian) culture that it has for all practical purposes become part of the organizational DNA.

    No pastor wants a “sausage party” for a congregation, nor does he want to wind up in divorce court himself by insisting that his wife be the kind of wife God wants her to be (is it just me, or are more and more Protestant pastors’ wives, especially of evangelical churches putting themselves in the “co-pastor” role with their husbands?).. All of these pastors fear that this is exactly what they’ll get, along with starved collection plates, if they actually trust in the Lord and preach what the Bible actually says.

    Once again, LACK OF TRUE FAITH is what kills parts of the body.

  298. Boxer says:

    “You Go Grrl” culture and Feminism that teaches that fornication is not a sin when women do it, but is “empowerment,” brought into the church, brings the very wrath of Christ Himself.

    It brings natural consequences too. Nothing is less “empowered” than a feminist, with her bull-dyke haircut, her dead end job, and her empty studio apartment. Feminists generally have no money, no options, their kids and family hate them, and they have no social life due to their being loathsome and unpleasant to everyone.

    Religious woman (Christian, Muslim or Jew) tends to at least have the outward appearance of modesty, submissiveness, understatement and class, which retains their beauty. They also have large families full of respectful children, nice homes, and manly husbands who give them more dick and money than they could ever hope to need.

    It amuses me that people keep falling for this crap.

  299. feeriker says:

    The Holy Spirit filled the Disciples with the ability to speak so called tongues so that a wide range of different languages could be heard. If someone were to speak tongues, you as an individual wouldn’t know the difference as you would hear only your language. Only with others there who spoke other languages would you be able to determine the difference and not through hearing.

    Yes, and this is where I get into frequent confrontations with many of my fellow evangelicals, who think that “speaking in tongues” is something that one can force oneself to do –or, stated another way “compel the Holy Spirit to make me speak in a language unknown to me or anyone else present when He fills me.” Nonsense.

    Acts 2 very clearly points out that the “tongues” in which the disciples were speaking were earthly languages other than their own, those which they themselves did not speak, but that were instilled in them by the Holy Spirit in order to convey the Word to others present at Pentecost who were not of their own ethnicity or native tongue.

    That said, I have no doubt whatsoever that the Holy Spirit can and indeed does move believers to speak in tongues – but only in order to convey the Word of God to those of a different tongue than themselves. The idea that “tongues” are some mystical non-human language that one utters in a state of spiritual ecstasy is, as far as I have been able to determine, utterly without NT scriptural substance. Thus I am ALWAYS suspicious of anyone who claims to be speaking in tongues when part of a gathering of their own where the need to convey the Word to one of a different language is not evident.

  300. Feminist Hater says:

    It amuses me that people keep falling for this crap.

    You and me both. The phrase “you don’t know what you have till it’s gone” is most apt here. The idea that feminism and the pursuit of it can make a woman happy and fulfilled is quite funny and sad at the same time. Sort of like watching two blind people walking straight into each other..

  301. SnapperTrx says:

    We have one woman who used to be a regular at the church (her and her husband) and, I kid you not, any time she started praying, within 10 seconds she was weeping and, between her actual words, would chant some weird thing over and over, always the same thing, every time. They have since left but visit on occasion. I have always thought it weird, as the scripture tells us not to go on repeating the same words in vain, and she is a serious distraction to those really trying to get into the spirit, as you can hear her throughout the whole room. I’m no expert on tongues, so I have never said anything, but for the past year or so it has begun to seriously annoy me as soon as I see her ready for prayer.

  302. BubbaCluck says:

    The bible is pretty clear on when to use tongues. It should never cause confusion. My understanding is that it is primarily a “personal prayer language”, the key word being personal.

  303. thedeti says:

    Original Laura:

    Interesting graph you found at WaPo. I hope Dalrock picks that up.

    Observations:

    1) Marriage rates and divorce rates spike and fall together; with more marriages than divorces. Note the fall around 1932 (as the depression set in), the huge spike at the end of WW II, and the gradual fall off starting around 1984. So when people talk about falling divorce rates now; we also have to talk about falling marriage rates too.

    2) There was a dip in marriages at the end of WW I. That might be because of a short depression which took hold around the time President Harding took office in 1920 and resolved shortly after with little government intervention. The divorce rate hardly blipped at all.

    3) before 1970, marriage follows economic confidence/material wealth. Low economic confidence/wealth, low marriage rates. High economic confidence/wealth, high marriage rates.

    4) we can also see marriage follows incentives to divorce. When you incentivize divorce, you disincentivize marriage. Make divorce easy to get, you cause people to not want to get married in the first place. (Query if this is really a function not of incentivizing divorce, but of relaxing sexual mores and sexual deregulation.)

  304. thedeti says:

    5) There’s a subtle difference in the graph’s slopes at the end, starting around 1998 or 99. It looks like the marriage rate falls slightly faster than the divorce rate. So it looks like there’s a trend for the marriage rate to be falling faster than the divorce rate. That suggests — possibly — that fewer people are getting married; but more marriages that are happening might be hanging together.

  305. Opus says:

    That is a very interesting dual-chart from the Original Laura. I believe I would be correct in observing that when marriage rates rise the median (or do I mean average) age at marriage falls that is to say favours the young, contra when marriage rates fall the age at marriage rises. It is also clear from the chart that despite Feminist shrieking about the evils of marriage, the institution of marriage remained very resilient and popular throughout the twentieth century and marriage rates are now really not that much different from a century and more ago.

  306. Original Laura says:

    @Deti and @Opus

    What I found interesting about the chart was that divorces were clearly beginning their big increase circa 1965, even though No Fault divorce wasn’t available yet.

    Also, I read a while back that because of the prosperity of the post-war years, 90% of the men of marriageable age actually got married during those years, compared to a usual rate of around 80%. Supposedly, this is the reason that such a big percentage of the homeless population consists of boomers — a lot of very marginal people were able to get married in the 40s and 50s, and they produced a big cohort of screwed up kids who lacked the ability to function in society.

  307. Original Laura says:

    @deti said, “There’s a subtle difference in the graph’s slopes at the end, starting around 1998 or 99. It looks like the marriage rate falls slightly faster than the divorce rate. So it looks like there’s a trend for the marriage rate to be falling faster than the divorce rate. That suggests — possibly — that fewer people are getting married; but more marriages that are happening might be hanging together.”

    There are definitely fewer “shotgun weddings” than in the past, as the stigma of illegitimacy is a fraction of what it once was. And there are fewer brides under the age of twenty-one. The working classes have discovered how to use the “head of household” tax filing status and various welfare programs to have a family with the government subsidizing child care, medical care, food and housing. It will be interesting to see whether the marriage rate will bottom out at some point and then begin to rise. Legal marriage will always have a lot more status than alternative arrangements, and quite a number of those in alternative arrangements do get legally married at some point.

  308. infowarrior1 says:

    @feeriker

    A rebellious wife does not constitute a well ordered household:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203&version=ESV

    Immediately disqualifies a pastor.

  309. feeriker says:

    @feeriker

    A rebellious wife does not constitute a well ordered household:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203&version=ESV

    Immediately disqualifies a pastor.

    Clearly and obviously.

    Can you imagine church elders serving their pastor his walking papers for having a rebellious wife, and thus a disorderly household which disqualifies him from maintaining his position of leadership?

    Neither can I, mostly because finding any elders in any randomly selected church who aren’t aboard the same type of mutinous ship (or worse) as their pastor is all but an impossibility in this day and age.

  310. feeriker says:

    Supposedly, this is the reason that such a big percentage of the homeless population consists of boomers — a lot of very marginal people were able to get married in the 40s and 50s, and they produced a big cohort of screwed up kids who lacked the ability to function in society.

    And of course massive number of these early-stage boomers themselves perpetuated the cycle by producing a generation of epically screwed-up kids (i.e., the millennials).

    Remember, folks: that obese, tatted, pierced, blue-haired thing of indeterminate sex that you see hanging out at the mall is going to be responsible for providing you with your old-age care, assuming that either one of you survives for that long.

  311. Lyn87 says:

    infowarrior @ feeriker,

    I left a church because of that very thing. The pastor’s step-daughter went into open rebellion and got knocked up by a long-haired loser, and unfortunately it became necessary to initiate excommunication to get her to straighten out, since nothing else was working. It was somewhat complicated by the fact that she was weeks away from graduate high school and her non-believer father had fairly extensive visitation, but I crafted a motion to put before the church board to make it happen without irreparably destroying her life right then and there. When I showed him the draft he wanted to make it to have more teeth than even I had given it, so we re-worded it accordingly… together in his office.

    Then I screwed up – we showed it to his wife so she wouldn’t be blind-sided.

    That night at the board meeting the pastor had me read the motion, then he completely threw me under the bus and acted like I was the bad guy (not “loving,” doncha’ know), and then flatly denied having anything to do with what the motion said… never mind that he not only approved it exactly as written earlier that day, but insisted that it be more strongly worded than the draft motion I originally wrote.

    The board split down the middle, but the pastor said he would resign if it passed. I quoted the scriptures about tolerating open rebellion in the church, but these long-time believers (people who sat on the board of a church that – falsely – prides itself as being a “holiness denomination”), simply refused to do the tough love that 1 Corinthians requires. One of the guys even said, “I will never turn by back on her.”

    I said something like, “You just did: by not forcing her to confront her rebellion.”

    The pastor then said that he would not let the motion come to a vote, and that was that. The entire time he was the pastor I had supported him and his vision. I had always told him that I viewed my place on the board as similar to that of a staff officer to his commander – “My job is to help you succeed – not to tell you what to do.” Frankly, he leaned on me a lot, but in the end neither I not the clear teaching of scripture were a match for the rebellious woman in his bed. I handed him the membership resignation letters I had with me in the event something like that happened, and walked out.

    Plot twist: the unbelievers on the non-custodial side of her family were a lot less tolerant of her whoring around than the “church family.” And by the way, not only did the pastor and his wife become de facto parents to the child, but the girl started shacking up with a different guy a few months later and got knocked up again.

  312. feeriker says:

    @Lyn

    Wow. I want to say “unbelievable!” But no, it’s all too believable.

    This caught my eye: The pastor’s step-daughter went into open rebellion …

    So … this guy was in an adulterous relationship with a divorced woman and was pastoring a church. Lovely.

    It sounds like this church had a lot more issues than the one you described. You were of course fully justified in leaving.

  313. Lyn87 says:

    It’s not quite that simple – the pastor’s wife was not a divorcee.

    They met when they were both unsaved – she was a baby-momma and he was the kind of “bad boy” that attracts such women. She already had a bastard kid (the step-daughter in the story) by a previous boyfriend. They had a bastard child together, then got married. Then they became Christians. They had another child (the only one conceived legitimately), and he went to Bible college and eventually became a minister. So far, it’s a happy tale of two train-wreck people finding redemption at the cross… but the problems arose when his duty as a pastor conflicted with his wife’s “mamma-bear” instinct when the little slut followed her mother’s pre-salvation footsteps and got pregnant.

    He chose to acquiesce to his wife’s desire to shield her from short-term consequences to “keep the peace” at home rather than duty, integrity, the Gospel, or the benefit of the church and the girl herself. No matter how many times I said that the purpose of excommunication is restorative rather than punitive, and necessary for the purity of the church body, I was somehow being “judgemental” and “unloving,” while the people who acted as her enablers while she spiraled into a life of sluttery and bearing illegitimate children were just “showing the love of Christ” to a wayward girl.

    It’s vomit-inducing.

    At that point we could not longer consider him to be qualified to lead a flock, nor could we consider a church that flatly refuses to obey the clear teaching of scripture to be legitimate – so my wife and I left and never returned.

  314. feeriker says:

    Lyn87 says:
    September 29, 2016 at 10:49 am

    Given this pastor’s and his wife’s backstory, it’s even MORE inexcusable for them to have handled things the way they did.

    It might seem unfair to these folks, but the fact is that their path from hopeless sinners to redemption at the cross, coupled with the responsibility they BOTH assumed by his choosing to become a pastor (especially given his background) holds them, arguably, to a HIGHER standard of behavior than if they had always been saved, believing Christians who had formed a normal, biblical marriage and family with him as pastor of a church.

    By following the life path that they did and by accepting Jesus as their Savior, with all that that entails, they are only as credible as the life of faith that they live – in ALL aspects. I don’t think believers with “pasts” realize just how heavily scrutinized they are, especially by non-believers who will ALWAYS harbor skepticism of the sincerity of their faith. It’s hard enough for people who are lay believers to endure this, but for pastors with pasts it must be especially onerous. Unfair, perhaps, but that’s just the nature of the world we live in. By handling his step-daughter’s crisis the way he did, which arguably differed not significantly at all from the way his old non-believer self would have handled it, he undermined his own authority and put his and his church’s spiritual credibility in jeopardy.

    Most churches who adhered to Scripture would probably not permit a man of this pastor’s background to be an elder. It thus seems incredible that he would be considered qualified to be a pastor.

  315. Gunner Q says:

    “That night at the board meeting the pastor had me read the motion, then he completely threw me under the bus and acted like I was the bad guy…”

    Ugh. That’s as bad as betrayal gets.

    “Frankly, he leaned on me a lot, but in the end neither I nor the clear teaching of scripture were a match for the rebellious woman in his bed.”

    Been there myself. It hurts like nothing else when you pour yourself into a church hoping to protect it from evil but when the time comes, you might as well have never tried for all the difference it made. Pastors these days aren’t just apostate, their souls are completely void of respect, appreciation and trust for the men in their churches.

  316. feeriker says:

    Pastors these days aren’t just apostate, their souls are completely void of respect, appreciation and trust for the men in their churches.

    It really hurts for me to say this, but it’s rapidly reaching the point where I’m ready to put pastors in the same category as lawyers, car salesmen, insurance agents, bankers, and other low-life professions I despise.

  317. Original Laura says:

    A few weeks ago, I was helping my mother house hunt. In one very nice neighborhood, the realtor pointed out the local church of my mother’s mainline denomination, and said that the Rev. John Q. Public was the pastor there. This was the pastor who counseled my step-brother and his wife when they were having marital problems and broke up their marriage and married my step-brother’s wife himself. The Rev. Public’s career was not damaged at all by his act of treachery, as the church he is pastoring now would be considered a plum assignment by almost anyone in the ministry. I’ll betcha he’s still providing marriage counseling!

    I used to have tremendous respect for members of the clergy, but it is pretty much gone at this point. Pastors and their wives used to feel extreme pressure to lead squeaky-clean lives, but now a lot of them seem to think that they are fine as long as they aren’t molesting children.

  318. sipcode says:

    Totally with you Feeriker;

    “Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.” Jer 23:1.

    I have never seen ANY pastor or theologian or counselor get marriage right. Never. And I’ve been around the church ‘religiously’ for 60 yrs. The only people I’ve seen get it right are ‘lone rangers’ here and there. Even my own pastor [now former as I assemble on the Sabbath in different fashion] whom I worked along side intimately for 10 years now looks at me like I’m a god unto myself. Essentially he was ‘trained’ a certain way and it ‘worked’ for the church for 500 years and he will continue to repeat the fabled refrain over and over again.

    Men who see scripture for what it is: stand up and take back the Sanctity of your Command and expose the Illicit Authority given to women.

  319. sipcode says:

    Gunner Q
    “Frankly, he leaned on me a lot, but in the end neither I nor the clear teaching of scripture were a match for THE REBELLIOUS WOMAN IN HIS BED.”

    “Pastors these days aren’t just apostate, their souls are completely void of respect, appreciation and trust for the men in their churches.”

    The church is trying to treat the symptom and not the illness. Pastors are actually afraid to treat the illness. The illness is lack of submission, disobedience by women. Those that continue to practice disobedience are practicing witches. Then the illness creates the symptom of men behaving badly.

    Men abusing women is the symptom. Women abusing men is the illness. Women misbehaving always precedes men misbehaving. It started in the garden and it has never change.

    The healing of the church starts with women. It starts with women giving back their Illicit Authority and submitting to their man, “in everything.”

  320. feeriker says:

    I used to have tremendous respect for members of the clergy, but it is pretty much gone at this point. Pastors and their wives used to feel extreme pressure to lead squeaky-clean lives, but now a lot of them seem to think that they are fine as long as they aren’t molesting children.

    Almost all of them see their positions as a profession (in the same vein as the low-life professions I mention above), a job like any other 9-to-5, rather than a calling from the Lord, and it reflects in their behavior, outlook, and attitude. I seriously doubt that even one in one thousand pastors today do what they do as the result of having been genuinely convicted by the Holy Spirit and led by God through prayer and trial to take up the cross, lead others to the faith, and guide others in their Christ-centered lives by focusing on the Word as written in Scripture. The barren, fruit-free desert we witness all around us is a testament to their abject failure.

  321. Anon says:

    The barren, fruit-free desert we witness all around us is a testament to their abject failure.

    AND…….

    The pastorbator will see the fat women in his flock and extol them as ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’, (three times), as if truth by assertion can work if rammed through with enough brute force.

    This is not just off-the-charts manginatude, but a complete lack of genuine faith.

    Again, a complete lack of genuine faith.

  322. feeriker says:

    Again, a complete lack of genuine faith.

    This probably won’t surprise anyone here, but I actually had a pastor a couple of years ago subtly mock me for expressing faith in God to come through for me in a situation that man would consider impossible to resolve. Even after God DID come through, with flying colors and after much fervent prayer by me and some of the church brothers, in what could only be described as a minor miracle, said pastor still refused to believe that it was God’s hand at work.

    Deeply disturbing, to put it kindly (and yes, this guy was an evangelical. Go figure.).

  323. Boxer says:

    Dear Original Laura:

    In one very nice neighborhood, the realtor pointed out the local church of my mother’s mainline denomination, and said that the Rev. John Q. Public was the pastor there. This was the pastor who counseled my step-brother and his wife when they were having marital problems and broke up their marriage and married my step-brother’s wife himself.

    That’s a pathetic and ridiculous story. Imagine when/if these two miscreants had children, and what they’d tell them about their meeting? How embarrassing.

    Sadly, I don’t doubt it happened exactly as you described. Such people make me want to believe in an afterlife, just so I can imagine them getting the comeuppance they deserve.

    Boxer

  324. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    in what could only be described as a minor miracle, said pastor still refused to believe that it was God’s hand at work.

    I’m so old, that I remember when a pastor was assumed to believe in God.

    If an agnostic (like me) is non-committal on God, that is one thing. But a pastor?

    Then again, a ‘feminist’ allegedly helps women, despite all evidence to the contrary. A pastorbator is the same thing regarding his flock.

  325. Original Laura says:

    Boxer, I think I know exactly what people in that situation would say, because I’ve heard it all before. “There was nothing that could be done to save the marriage — it was already dead.” or “Yes, Lydia was married before, but the marriage was unsuccessful, and the Lord has set her free from her past.”

    Most likely though, the winning strategy in a case like this would be to leave things very, very vague and take some liberties with the event timeline. “Helen’s previous marriage failed and she wanted to make a fresh start, so she started attending the church that I was pastoring and she attended a class that I was teaching.” The “class” would have been the private marriage counseling, but the person hearing the story would never know.

    There was an article in Christianity Today many years ago in which they discussed pastors who divorced and remarried. One Presbyterian mother of four who had been married to a Presbyterian minister said that her husband ran off with the church organist, leaving her with the children. The church arranged for her husband to move hundreds of miles away to pastor a different church and presented him as a “Wounded Healer” who had been through a divorce and could understand people who had been through similar tough situations. The wife said that not only were her children devastated, but the teenagers in the church were very confused as to why the pastor was allowed to preach elsewhere without repenting and giving up the organist, etc.

    In the mid 70s, when I was in high school, an adulterous pastor would have been asked to resign, even in a liberal congregation or denomination. Even a lesser scandal would have meant taking a year or two off from pastoring. By the 90s and 00s, bad behavior by church leaders no longer ended careers. If they are considered “gifted” then it doesn’t even seem to result in a forced sabbatical. They may have all sorts of academic qualifications, but their lives have not been transformed by Christ.

  326. sipcode says:

    Feeriker, Anon, etal:

    Pastors: “If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20.

    Routine becomes their downfall. Vain repetitions. Not connected to the Spirit. Carnal; doing it themselves.

    There is pride in routine, in the structure of the church. It becomes their god / idol without reliance on the poverty in their own spirit; without surrender to and reliance on The Spirit. Pastors then have no light in them to shine on His Word.

    And …..having an idol, they “HATE ME” says the Lord. Exodus 20:4-5

  327. feeriker says:

    sipcode says:
    September 30, 2016 at 9:12 am

    Amen! Exactly.

  328. BillyS says:

    sipcode,

    Matt 10:34: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

    That is not relevant in a proper Biblical church service. That is in the world. Church services should be a unifying event pursuing the rule of God in the lives of those attending.

    Clearly it is not in many places, but we should not aim for strife. We should aim for the rule of God’s Word and conformity with that.

  329. BillyS says:

    FH,

    Tongues, don’t even want to get started on that. Just don’t see the need for God do make such incoherent noises through people. Either it’s a gag being played or something else.

    God works in many different ways.

    However my own use of tongues is to edify myself and has little to (directly) do with others.

    [Jhn 7:38 KJV] 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

    I do see that as different from the public ministry version, as it only edifies me, but that is an argument I have with many other charismatics.

    I see it as something very valuable, but I figure it is between God and others whether they seek or even desire it. I want all God has for me myself.

    I would argue that many of the antics at “Pentecostal” churches are merely the flesh, not anything spiritual. I am the very rare extremely logical person who is also a charismatic. I am not quite a special snowflake, but I am very close in many ways.

    Hope that makes sense.

  330. BillyS says:

    BubbaCluck,

    The bible is pretty clear on when to use tongues. It should never cause confusion. My understanding is that it is primarily a “personal prayer language”, the key word being personal.

    That is why the personal infilling with the evidence of speaking in other tongues is different than the Gift of the Spirit covered in 1 Corinthians. It is purely for self edification, not for public ministry.

    feeriker,

    I can speak in tongues at almost any point. I do so to edify myself and focus on the Lord. I rarely do it so someone else can hear, though a busybody may be able to listen in. I could not convince a skeptic, but it is valuable to me and can be to anyone else who seeks it.

    Note that the instances of believers being baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts always has an explicit or implied instance of something clearly showing that, including speaking in tongues. Those were not to witness to others, but to show the change in themselves. Thus focusing only on the public gift is stupid.

    It is similar to the way any believer can perform healing with God’s support, on themselves or others, whether they have the “gift of healing” or not. In a like manner, we are all called to administer our own lives, even if we do not have the gift of administration noted in another location.

    Feel free to believe differently. I have no desire to argue the concept, just to note that it is not inherently connected to feminist crap. Plenty of those who give no place to tongues have taken the FI pill.

    [1Co 14:39 KJV] 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

    I do find it humorous that so many violate this command, in reality or in effect. Allowing no place for it is the same as forbidding it. Who is going to speak in tongues in your presence?

  331. BillyS says:

    Sorry for the divergence as well. I should participate more if I want to interact on things like this I suppose.

    I am facing my own decisions about what to act on with our current church. The associate pastor preached last Sunday in the marriage series the pastor has been teaching and while he mentioned that it was not good for women to gain weight after marriage, with an offhand comment about “too many Twinkies,” he quickly noted that this was an issue because men were visual and shallow. The rest was on the men to conform, including the mutual submission heresy that has infected so many places.

    I have missed the past few sermons in the series, but this was not compelling as a representative of their views. Lots more involved, but I am really pondering things.

    I listened to the online father’s day sermon at a possible church near where we were considering buying a lot of land and it went into the standard “man up message” so is ruled out even considering.

  332. Gunner Q says:

    “Feel free to believe differently. I have no desire to argue the concept, just to note that it is not inherently connected to feminist crap.”

    The mark of a true Charismatic: he doesn’t insist on the fancy stuff. Hat tip to you, BillyS.

  333. Pingback: Hierarchy equals abuse. | Armor Of God Foundation

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