Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 1)

Dr. Russell Moore explains at FamilyLife the key to avoiding infidelity in marriage*:

It’s been said that the best defense is a good offense. Russell Moore says that when it comes to maintaining marital fidelity, a wife’s best defense may well be to move into her husband’s life with hard questions and a loving presence to open up the dialogue about marital fidelity – before the affair happens.

Note that in the FamilyLife summary above, the temptation to sin only affects husbands.  In the beginning of the segment Moore does briefly reference premarital counseling where he has both the husband and wife write out how they would be tempted to cheat, but for the rest of the program the presumption is that only husbands are tempted by sexual sin.

Dr. Moore describes a situation where his wife’s radar went up:

Early on, in ministry—serving a church—we had a young woman, who would come up after every sermon. She would say, “Ah, Brother Moore—that was just amazing! I’ve got some questions to ask you, from Habakkuk.” Then, she would stand and ask questions. Maria said to me, in the car, on the way home, “She’s after you!” I said, “You’re crazy! You are crazy! I look like a cricket. [Laughter] She’s not after me.  Secondly, she’s just this godly, truth-seeking woman. She’s just intensely passionate about Habakkuk.” [Laughter] Maria said: “Well, I don’t know about all that, but I know women. I know how women act, and she is after you.” She was not threatened by that.  She didn’t nag or berate me about that. She just made sure that, every time that woman approached, she was right there with me.

Moore can’t see sin/temptation in women, so he couldn’t see it in the woman who was moving in on him.  His takeaway from this story is not to recognize his own blind spot, but to declare his wife to be a Christian version of Xena, Warrior Princess:

That woman came and sat down one time—next to me, on the pew, before service started—to ask me a Habakkuk question. Next thing I know, here comes Maria. She just squeezes herself right down between us, reaches up and kisses me on the cheek, and just starts rubbing my back, while I explain the eschatology of Habakkuk.  [Clapping] What that is—is a warrior princess for Christ—in her marriage.

His wife’s mate guarding strikes me as wise, but Christ’s words in Mat 5:47 seem to apply:

Do not even pagans do that?

Moore then reinforces the concept that only husbands are tempted to cheat:

If you wives are going to work, with your husbands, toward godliness, you cannot be threatened by the idea that your husband is going to feel some attraction for some other woman. If your husband tells you that he has never had any attraction to anybody else but you, he is a liar! Don’t be threatened, wives, when your husband sits down and says to you: “I believe that I may be vulnerable. I find myself noticing So-and-so when she walks in the room,” or, “I find myself just spiritually dry, and joyless, and bored right now. I’m afraid that’s an inroad to Satan. Help me to crucify the flesh.” That’s a blessing from God!

Next Moore changes the subject to fornication.  He points out the problem with the euphemism premarital sex, because it creates a sense of marriage retroactively covering fornication:

Paul says, “If you cannot handle yourself and keep yourself under control, marry. It is better to marry than to burn with passion.” Why is that the case? It is not simply because fornication will do bad things to you later on—although, it will. It is because God has revealed, “Fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”

Now, one of the problems that we have in our church, and possibly even in your marriage, is that we do not really believe that. We do not really see the spiritual war that is going on, at this point, because we assume: “It’s premarital sex. So, once the marriage takes place, the issue is now resolved.”

The term premarital sex is deceptive not just because it hides the sin of a couple fornicating with each other before marriage, but because it also expands to cover all of the other acts of fornication the two members of the couple engaged in with a parade of other people.  While Moore can see the smaller problem, he doesn’t seem to be able to see the larger one.

Moore ironically then uses the same frame of mind of premarital-sex/retroactive-marriage to frame fornication as strictly a sin by husbands, who prey on their future wives (emphasis mine):

Some of you—in your marriages, right now—are experiencing deadness, and mistrust, and conflict because you, husbands, led that woman into fornication. You have never gotten to the point of repentance before God for evil. Every act of hiddenness that you took to manage your own image and to cover over your sin, you will be able to do, just as easily, again, with some other woman. “She’s the love of my life!” You’ll feel that way about somebody else, one day. “We were just so carried away!” You’ll be carried away again, one day.

Until you get to the point—specifically, men—where you, as a former fornicator, get on your knees with your wife and say: “I am guilty of not protecting you, of not exercising godly headship over you, of not loving you as Christ loved the Church. I repent before God, and I repent to you,” you will never understand what the Scripture is talking about when it says: “You were washed. You were freed.” The problem is—we assume that, because the issue is in the past, that the issue is over; but as Alice von Hildebrand put it so poignantly one time, “Nothing drives two people further apart than sinning together.”

Your wife, men, may not trust you right now because she knows her parents couldn’t trust you then. Until that is dealt with—with the kind of heart that cries out, “Lord, have mercy, and free me, and wash me,” you will never find the kind of spiritual power and freedom in your marriage that you so desperately need.

Note that he claims the husband’s sin is not exercising godly headship over a woman he wasn’t married to.  Yet he wasn’t her head, because she hadn’t (yet) chosen him to be her head!  She only chose him as a fornication partner.  Once he was her head, it wasn’t fornication anymore.  Moreover, for the vast majority of the couples listening, the (now) husband wasn’t the first, or even second, and probably not even the third man she fornicated with before marriage.  Did all of those other men also have headship over her?  Is the last man in the chain that she fornicated with, the man who married her, more guilty than the other men because he married her instead of moving on?  If the husband hadn’t later married her, would his fornication with her really be less sinful?

Note that the problem is not that Moore is calling men to repent of their sexual sins, nor that he is warning them of the temptations they face.  This is loving.  The problem is that he isn’t showing this same love to the women in the audience, and is in fact helping them deceive themselves into denying their sins and their temptations.  Even worse, he is withholding this love from the more easily deceived spouse, at a time when the culture is teaching her that sin and rebellion are virtues.

See Also:  Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 2)

*Broadcast  February 12, 2013.  Also published here.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Dr. Russell Moore, FamilyLife, Turning a blind eye, Uncategorized, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 1)

  1. theasdgamer says:

    Russell Moore:

    Some of you—in your marriages, right now—are experiencing deadness, and mistrust, and conflict because you, husbands, led that woman into fornication.

    So, if a woman sins, it’s always a man’s fault. Standard Churchian doctrine infused by the Feminine Imperative. Of course a man leads when it comes to sex, but consensual sex requires that a woman follows, which is her choice; hence, a woman has agency to commit sexual sin. Moore denies this, of course.

  2. Frank K says:

    Churchians are clueless. What else can be said?

  3. Pingback: Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 1) | Aus-Alt-Right

  4. Lost Patrol says:

    Dalrock,

    You find these guys from many faith backgrounds, working a variety of venues, in this case Family Life; but they all seem to share the same playbook – exalt women, admonish men.

    Is this something taught at seminaries and religious schools? Seriously, are there classes on leadership techniques where they learn this common premise? Of course I look for this all the time now so naturally I find it, but I also look for any example of these speakers building men up in the faith, or in their marriages. I’m not even asking for admonishment of women. I realize that is a bridge too far. I’m simply looking for the pastors or teachers that are inspiring men in their faith or home lives, motivating them rather than harping on their weaknesses (which by the way they tend to liberally ascribe to all men, even though everyone is obviously at different stages of their spiritual development). I’m not finding it.

    I’ve never paid much attention to seminaries, but am beginning to form the notion that those are the last places producing anyone qualified to lead men to a stronger marriage, or faith in the Gospel of Christ. Men will often willingly follow a real “leader of men” – they are fairly easy to pick out due to their inspirational aspects among other things, but if all the guy in charge ever does is admonish the men for whom he is responsible, he will eventually lose them for all time. Being deferential to women first in all things will also lose your men for all time.

  5. Lyn87 says:

    Lost Patrol,

    My father retired from the ministry after 34 years in the pulpit. He always referred to seminaries as “cemeteries.” I’ve been in a lot of churches over the years, and if a degree from a modern seminary does anything to make a graduate a better leader, preacher, teacher, Christian, husband, or even Bible scholar, it has escaped my notice.

  6. Dalrock says:

    @Lost Patrol

    Is this something taught at seminaries and religious schools? Seriously, are there classes on leadership techniques where they learn this common premise?

    I don’t think this is ever formally taught. It is merely a case of doing what is easy (and feels good), and avoiding what is hard (and feels bad). Calling out women’s sins creates a huge scene, because modern Christian women are deep in rebellion. It also doesn’t feel good. But calling out men’s sins feels heroic, and is easy because modern Christian men are open to correction. What Dr. Moore and so many others are doing is just going with the flow. No instruction is required.

  7. Spike says:

    Unbelievable. Is it possible that someone with “Dr” in front of their name is this clueless?
    Two things Dr Moore needs to start with. Both of these have been gleaned from polling companies such as Pew and Zogby, and are freely available on the Internet:
    1) Women enter marriage having had more sexual partners – having fornicated – more than ever before in history.
    2) Married men polled say that 25% of marriages are completely platonic. No sex occurs in them. Another 40% of marriages consist of husbands asking for sex, but being refused, rejected, deemed unworthy. When sex is given, it is belated, begrudging and unenthusiastic. A small minority of men, deemed to be “religious fanatics” of various religions or considered “abusers” are satisfied with their sex lives in marriage.

    Needless to say, the above predicament demonstrates conditions rife for a sex industry, condemned by Christians.

    Rollo Tomassi once said that the Western World “produces sluts, who fuck their husbands like prudes”. Moore is yet to catch up with what is going on in the (ahem) hearts and minds of the women in his flock, a factor far more damaging than ever men’s God-given and therefore good, sex drive, ever is.

  8. Dalrock says:

    @Spike

    2) Married men polled say that 25% of marriages are completely platonic. No sex occurs in them. Another 40% of marriages consist of husbands asking for sex, but being refused, rejected, deemed unworthy. When sex is given, it is belated, begrudging and unenthusiastic.

    Ah, yes. Dr. Moore deals with that all the time. That will be the topic of Wives don’t sin (part 2).

  9. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Note that the problem is not that Moore is calling men to repent of their sexual sins, nor that he is warning them of the temptations they face. This is loving. The problem is that he isn’t showing this same love to the women in the audience, and is in fact helping them deceive themselves into denying their sins and their temptations.

    This is all just par for the course for Russell Moore. I’ve brought this up before on the blog comments here, but you really need to hear a Q & A podcast he gave several years back in order to appreciate how deep his inability to tell a woman “no” runs. To sum the whole thing up, a church wrote in to ask him how they should go about disciplining a single female in their congregation who deeply wanted to be a mother, but didn’t have a man. She’d decided that she could solve her problem by getting pregnant through IVF; her church body thought was a terrible idea and told her as much. But she went ahead and did it anyway. So now her church was stuck with a problem: How should they deal with a member who made such a stupid and selfish decision?

    According to Dr. Moore, they should do nothing except to affirm her in her choice:

    “So, I don’t think this church ought to take any action that is going to even unintentionally signal that we see the life of this child as being a bad thing . . . . . The mom is not here in a situation of some kind of ongoing unrepentant sin. She is not in some sort of sexual relationship. She is not involved in fornication. She made what I think is a really bad decision, but now the decision has been made. And so, what do we do? We welcome in those mothers and their children who need the support of the rest of the body of Christ. And there is going to come a time where maybe this woman has a completely different opinion about the decisions that she made. She is going to need the body of Christ around her. And frankly, she is going to need the body of Christ even if she doesn’t ever come to that situation. I don’t think that ministering to her and ministering to this child is going to cause a proliferation of virgin births by sperm donation in your congregation. I think it is very clear this is not what you are talking about when you talk about family and when you talk about mothering and fathering and children. But you can do that. You can talk about what the bible teaches about moms and dads while at the same time not driving this woman and her child away but bringing them in and saying we disagree with you, and we think this is not the right decision that you have made—the act itself is not a clear violation of a biblical norm in the same way that it would have been in some other situations—but we are going to receive you and minister to you.”

    It’s interesting to note how much this contrasts with his view on the couples who “solve” the problem of pre-marital sex by simply getting hitched.To him, that wasn’t enough, or as he put it: “We do not really see the spiritual war that is going on, at this point, because we assume: “It’s premarital sex. So, once the marriage takes place, the issue is now resolved.”

    But when we’re talking about a woman who conceived a child out of wedlock in a situation where Moore can’t blame the man? Well, in a scenario like that we just have to understand that, in his words, “the decision has been made,” and adjust ourselves to it. No sin, no repentance, no consequences.

    I suppose Russell Moore could criticize her decision. But then who is Russell Moore to criticize his god?

    You can find the transcript here: http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/transcript-how-should-local-church-leaders-respond-to-a-single-woman-who-had-a-child-through-ivf .

    The audio can be found here (and hearing the whole thing in Moore’s Southern smarm makes the whole mess come off even worse than it does in print) : http://www.russellmoore.com/2015/01/29/questions-ethics-how-should-local-church-leaders-respond-to-a-single-woman-who-had-a-child-through-ivf/

  10. Cindy says:

    “Is this something taught at seminaries and religious schools? Seriously, are there classes on leadership techniques where they learn this common premise?”

    Cowardice needs no teacher. Cowardice is all it is.

  11. The Question says:

    How much longer before even the churchiest of churcians find the man-hating sermons intolerable?

    Every time I’m slightly tempted to possibly consider marriage, I read stuff like this and resume what I was doing before.

  12. feeriker says:

    Churchians are clueless. What else can be said?

    I think “willfully blind” is a more apt description. As Dalrock points out frequently, calling women out on their rebellion and sin doesn’t feel good and leads to confrontation and ugliness. If there is one thing that milquetoast churchian castrati pastors avoid at all costs, it is confrontation with women (or men who can give them a spiritual and intellectual ass-whupping).

  13. feeriker says:

    How much longer before even the churchiest of churcians find the man-hating sermons intolerable?

    As long as the majority of churchian men are married and have Threat Point hanging over their heads like a proverbial Sword of Damocles, the castration will continue. I suppose the good news is that if current trends are any indication, fewer and fewer men in the churches will either marry or remain churchgoers in the future, meaning that the demographic pool from which the churchian cucks have traditionally been drawn will largely dry up.

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    Look at Moore’s bio featuring his picture, he’s a very Betaized man. Reading his own account, he’s a very Betaized man who puts his wife up on a warrior-princess pedestal. He’s completely gone down the “men bad – women good” neoVictorian rabbit hole. The fact that all of his children are boys surely just has reinforced his beta, pedestalizing, tendencies. He can’t see what he’s never learned.

    To paraphrase a great work of art: his worldview’s all retarded, and he talks like an Osteen.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cindy, it’s more ignorance than cowardice. Although to be honest, most churchgoing men are scared to death of correcting a woman at all, from what I can see.

  16. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    “when the culture is teaching her that sin and rebellion are virtues.”
    The church is leading the culture in validating female sin.

    Churchians are clueless. What else can be said? … Cowardice needs no teacher….I think “willfully blind” is a more apt description.

    It is a form of group think that is mislabeled orthodoxy. The group polices itself such that even with a clear Biblical teaching to the contrary the FI presuppositions must be defended. There are two non-biblical underpinnings that guide them, sexual asceticism which is the prudish idea that sex is dirty and an egalitarian lens which they apply to every non-egalitarian text. This allows them to see fornication as the same for both sexes, adultery the same, monogamy as an assumption, purity the same as sexless.. et. al. Texts like Deuteronomy 22 makes their heads explode. For a pastor to go “Red-Pill” is an extreme risk, more than one has lost their pulpit over such things.

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    For a pastor to go “Red-Pill” is an extreme risk, more than one has lost their pulpit over such things.

    Could you give some examples where this has happened?

  18. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Could you give some examples where this has happened?
    That question hits close to home because I am myself an example. I stepped on the third rail of christo-feminism and was deposed from office as a result. I was told I had a “low view of women and a dismal view of marriage” in large part because of a series on 1 Pet 3 including an entire sermon on the referent of the word “likewise” in 1 Pet 3:1, wrote that their was no scriptural warrant for women in the military, I kept asking some folks where in the Bible they found even a word to support the concept of marital rape etc. To stand on scripture is to stand alone and when the white-knights cannot beat with arguments from scripture they will still beat you.

  19. JamesWatchman says:

    As someone who recently started taking the red pill (mostly thanks to this excellent blog), this nonsense spoken by a supposed dr just makes me feel sick in the stomach.

  20. Gunner Q says:

    “Could you give some examples where this has happened?”

    I know of a couple in my area. One pastor was asked to leave a few years before my time because he was too “hellfire and brimstone” for the congregation. (More likely a youthful deacon board, methinks.) Another hired a youth pastor who turned out to be an SJW entryist. He colonized the leadership, did a point-and-shriek and pastor was gone.

    Sorry I don’t have names to give but these were small churches that I didn’t personally attend. Listened to gossip, connected the dots. Never heard of a pastor being actually voted out by the congregation; usually it’s SJWs forcing resignations.

  21. feeriker says:

    this nonsense spoken by a supposed dr just makes me feel sick in the stomach.

    As Lyn mentions at the beginning of the thread and as I and others here have stated on many occasions, “Bible colleges” and “seminaries,” along with the degrees that they confer, have done more damage to the Word in the last half century than did biblical ignorance and illiteracy in all of the previous centuries combined. The more degrees from such an institution that a person has appended to his (and in all too many cases, her) name, the more suspect and very likely corrupt his theology.

  22. Lost Patrol says:

    @Lyn, @Dalrock,

    Well, you’ve summed it up for me.
    Seminary leadership training = Cemeteries just going with the flow.

    I guess those institutions won’t be turning out badass guys like this for The Lord anytime soon.

    “Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.” (2 Corinthians, Chap. 11)

  23. Pingback: Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 1) | Reaction Times

  24. Dale says:

    @Jonadab-the-Rechabite
    The only encouragement I can offer is from Matt 19, specifically verse 29.

    From Matt 19:
    25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
    26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
    27 Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
    28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

    From what you have described, you lost a service opportunity due to your adherence to God’s word. May God bless those who have been rejected by the “religious” for their obedience to God.
    It is sad to think of a man losing his place of spiritual leadership due to his choice to “hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he may encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

    Oh, and about your choice to point out the “likewise” continuation from Peter’s discussion of the master/slave relationship preceding his discussion of the husband/wife relationship: I also pointed that out once, in a forum that was part of the homework requirements in a seminary class. The women from that seminar class who responded on the forum seemed displeased with me for having pointed it out. There is nothing new under the sun…

  25. Dale says:

    @theasdgamer
    >Of course a man leads when it comes to sex, but consensual sex requires that a woman follows, which is her choice; hence, a woman has agency to commit sexual sin.

    Your initial assertion is false. Women can and do lead/push toward sex. Of the women with whom I have been romantically involved, over 85% pushed for something physical. In my experience, it is women who lead toward the physical.

    @Lost Patrol
    >[seminaries…] are the last places producing anyone qualified to lead men to a stronger marriage, or faith in the Gospel of Christ

    I cannot comment for all, but I left the particular seminary where I was studying, due to it being a religious school instead of a Biblical school. I discussed my reasons with the dean of theology before leaving, but he (at that time) did not see a problem needing to be solved.

  26. theasdgamer says:

    @Dale

    Gamer: “Of course a man leads when it comes to sex, but consensual sex requires that a woman follows, which is her choice; hence, a woman has agency to commit sexual sin.”

    Your initial assertion is false. Women can and do lead/push toward sex. Of the women with whom I have been romantically involved, over 85% pushed for something physical. In my experience, it is women who lead toward the physical.

    In my experience, it is true. I like to take the lead. Even when the woman pushes for sex, it’s because I led her to it by demonstrating a high value, sexualizing, giving her comfort, isolating, instigating (in some fashion), and escalating. (Will someone please post a link that explains all this?) Even with my wife.

    I do foreplay continually with my wife…flirting…sexualizing our conversations…teasing her…kissing her on the neck from behind when she’s working. Foreplay isn’t necessarily grabbing a woman’s boob or crotch. Women typically go straight for the Johnson if they’ve had sex with you already. Or maybe they rub their boobs against you while you’re walking together or casually brush your butt with their hands. Women often aren’t very subtle when they flirt.

    There’s back and forth in the mating dance, but a man has to lead it somewhere, typically. I wrote a post about the mating dance, Sexual Macrodynamics, if you haven’t looked at it yet.

  27. Like a broken record that has been lost under the sofa or has fallen down between the speaker and the crush velvet speaker covers on the front of the huge wooden TV and stereo combo, I have to raise the topic of The Lift. All other motives for pastoral supplication (and more) are nothing really. They merely offer cover for and succor to The Lift.
    When I saw Russell Moore a few years back and posted about it, his talk was one of his canned ones you can find on his blog. It was about how horn dog men make women insecure about body image because we force them to try and emulate supermarket point of sale magazine covers. Never mind those magazines are made by women for women to convince them they too can wear a single 200 denier fiber strand up through the mountainous topography of the corporeal southern hemisphere.
    He got some lift.

  28. Lyn87 says:

    “Could you give some examples where this has happened?”

    I was on a church board and, although I wasn’t deposed, I tendered my resignation because the leadership refused to hold a female accountable for sexual sin. I’ve told the story before and I won’t bother to repeat it now, but despite all my efforts put some steel in the pastor’s spine, he crumpled like origami once his wife got to him in private, and he took half the board down with him.

    In the end, all their “loving” (Churchian-speak for “Be an enabler so that no woman ever feels bad”), had the utterly predictable effect: she turned into even more of a whore than she already was. But at least the pastor’s wife got the grand-babies she always wanted, and nothing matters more than “Keeping Mama happy,” right?

    Hail to the V!

  29. RPC says:

    This reads like the beta male handbook.

  30. Frank K says:

    “This reads like the beta male handbook.” – It is said that those sorts of churches are beta factories.

  31. feeriker says:

    – It is said that those sorts of churches are beta factories.

    Just about the only thing at all that most churches “produce” these days.

  32. Anon says:

    A new addition to ‘weak men are screwing ‘feminism’ up’ :

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/250917/#respond

    This is a woman who is extremely unhappy that she out-earns her husband, and would rather be a pampered housewife shielded from all hardship. This is the man’s fault, of course.

  33. Anon says:

    Just about the only thing at all that most churches “produce” these days.

    They also produce Pastorbators that praise the church fatties to the high heavens as ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’.

    This is worse than being a mere mangina. This is a complete lack of genuine faith.

  34. mrteebs says:

    Word of the day: “uxorious.”

    Seems our forebearers understood the concept of supplicating mangina well enough to decide it merited a proper English word. Interestingly, there is no reciprocal word for an overly attentive wife, which is a commentary in and of itself.

    See this thread for some interesting comments:
    http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/68175/what-is-the-female-equivalent-for-uxorious

  35. N. Vandenberg says:

    Women’s relationships today follow a very
    predictable pattern:

    They push men for commitment

    They get what they want

    They lose interest in sex

    They become attracted to someone else

    They start cheating

    They begin telling their partners that they need time apart

    They blame their partners for their behavior…and eventually, after a long time of vacillating back and forth, and several failed attempts to give up their affairs, they end their relationships or marriages.

    If you’re a male, like most other males, you would probably never suspect that your partner is cheating, not only because of your wife’s or girlfriend’s seeming disinterest in sex; but also because you have the belief that your wife or girlfriend is a “good girl.” Unfortunately, males are frequently left/divorced by their wives and girlfriends without ever knowing about their wives’ and girlfriends’ infidelities.

    Read more at Michelle Langley’s website.
    Google “women’s infidelity Langley”

  36. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    Typical Russell Moore; moving the SBC ever leftward…

  37. Bruce says:

    great post – you sir are a national treasure!

    [D: Thank you.]

  38. Cindy says:

    Anonymous Reader, they’re so scared to correct women that they’ll cheerfully see their own very young daughters into destruction with girl power crap that inevitably, predictably gets them hurt. Daughter of a preacher here. I won’t dishonor my father by going into details, but I will go far enough in at direction to observe out loud that it is ignorance only of the willful kind, at least in my painful experience.

  39. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    You’ve done several posts on the subject of falling divorce rates, and the story the media misses. Here’s another article you may find useful.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/05/117-year-itch-marriage-lasting-longer-divorce-rates-plunge/

    As usual, they blame men for divorce.

    “So what we’re seeing is that those men who do marry today are taking it a lot more seriously… Today’s marriages include fewer ‘sliders’ who get married under family or social pressure to do the decent thing and more ‘deciders’ who really mean it.”

    They fail to note decreasing marriage rates. They also note that the average age at time of divorce increased, but they failed to note that the average age at time of marriage also increased.

  40. Hank Flanders says:

    I noticed that Moore’s blog post does at least allow comments, which have now started being used. Based on the criticism he’s likely to see, do you think it’s likely that Moore will (or has in the four years since he wrote that post) see the light or just continue on in the same vein? I remember a couple of authors who were the subjects of Dalrock’s blog posts commenting here briefly but faded away as far as I know. Besides those guys, there are undoubtedly some of writers or speakers who Dalrock’s written about who have also read here but never commented. Is there any indication that any of the pandering men whose works have been critiqued here have seen their errors in thinking and later rejected their own ideas?

  41. Lovekraft says:

    Christian messages centered around marriage and relationships appear superficial and childish, to one who has put a lot of thinking into what exactly Jesus Christ’s sacrifice was about. We insult him when we focus on trivial problems when there are many more important matters to discuss.

    To examine the conditions underlying a problem is a reflection of a more advanced intellect, but one which seems to receive scorn in our instant-gratification, materialistic multicult society.

    For example, if a marriage is in trouble, one has to look at the underlying conditions in that relationship. Just adjusting one’s day-to-day behavior will not fix these problems.

  42. Novaseeker says:

    Read more at Michelle Langley’s website.
    Google “women’s infidelity Langley”

    Langley is a good data point, but keep in mind that she has her own very clear axe to grind, and therefore the book contains some exaggerations. Two large motives she had were (1) self-justification and (2) needling men. So you need to keep that in mind when you read her book. Nevertheless, even leaving aside the exaggeration and self-serving nature of the book, it’s directionally accurate in that it describes the typical pattern of *many* women’s marriages and also reveals that there is much more female infidelity taking place than anyone knows (and that women want anyone to know). That’s all true and good to know about, I think, provided you can get past her constant needling of men and her need to self-justify repeatedly throughout the book.

  43. Damn Crackers says:

    I used this quote in the other post, but it seems applicable here:

    What can be mentioned more sordid, more bereft of decency, or more full of turpitude than prostitutes, procurers, and the other pests of that sort? Remove prostitutes from human affairs, and you will unsettle everything because of lusts; place them in the position of matrons, and you will dishonor these latter by disgrace and ignominy.

    St. Augustine, De Ordine 2.4

    Elevating women who sleep around to wives denigrates the entire institution of marriage.

  44. Scott says:

    D-

    I don’t think this is ever formally taught. It is merely a case of doing what is easy (and feels good), and avoiding what is hard (and feels bad). Calling out women’s sins creates a huge scene, because modern Christian women are deep in rebellion. It also doesn’t feel good. But calling out men’s sins feels heroic, and is easy because modern Christian men are open to correction. What Dr. Moore and so many others are doing is just going with the flow. No instruction is required.

    Correct. One of my seminary professors cautioned on how to correctly interpret 1 Pet 3:7. He said we should think of “weaker vessel” as “fine Ming vase. You know, like something you put on a pedestal.”

    Multiply this times every professor, every time the topic touched on male/female differences and you are pretty much drowning in it in seminary.

  45. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cindy
    Anonymous Reader, they’re so scared to correct women that they’ll cheerfully see their own very young daughters into destruction with girl power crap that inevitably, predictably gets them hurt. Daughter of a preacher here. I won’t dishonor my father by going into details, but I will go far enough in at direction to observe out loud that it is ignorance only of the willful kind, at least in my painful experience.

    You know far more about being a PK or a preacher’s daughter than I ever will. On the other hand, I know far more about being a man in this feminized world than you can fathom.

    So what looks to you like willful ignorance might look to me more along the lines of clueless groupthink, mixed with people-pleasing foolishness. There is a tremendous pressure brought to bear on every man in the West to give women what they want, when they want it, and to pick up any damaged pieces later in a “no fault” manner. Those men who resist that pressure can find it doubled down on them from just about everyone around them.

    You have my sympathy for whatever befell you, without question.

  46. Tam the Bam says:

    Feeriker, agree heartily. “Dr” Ian Paisley, late of this neighborhood, and arguably as responsible for the deaths of numbers of Christians in the recent “Troubles” as any IRA-man, was a barely-literate hedge-preacher and demagogue who was gifted his grand title by one of these US diploma-mills.
    Protestant madrasahs, but the homework isn’t as complicated.

  47. feeriker says:

    Christian messages centered around marriage and relationships appear superficial and childish, to one who has put a lot of thinking into what exactly Jesus Christ’s sacrifice was about. We insult him when we focus on trivial problems when there are many more important matters to discuss.

    To examine the conditions underlying a problem is a reflection of a more advanced intellect, but one which seems to receive scorn in our instant-gratification, materialistic multicult society.

    Well said.

    As I mentioned over at Patriactionary in response to Will’s reblogging of the OP, so much “Christian” marriage material focuses on the trivial and the superficial, using Scripture only to justify agenda-laden modernist POVs. Because “Christian” marriage studies never dive deeply into Scripture to capture the real essence of what Christian marriage truly is intended to be (to do so would lead in some uncomfortable and impolitic directions, and churchians ashamed of what Scripture says are not about to go in those directions), too many “Christian” marriages are as shallow and spiritually rootlesss as their secular equivalents. Thus the prevalence of fractured “Christian” marriages, the causes of which would be largely absent or easily and quickly fixed had the marriage been grounded in Scriptural principles to begin with.

  48. feeriker says:

    @ Hank Flanders

    I noticed that Moore’s blog post does at least allow comments, which have now started being used. Based on the criticism he’s likely to see, do you think it’s likely that Moore will (or has in the four years since he wrote that post) see the light or just continue on in the same vein?

    Were I a wagering man, I’d lay money on Moore’s comments section being very short-lived if the comments consist in the main of anything other than unconditional agreement with his POV. Guys like this are too invested, professionally and financially, to change their outlook as a result of exposure to incontrovertible factual evidence.

    I remember a couple of authors who were the subjects of Dalrock’s blog posts commenting here briefly but faded away as far as I know. Besides those guys, there are undoubtedly some of writers or speakers who Dalrock’s written about who have also read here but never commented.

    The two most recent examples I can think of (Pastor Wade Burleson and Ken Alexander) who ventured into this forum in an attempt to defend their feminist heresy were like gladiators who went into the arena against hungry lions naked and unarmed and suffered the predictable results of doing so.

    I don’t think were going to see any more of the targets of Dalrock’s exposés show up here. Feminists/white knights are like all other brands of prog: they can’t defend their positions by debating facts, so they shut themselves off from discussion and restrict feedback in their own fora in order to to gag dissent (ask the guys here who ventured over to “Pastor” Sam[antha] Powell’s blog. Guys(?) like Powell are not about to voluntarily wander over here into this corner to be delivered a spiritual and intellectual ass-whupping.

  49. feeriker says:

    @Tam

    Ah, yes, Pope Ian I of the “Free” Presbyterian Church of Ulster. Graduate of Bob Jones University(?). Explains volumes, that does. I’m betting that if that place has anything like an Alumni Hall of Fame that ol’ Pompous Paisley’s portrait hangs right next to that of Founder Bob himself.

  50. Oscar says:

    @ Anonymous Reader says:
    December 6, 2016 at 10:58 am

    “So what looks to you like willful ignorance might look to me more along the lines of clueless groupthink, mixed with people-pleasing foolishness.”

    As Glenn Reynolds often says, “embrace the healing power of ‘and'”. There’s a lot of both in varying proportions. Add a heavy dose of fear, and it’s quite a powerful cocktail – often insurmountable.

  51. Oscar says:

    This one’s priceless!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2016/12/05/trumps-election-stole-my-desire-to-look-for-a-partner/?utm_term=.785c74688caf

    “In August, I went on six dates in one week. I had decided that I was ready to look for a partner. Enough of this dating unavailable men a half-decade younger than me. They’d never seriously consider a relationship with me, my two children and our needy dog. No. I wanted to find an equal. A man who wouldn’t feel the need to step in and rescue me. I didn’t need rescuing.

    Once it was clear that Donald Trump would be president instead of Hillary Clinton, I felt sick to my stomach. I wanted to gather my children in bed with me and cling to them like we would if thunder and lightning were raging outside, with winds high enough that the power might go out. The world felt that precarious to me.

    I’ve lost the desire to attempt the courtship phase. The future is uncertain. I am not the optimistic person I was on the morning of Nov. 8, wearing a T-shirt with ‘Nasty Woman’ written inside a red heart. It makes me want to cry thinking of that. Of seeing my oldest in the shirt I bought her in Washington, D.C., that says ‘Future President.’ There is no room for dating in this place of grief. Dating means hope. I’ve lost that hope in seeing the words ‘President-elect Trump.’”

    Some poor schmuck dodged a bullet thanks to Donald Trump!

  52. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Oscar, many money quotes in that article:

    I’ve been on my own with my kids for most of the past decade.

    And who’s fault is that?

    I have no idea what a supportive partner would even look like in my house. I imagined it as some sort of potluck: We’d both bring the things we have to offer and place them on the table. My ability to multitask and keep everyone’s schedules on track would sit next to his ability to fix cars, cook or read books in silly voices.

    So her “contribution” would be to set his schedule and “keep him track.” To boss him around, because men are too bumbling to run their own lives.

    His “contribution” would be to both fix cars and to cook, and to read to the children. To do all the manly chores and all the womanly chores. While she sits and commands and complains.

    Then the inevitable self-celebration of her being a Strong, Independent Woman:

    I have the means to fix our car. I, on my own, can support my family.

    Really? No alimony or child support?

    I not only have the strength to keep it together mentally and emotionally but I also have the strength to carry my daughter home. I have the strength to carry all of us.

    Hear her roar. Amid her admission of tears and fears over Hillary losing.

  53. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The author, Stephanie Land, apparently has a website: https://stepville.com/

    If you scroll down, you can see a photo of her backside. Her back and arms are covered with tattoos.

  54. Dalrock says:

    @RPL

    So her “contribution” would be to set his schedule and “keep him track.” To boss him around, because men are too bumbling to run their own lives.

    His “contribution” would be to both fix cars and to cook, and to read to the children. To do all the manly chores and all the womanly chores. While she sits and commands and complains.

    I saw that as well. Although I would say him reading to the children is more about filling in for the father she failed to secure for her children.

    I have the means to fix our car. I, on my own, can support my family.

    Really? No alimony or child support?

    Back in February she wrote wrote a HuffPo piece where she (again) declared being done with men:

    All of my desires to find a suitable partner have faded. It might be from a mix of no longer having the ability to put energy into it, to wanting to focus on my family’s recent expansion and how that’s affecting everyone. But dating seems more like a drain I’d slip into and disappear in.

    I think it’ll be a long while before I can jump into anything like that.

    More to the point about her claims of independence, she also wrote about being on food stamps:

    We live next to this ritzy hippie store, full of organic produce, but they also have baked goods that we can purchase with food stamps if we ever need a treat and can’t afford one.

    Everything she writes is profoundly bleak, with the exception of one of her girls having the unexpected chance to get to know her father, at least for a while:

    These last few months have been life-changing with Cora’s grandparents and father becoming a part of our little family. I’ve been estranged from my family for several years, and it comes with its own realizations of my own issues revolving around trusting others. In that sense, sometimes it’s easier to be alone.

    Coraline took to her dad instantly. I’m pretty sure on some level she knew she was his. Watching them together has been full of moments of unexpected sweetness. She wraps her arms around his whole head, and runs to him for a hug when he leaves.

    But it is also heartbreaking, since the other daughter is reminded of the hole in her own life:

    Though Cora’s dad wasn’t there then, he’s here now. For the last month, we’ve seen him almost every day. He got a full-time job and has committed to helping me with daycare costs while having ample time with his daughter.

    Mia’s had a hard time with this, since her dad lives a few states away. Last night, when Cora’s dad came to hang out for a couple of hours, I turned to Mia and asked her if she wanted to go to the store for cupcakes.

  55. theasdgamer says:

    @Dalrock

    I think it’ll be a long while before I can jump into anything like that.

    The author is talking about trying to land a beta…you may be assured that she likely has one or more fuckbuddies on booty call.

  56. Lyn87 says:

    Regarding leading men versus leading women:

    I doubt many seminaries teach leadership, and I doubt even more that the average seminary professor knows enough about it even if he did try to teach it. You don’t learn leadership out of a textbook, you learn it by being a follower, then by becoming a leader and acquiring experience.

    Don’t get me wrong, there are some excellent books out there about leadership, but applying it is another matter. One thing you probably won’t find in a book is that the leadership methods that work on women are different than the ones that work on other men.
    _____

    One fine day at Fort Benning, GA I was was running lanes training for officer candidates (OC) about to graduate and become Second Lieutenants. The OC whose turn it was to be the squad leader was a female… a college educated woman with a background in civilian law enforcement. (The state of New York had allowed this woman to carry a badge and a loaded gun on the street… keep that in mind as the story unfolds.) This was the final event in OCS that she had to pass to get her commission, and I was evaluating her. She turned what should have been a two-hour event into an 11-hour ordeal. The scenario was an easy one, but she was constitutionally incapable of making decisions. It was a disaster. The evaluation form allowed me to give her a score from “1” to “5,” with “1” being the very best, “3” being a passing score, and “5” being an epic failure. I think the verbiage reads, “Well below standard.” At the end of her patrol we sat down on a couple of logs out in the bivouac area and I asked her how she thought she did.

    She thought she did pretty well. /sigh

    I said something like, “Smith, I’m giving you a five. And the reason I’m giving you a five is because the form doesn’t allow me to give you a six.”

    She started crying.

    No, really… she started crying.

    They gave her a different evaluator the next day and she passed – or perhaps I should say, “She was given a passing score.”
    _____

    I had to evaluate a different female cadet on a different event, and she, too, dropped the ball pretty badly. I think I gave her a “4,” and she, too, started tearing up. She had been a stripper before she joined the military… go figure. Not the kind of gal you would think would wilt under a little constructive criticism (I never yelled at my subordinates, even during my time as an OCS TAC officer.) She at least had the sense to be embarrassed.
    _____

    At a different time I was a staff officer (for Personnel) for a brigade-sized unit, and inherited the female section NCOIC from my female predecessor in that position. Apparently they had a grand-old time there. They Family Readiness Group was running like a Swiss Watch with teas, and cake sales, and a newsletter that nobody read. (Oh yippee!… we weren’t even at war yet.) On the other hand, the pay was a mess and the awards were worse (you know, only the primary functions of a Personnel section during peace-time). There was an eight-month backlog for processing awards. Eight. Freaking. Months. to process award recommendations through the section… there was guy who had long-since retired with award paperwork gathering dust in that office the day I took over.

    Not on my watch, baby. Within two days of my arrival we eliminated the backlog and I made it clear that I had different priorities than my predecessor – issues that directly impacted the soldiers were to come first, and the hearts-and-minds extra-duties stuff could happen when we had the time. Under no circumstances was any award recommendation to await action in our section longer than two duty days. I never busted her chops, but I made it stick. (I have a light touch as a leader: I would tell my troops what my desired end-state was and let them do it in whatever manner made the most sense to them unless I had some specific reason why it needed to be done a certain way – in which case I also told them why the constraints were there.) In any case, the Personnel section was no longer going to be a girl’s club / extended baby shower (my predecessor had left the military to have a baby and be a SAHM).

    One day I went to visit the subordinate battalions and was gone most of the day. When I got back to HQ the CSM (big, burly, gruff dude) snagged me in the hallway just as I came in. (I think he was waiting for me.) He said that he had sent my NCOIC home while I was gone. No problem… he’s a professional and I’m not going to question his judgement, but it was the reason he sent her home that’s pertinent. He sent her home because she had had a breakdown and was under her desk bawling like a baby about all the stress she was under. Mind you, this woman was an E-7 working with minimal supervision in an air-conditioned office – the senior non-commissioned officer running my section in my absence.
    _____

    I gotta’ say, I’ve occasionally had to issue corrections and some pretty tough feedback to soldiers under my authority, but those are the only three occasions when anyone broke down in tears, and all three of those subordinates were women.

    Bringing it back around… people who don’t like a church can always go find another one, or none at all. Nobody is making anyone go to church, and most pastors are more than willing to poach disgruntled refugees from another church’s discipline (especially if they’re tithers). That means that a pastor can only lead people who voluntarily submit to his leadership – it’s not a crime to disobey your pastor or fail to report to Sunday School. So how do you make people want to follow you? What my decades in leadership has taught me is that if you give a man a reason to respect you, he’ll usually take correction “like a man” and seek to improve. He’ll probably thank you for it. But with women, they’re far more likely to take it personally and react with emotion (like crying… for example). You almost have to run game on them – not PUA game, but “I’m the alpha – listen to me” game.

    What happens in cases like Mark Driscoll is that he AMOGs, but he tends to use it to put down men rather than build them up (the sign of a leader who’s unsure of himself), yet not deliver the hard truths (many) women would accept from a man they perceive as an alpha. It’s the worst of both worlds.

    Driscoll yells more in 21 seconds than I did in 21 years as a military officer, including four years as an OCS black-hat.

    Women CAN be led to be better, but that comes primarily from their fathers and, later, husbands. Pastors and Christian leaders ought to be edifying* men and not pedestalizing women.

    * “Edify” is an interesting word that occurs in the Bible. It has the same root as “edifice.” Christians are commanded to build one another up like a carpenter builds a house or as a mason builds a wall. Neither smashing the materials with a hammer (how churchians treat men) or ignoring the cracks in the foundation (how churchians treat women), is an effective method of building a stable structure. It is often the opposite of edification.

  57. Frank K says:

    “and also reveals that there is much more female infidelity taking place than anyone knows (and that women want anyone to know)”

    The first rule of cupcake club … never talk about cupcake club.

  58. Frank K says:

    “In August, I went on six dates in one week. I had decided that I was ready to look for a partner. Enough of this dating unavailable men a half-decade younger than me. They’d never seriously consider a relationship with me, my two children and our needy dog. No. I wanted to find an equal.”

    Hilarious. Post wall single mother whose only value to bad boys was as a pump-n-dump has been thrown from the carousel and now blames Trump for her misfortunes.

  59. Feminist Hater says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4005840/Britain-s-oldest-defendant-101-monster-sexually-abused-young-girl-leaving-feeling-dirty-ashamed-decades.html

    Hilarious! I hope MGTOW goes in leaps and bounds. How the heck do you defend yourself from false accusations from 30 to 40 or more years ago…?

  60. feeriker says:

    I not only have the strength to keep it together mentally and emotionally but I also have the strength to carry my daughter home. I have the strength to carry all of us.

    Sooo … other than the contents of his wallet, what the fuck do you need a man for? And what do you have to offer in return that isn’t toxic baggage?

    The fact that not one of the hordes of thirsty beta schlubs out there has shown any interest in “tapping that” (and those thirsty schlubs will “tap” some pretty repulsive things) serves as a pretty solid indicator of an SMV on the negative side of “zero.”

    Though Cora’s dad wasn’t there then, he’s here now.

    Mia’s had a hard time with this, since her dad lives a few states away.

    Oh, lovely. A skanky, batshit-crazy babymomma with a pair of bastard offspring with two different babydaddies. No wonder not even the thirsty beta schlubs are interested. That just screans “RUN, FORREST, RUN!!!!”

    Oh, and then there’s the sobering realization that she is raising two more future batshit-crazy sluts who will probably also spew out more bastard thugspawn (while also probably sporting nice, shiny substance abuse issues as well).

  61. Oscar says:

    @ RPL & Dalrock

    That woman is a gold mine of unintentionally distributed Androspheric truth, and a depressing cautionary tale to young women AND men.

  62. Bruce says:

    My wife and I met as teenagers (she asked me out). The first date, she leaned over and kissed me at the end of the date. The second date, she jumped on top of me. A couple dates later, she took her shirt off. A couple dates later she initiated sex with me. I enjoyed it all and was, of course, a willing participant/fornicator. But my experience is not rare or unusual among my friends. Woman are quite frequently the sexually aggressive one at the beginning of a relationship.

    Mr. Moore does not or will not understand the contemporary relationship scene.

  63. feeriker says:

    How the heck do you defend yourself from false accusations from 30 to 40 or more years ago…?

    You can’t and don’t. That’s why sane and just societies, which both the UK and the US were until very recently, put statutes of limitations on such crimes. To attempt to prosecute such crimes after the passage of decades, when most witnesses and all physical evidence have long since vanished, is ludicrous, to say nothing of unjust and a frivolous waste of time and scarce public resources.

  64. Frank K says:

    “Mr. Moore does not or will not understand the contemporary relationship scene.”

    Churchian Beta Cuck “pastors” rarely do.

  65. feeriker says:

    Someone needs to gift Mizz Stephanie Land a t-shirt with this:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=%22soup+sandwich%22&tbm=isch&oq=%22soup+sandwich%22&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.3..0l5.20183.34140.0.34605.16.15.0.1.1.0.1477.3998.2j3j1j2j1j1j0j1.11.0….0…1c.1.34.mobile-heirloom-serp..6.10.3204.-NBu5p5-CY8#mhpiv=0

  66. Gunner Q says:

    “They’d never seriously consider a relationship with me, my two children and our needy dog.”

    Even her dog has issues? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYy9LysXANI

  67. Anon says:

    Hilarious! I hope MGTOW goes in leaps and bounds. How the heck do you defend yourself from false accusations from 30 to 40 or more years ago…?

    Bill Cosby is finding out that one cannot.

    When the law retroactively changes to trap you in accusations that would not have flown at the time, you are in trouble.

  68. Anon says:

    “In August, I went on six dates in one week. I had decided that I was ready to look for a partner. Enough of this dating unavailable men a half-decade younger than me. They’d never seriously consider a relationship with me, my two children and our needy dog. No. I wanted to find an equal.”

    We could not pack in more ‘sphere cliches in one passage if we tried. She has no idea what her ‘equal’ really is..

    Funny how the dog is described as being the one that is ‘needy’, when it is the only member of her household who can survive without government-seized male resources.

  69. Frank K says:

    “Bill Cosby is finding out that one cannot.”

    Which is why so many men, especially those who call themselves MGTOW, have chosen to ghost.

  70. BillyS says:

    What is the core of the charge he is accused of? Or is it just a matter of guilty until proven innocent?

  71. theasdgamer says:

    @Bruce

    But my experience is not rare or unusual among my friends.

    I bet neither you nor your friends would never cold approach a woman at a bar/club without a signal from them, right?

  72. The Question says:

    Merry Christmas, Dalrock

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2016/11/30/i-love-your-family-but-i-dread-your-joyous-holiday-letters/

    Fractured families are wonderful, and don’t let anyone, not even those who suffer from the fallout, tell you different.

  73. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Hank Flanders
    I noticed that Moore’s blog post does at least allow comments, which have now started being used.

    There’s a simple explanation for this — Russell Moore may have written the post, but the site where it’s posted is not his. Go pay a visit to his personal blog (russellmoore.com) and you’ll notice that none of his posts feature comments, nor a means for leaving them. He used to allow them, but somewhere around a couple of years ago he removed the option and deleted all comments that had been left on old posts. While I’d have to search for it, I do remember him also leaving at least one tweet in the past saying that the comments sections were the part of web publications that he liked the least and would prefer to do away with.

    Based on the criticism he’s likely to see, do you think it’s likely that Moore will (or has in the four years since he wrote that post) see the light or just continue on in the same vein?

    Nope, not a chance. Moore’s progressively gained a higher profile in the media over the last year, but that owes at least partly to his willingness to attack the right; witness just how much of the past year he spent kvetching about how Christians who voted for a sinner like Donald Trump had “lost their values (his words).” There’s always going to be some bright new opportunities for a “conservative” who is eager to bash the right, and Russell Moore is probably smart enough to realize that if he starts attacking some of the sins and vices the mainstream culture is a bit more fond of then he might risk losing the “strange new respect” he now enjoys. Dealing with the issues that commenters raise here might someday force him to take issue with modern feminism, and do you think that The Washington Post and The New York Times will be happy invite him to write a column when he does that? It’s far safer and more profitable for him to resort to “picking his battles,” and shuffling back from that particular fight.

    Gutless Russell has had plenty of bad things to say about the “moral majority,” but in his own way he’s just another pastor who went to Washington and ended up going native.

  74. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Lyn87: She started crying. No, really… she started crying.

    That’s funny. Those kick-ass, Amazonian, womyn warriors never cry in the movies.

  75. Lost Patrol says:

    Another great day reading Dalrock commentary! Edifying, educational, and entertaining – it is to laugh at all that feminism hath wrought. Got to keep your sense of humor about it all. Got to.

    @RPL
    Hear her roar. Amid her admission of tears and fears over Hillary losing.
    This triggered me. I immediately thought: Ranting Outrageously Against Reality – @feeriker

    @Lyn
    Remind me to tell you the one someday about the poor SFC (6 foot 4, strapping, true believer, recruiting poster type) caught between two feuding, female, senior officers (each different services, each crying, each trying to use him as the go between). Oh well, you’ve probably heard or seen it before. Most guys here have seen some version of this in their work environment. Can hardly wait for the first female infantry battalion commander to either cry, or act like some movie chick when hell really does come calling. As Dalrock has shown us – the ensuing disaster will be some man’s fault (or he will pull a rabbit out of his hat, and she will get the medal of honor).

    @Oscar
    Speaking of recruiting posters, you found a real winner. Here’s what’s fascinating to me. She is the feminist model in virtually every way (except for the brief moment of weakness looking for a man to help her in her endeavors). She is also the model of feminism’s failures – in every way. She’s a dual purpose poster girl.

  76. Patrick says:

    I really value my church the more I read these comments. A Roman Catholic Church in a small town in the upper South where the priest sticks to the true faith and doesn’t give women (or men) a pass. We have lots of single and divorced men in their 30s, 40s and 50s, and most are spiritually nourished with the Gospel and liturgy as presented in the church. Of the regular attenders it is probably 55-45 male to female overall. Several time in the past few years, in response to issues that have arisen in popular culture, on divorce, sex outside of marriage, abortion, celibacy, and marriage, Father has not wavered at all…and people love it. We have a strong congregation that follows Jesus and has many devoted Christians. I just wish more churches, including Catholic parishes, followed this example.

    [D: Excellent.]

  77. Oscar says:

    @ LP

    “Speaking of recruiting posters, you found a real winner… She’s a dual purpose poster girl.”

    She’s a total nightmare. As I read the article, I kept thinking “why would any man in his right mind knowingly occupy the same room as this basket case?” Then I read the article Dalrock excerpted. Man, I feel sorry for those girls! Sadly, they’ll most likely turn out like their mother, and the cycle will perpetuate itself.

  78. Lyn87:

    Thanks for sharing the three anecdotes. Based on my observation, very few women do well in leadership positions and the reason things are ticking reasonably well for them is usually the rank-and-file men under them. The bigger issue will be the “fireworks” and “subtle catfights” that will happen when these female leaders deal with their other female peers. On top of the work, you, as a man, have to deal with a political minefield where every word or sentence can be misconstrued. During meetings, everything appears to be nice and everyone is polite but there are many undercurrents. She can nod (even enthusiastically) when someone is presenting or offering an idea but after the meeting, the same person can criticise the idea or presentation vehemently.

    So, the saying about how female leadership, particularly in God’s kingdom, is His judgement rings true. Sad thing is, my newly minted pastor has no qualms about females being leaders if they step up and qualify (graduated from seminary).

  79. RPC says:

    Lots of good article links in this discussion. I’ll add one. This was in the local Seattle news:

    http://komonews.com/news/local/former-seahawk-ricardo-lockette-sparks-a-walkout-in-garfield-high-talk

  80. infowarrior1 says:

    @chokingonredpills
    I bet your pastor has a range of pastorbation to explain away the verses that are against women having Authority over men. No doubt fudging with the greek to change the meaning to what is convinient.

  81. Bruce says:

    @theasdgamer , I’ve never, literally never approached a woman to pick her up (in a bar or anywhere else) so I can’t say. I don’t think most of my friends would.

  82. infowarrior1 says:

    Galatians 3:28 is often used to support the equality that is a tenet of faith among all those who support this kind of nonsense refuted here:
    http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/deconstructing-maoist-jesus.html

  83. Oscar says:

    @ RPC

    Unfortunately, both the speaker and the girl who objected were wrong in that case.

  84. Hank Flanders says:

    feeriker

    The two most recent examples I can think of (Pastor Wade Burleson and Ken Alexander) who ventured into this forum in an attempt to defend their feminist heresy were like gladiators who went into the arena against hungry lions naked and unarmed and suffered the predictable results of doing so.

    I don’t think were going to see any more of the targets of Dalrock’s exposés show up here. Feminists/white knights are like all other brands of prog: they can’t defend their positions by debating facts, so they shut themselves off from discussion and restrict feedback in their own fora in order to to gag dissent…

    Yeah, I understand why that would happen if they were still pushing the same views, but I was just wondering if there had been any who had actually changed their views yet and had renounced their previous, women-pandering ones. It’s difficult to ignore the simple truths Dalrock often writes about when presented with them.

  85. Hank Flanders says:

    Darwinian Arminian,

    Thanks for the information. I’m not familiar with Russell Moore, so all of that’s new to me.

  86. theasdgamer says:

    @Bruce

    @theasdgamer , I’ve never, literally never approached a woman to pick her up (in a bar or anywhere else) so I can’t say. I don’t think most of my friends would.

    So, you all got your floozies out on the street? 😉 I figure that you all met your girls in your social circle and the girls that you ended up having sex with actually made the first move. Maybe eyeflirting with you or having a friend approach you all for them.

    Can you remember if you or your friends ever made the first move or did you all always wait for a girl to show interest first?

  87. RPC says:

    @Oscar.

    Agreed. I don’t know if Lockette is a Christian, but I wouldn’t be surprised. It’s the same empty chivalry advocated in churches everywhere. Then, when men try to follow-through with good intent, they are admonished as patronizing and oppressive. The women get “furious!”

    In some ways I do hope I live long enough to see society inevitably disintegrate. It will be amusing to see all the women suddenly need men again for protection, and interesting to see how many men simply won’t care.

  88. Bruce says:

    Adsgamer,
    Sorry I should have been clearer. I met my wife in high school through a friend. She came after me socially and then sexually. She is the only woman I ever dated and we are still happily ( I think, I know I am) married. She made EVERY first move, socially, physically, sexually – I was VERY shy at the time. I was an enthusiastic participant, of course
    I guess my point was that contra Moore young women can be quite aggressive in coming after men – it’s not always the sinful man leading the innocent, angelic woman into fornication.

  89. Oscar says:

    @ RPC

    Also agreed, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a decent man with good intentions, but simply doesn’t get it. There are many decent Christian men who have a gigantic blind spot for this stuff, and I used to be one of them, so I try to be patient with them, though I admit, I’m not very good at it.

    Ironically, this cartoonish masculinity (as Dalrock calls it) imposes un-Biblical responsibilities on men, while stripping fathers and husbands of their Biblical authority.

  90. Snowy says:

    Vagina worship.

  91. Gunner Q says:

    “There are many decent Christian men who have a gigantic blind spot for this stuff…”

    I bet he isn’t blind anymore. Not Red-Pill yet, of course, but that was quite a glitch in the Matrix. Enough glitches pile up, exposure to the Red Pill is like freezing water molecules. Everything suddenly locks together in a perfect lattice. We just have to keep talking about this stuff.

    The worse the wicked behave, the more Christianity sells itself.

  92. theasdgamer says:

    Bruce, your point is well taken. I had a tangential point–that young men are no longer taking the initiative when it comes to approaching women and young men are being outplayed. It wasn’t that way when I was young–men usually initiated everything. Young men need to recover their balls.

  93. Pingback: Dr. Russell Moore: Wives don’t sin (part 2) | Dalrock

  94. Pingback: Complementarians believe that a wife can do no wrong | Christianity and masculinity

  95. Son of Liberty says:

    I really value my church the more I read these comments. A Roman Catholic Church in a small town in the upper South where the priest sticks to the true faith and doesn’t give women (or men) a pass. We have lots of single and divorced men in their 30s, 40s and 50s, and most are spiritually nourished with the Gospel and liturgy as presented in the church. Of the regular attenders it is probably 55-45 male to female overall. Several time in the past few years, in response to issues that have arisen in popular culture, on divorce, sex outside of marriage, abortion, celibacy, and marriage, Father has not wavered at all…and people love it. We have a strong congregation that follows Jesus and has many devoted Christians. I just wish more churches, including Catholic parishes, followed this example.

    [D: Excellent.]

    Read up on Eric Jon Phelps and the reason why this country was founded and successfully grown until the last few decades. The ENTIRE problem we’re seeing in male female relations, politics, wars and assassinations of presidents (Lincoln, JFK, dozen more, etc) who dare follow the Constitution in finance and law, is because of the Roman Catholic Church, the Abominations of Earth, the Mother of all Harlots according to Revelation in the Bible. The satanic infiltration of Washington, media, Hollywood and pedophilia rings to black mail politicians is under the control of the pyramidal structure of Popes leading all the way to the Black Pope, dictating masons and Knights of Malta/Columbus to infiltrate and take control of nations that inhibit power of the world. The CIA is filled with these agents and are in direct bed with fake Jews of Zion (Ashkenazi/Khazar) that have taken control of Israel’s government. The Roman Catholic Church HATES Christians who believe in nothing other than God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and are incomplete freedom away from the Papal fascist dictatorship, they are the counter-Reformationists that once they take over a nation, they erect the male phallus of pagan gods as an obelisk found in U.S., France, Rome, U.K. etc. It is our duty to expose this as Christians (who have accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and not papal, virgins or ceramic figurines), and the #1 stumbling block that creates a pain in the a** is the ignorant, sheepish peasants Catholics that b*tch, reject and whine against ANYBODY speaking against Satan’s greatest creation on planet earth, the Roman Vatican Catholic church. Why do you think they are weaponizing immigration? Because they are Catholic foot soldiers as well as the Vatican created Islamic variant of Sunnism, (real Shia Islam’s enemy) to take over the White and black Christian foundation of this country. God bless.

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