Raising an army of LARPers.

Think of the movies we like to watch. We want the fight. We want our lives to matter. We want to lay it down. We love Saving Private Ryan, everybody getting shot up on the beach. We want to run up on that beach with them. It’s in us.

Brothers, you’ve been called to this. Anything less than this is outside of design and purpose.

–Pastor Matt Chandler

One of the defining characteristics of the man up/step up program is an over the top cartoonish appeal to the virtues of courage and valor.  This comes across as cringeworthy not only because it is so childish and over the top, but because the point of the program is to avoid doing what is difficult and terrifying.  It is false bravado used to mask paralyzing fear.

As the creators of the program know, most of the men in attendance are there either because their wife gave them permission or their wife ordered them to attend.  When the creators of the program are speaking to the wives, they are beseeching the head of the household to send their husband in so they can “fix” him the way she wants.  The men for their part know the drill, as they’ve experienced it countless times before.  Each man knows the leaders in the program are going to tear him down to nothing, and then build him back up into a real man, a knight fit to serve his lady.

But it isn’t just the participants who are encouraged to see themselves as knights in a LARPing chivalrous army.  Pastors are encouraged to see the events as providing them with their own private army, as Dennis Rainey and Kenny Luck explain:

Kenny: Well, I think of the local pastor, first of all—especially, most churches are under 300 people. I got a note just the other day from a local pastor. He has a congregation of 175 people. Nine men, because they had adopted the Sleeping Giant process and pathway, were baptized this last Sunday. It’s almost like he was crying through the email. Here he has help on the way. “The Calvary is coming!” He has a process to get them healthy. He has a strategy to move them into leadership. In most churches that are that small, the pastor needs men forming ranks around him, with his DNA—

Dennis: Yes, he does. Yes, he does.

Kenny: —and so, when they don’t have that, then, we end up hiring disciples versus making disciples and adding staff, which is, for many, prohibitive. So, when the local church—local churches that I see, early adopters to the Sleeping Giant model, the pastors are writing me and going, “I never knew this could be. I didn’t know that I could be the main beneficiary of a solid outreach to men, where we not only develop the man but we develop the leader;” and they form ranks around that—that senior pastor. That’s really where I feel there is going to be a large Kingdom advance of the Great Commission and the Great Commandment, locally, worldwide.

Bob: I’m imagining the pastor who is thinking, “You know, I’d love to see guys energized and mobilized as long as they’re energized and mobilized for what I think they ought to be doing. I’m concerned they’re going to get energized and mobilized and go head in their own direction and have their own agenda…

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cartoonish Chivalry, Dennis Rainey, FamilyLife, Pastor Matt Chandler. Bookmark the permalink.

247 Responses to Raising an army of LARPers.

  1. Splashman says:

    Making all used-car salesmen look saintly by comparison.

  2. Adam Wayne says:

    “We love Saving Private Ryan, everybody getting shot up on the beach. We want to run up on that beach with them. It’s in us.”

    This is head-wrecking stuff. I want to believe that he just tripped over himself saying this. He mentally reached for some pop culture example of heroic, self-sacrificing warriors, and “Saving Private Ryan” was the first thing to pop into his memory, so he quickly and thoughtlessly used that instead of something more persuasive, like “Gladiator” or “Braveheart” or even “The Terminator”. That has to be it, right? No one who ever watched the Omaha Beach scene has sat there thinking “I wish that was me”, have they??

  3. Pingback: Raising an army of LARPers. | @the_arv

  4. Saving private ryan came out in 1998… so he’s trying to convince generation x world war 2 hobbyists that he’s cool? Millennials sure as hell aren’t watching Saving Private Ryan much, if they have seen it at all.
    FAIL

  5. RPC says:

    Courage is the ability to do the right thing, despite the cost.

    Right, except when the “right thing” is standing up to wifely rebellion in the church and actually preaching the scriptures on headship.

  6. feministhater says:

    No one who ever watched the Omaha Beach scene has sat there thinking “I wish that was me”, have they??

    Only him. Becoming a part of the scene showing men getting torn up and having their limbs blown off really wasn’t my first idea of a good time. It’s something that I might have had to do had I been alive then but in no way would I want to be one of those men.

    They have a little white cross to mark their deaths and that is all they have given this world, having been cut down way too soon. Why would any man want that? Life is to be lived.

    Never mind that Saving Private Ryan is a movie about a group of men risking their lives to save one man due to the war having killed all his other brothers and the anguish of the mother being more than enough for the General to send all those other men to their deaths to rescue him. The best part of that movie was Private Ryan refusing to be sent back, that’s actual courage..

  7. Fifty Seven says:

    Just looked up Chandler. As expected– no military background.

    Guys like this remind me of reading Nietzsche: An academic pencil neck talking about brotherhood and battle and courage and a whole bunch of other things that he wouldn’t know if they fell on him.

  8. Oscar says:

    “Think of the movies we like to watch. We want the fight. We want our lives to matter. We want to lay it down. We love Saving Private Ryan, everybody getting shot up on the beach. We want to run up on that beach with them. It’s in us.

    Brothers, you’ve been called to this. Anything less than this is outside of design and purpose.”

    –Pastor Matt Chandler

    Chandler is clearly an idiot.

    I was enlisted when I watched Saving Private Ryan, and hadn’t seen combat yet. I didn’t think “boy, I’d love to have been there!” I thought, “thank God I wasn’t there!” And my awe for the men who were there (a few of whom I had the honor to befriend) grew exponentially.

    Now, after three combat deployments, my reaction is even more “thank God I wasn’t there!” The combat I experienced was nothing compared to the slaughter of Omaha Beach, or the hedgerows of Normandy, or the frozen hell of Bastogne, but it gave me a much clearer picture of what that must have been like.

    Some men are born for war, but they are few and far between. Once they get a taste, nothing else will do. For them, finding another experience to replicate the exhilaration of combat is like chasing the dragon.

    For the vast majority of us, the initial exhilaration is sweet, but once you begin to lose friends, it leaves a slug of bitter lead in your gut. Most men who’ve actually tasted combat prefer avoid repeating the experience if possible, even those of us who are willing to take up arms again when necessary.

    Chandler is a little boy playing with GI Joes.

    “The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.” – Douglas MacArthur

  9. Opus says:

    My Aunt’s husband must have gone ashore on one of those beaches for he rests and has rested in a cemetary in that area of France and has so rested since 1944 (killed on my cousin his daughter’s first birthday).

  10. Otto Lamp says:

    When I think of “Saving Private Ryan”, I think of the landing scenes where the men getting off the landing craft downed, because water was too deep and they were weighted down with equipment.

  11. Snowy says:

    Well said, Oscar. I would only be a soldier if I absolutely had to be; perhaps something like a WW3 scenario. But has Matt Chandler neglected his women audience who want to be part of the action too? Isn’t that what’s happening today? Don’t women want “equality” to fight with the men in the front lines? Matt needs to be scolded for this error.

  12. Jim says:

    Think of the movies we like to watch. We want the fight. We want our lives to matter. We want to lay it down. We love Saving Private Ryan, everybody getting shot up on the beach. We want to run up on that beach with them. It’s in us.

    Brothers, you’ve been called to this. Anything less than this is outside of design and purpose.

    Speak for yourself pussy licker. You want to have your life destroyed then go for it. You be the chivalrous little boy. Continue to screw men over in the name of false bravado. You fight for the privileges of cunts. Cunts aren’t worth it no more than they’re worth the shit on the bottom of a shoe.

    Pastor Matt Chandler….FUCK OFF and take your white knight fags and over privileged cunts with you. These wanna-be tough guys just don’t get it. smfh

  13. Otto Lamp says:

    I have to wonder what is missing in Pastor Chandler’s life that makes him fantasize about these types of heroics. There is almost a Walter Mitty aspect to his statement.

    My father was a medic in Europe in WWII. My uncle was at Pearl Harbor and ended the war in a Japanese POW camp.

    Neither talked about the war as if it was some glorious adventure. Actually, they both talked very little about the war. When they did talk, the stories were gruesome. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to go thorough what they did.

  14. Jason says:

    Otto Lamp. Exactly. My grandfather was in the British Army in Asia during World War II, was captured during the battle of Malay by the Japanese in 1942 and spent the rest of the war in a Japanese POW camp in what is now northern Vietnam. Of a few thousand British Army POW’s in 1942, only a few hundred walked out alive in September 1945. My grandpa never talked about it. The ONLY thing he said was “It wasn’t necessarily the toughest, or strongest men who came out alive, it was the men who had the most to live *for* who came out alive.”

    Never wiser words from a family member I never have heard since.

    My mother even told me “He never mentioned anything specific to me except it was a horror and a brutal, living example of man’s inhumanity to man.”

    My own research shows that Japanese POW camps were pretty vicious places to end up during that horrible war.

    Matt Chandler wouldn’t know the first thing about real “warfare” and that goes for most of us. It’s all window dressing, and playing pretend….with this knighthood, and chivalrous nonsense. You build disciples by ACTION and applicable things in the world they live in. By example. By humility, and most of all……TIME…something no one wants to give today in the church.

  15. Robert What? says:

    But that’s the problem: they don’t want us to act like men. Not in the sense of traditional masculinity. To them, “acting like men” is doing whatever their wives tell them to do, take crap from society and then lick their lips and ask for more crap. Look, being a responsible hardworking husband and father has always been a tremendous sacrifice for men. However in past days society afforded men some perks and benefits in recognition of those sacrifices: respect, a certain amount of deference, male only spaces, property rights, etc. Those benefits are all gone with the wind. Yet men are still supposed to live up to their historical responsibilities without complaint. Sorry, but that dog don’t hunt. Give men an incentive to become hardworking husbands and fathers. Don’t just tell them that they ought to.

  16. feeriker says:

    “We love Saving Private Ryan, everybody getting shot up on the beach. We want to run up on that beach with them. It’s in us.”

    Par for the course, this nonsense, since none of these milquetoasty dweebs has ever worn a military uniform, let alone fought a war. This also explains the cartoonish, jingoistic militarism of the typical Protestant evangelical churchian franchise, an infection every bit as satanic as the feminism that is rotting it from the inside out (and directly related to it as well).

  17. feeriker says:

    Pastor Matt Chandler….FUCK OFF

    Good grief, why dignify him by addressing him as “Pastor?” This cretin isn’t fit to lead a pack of starving mongrels, let alone a church.

  18. feeriker says:

    @Jason

    Your grandfather was a true hero just for having survived his captivity. Japanese POW camps for captured Allied soldiers were every bit the pieces of Hell on Earth that were Nazi cocentration camps. The Japanese considered captured enemy soldiers to be subhuman for having allowed themselves to be captured rather than die in battle, and they treated them accordingly (I had a third cousin, whom I meet for the first time 20 years ago, a few years before his death, who was a U.S. Army survivor of the Bataan Death March in the Phillipines. All the many decades afterward, he still couldn’t bring himself to go into detail about his captivity. I think “survivor’s guilt” played a role too).

    At any rate, the Matt Chandlers of this world really need to just STFU, especially on the subject of war. Unless they’re willing to be the first to suit up and go fight one, they need to leave all talk of war, even metaphorically, to the real men who’ve been there and done that.

  19. Splashman says:

    Good grief, why dignify him by addressing him as “Pastor?”

    Good question. The Bible has a much better title for such: “blind guides”.

    Matthew 23:24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

    Matthew 15:14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.

    I’ve got a few titles for them as well, considerably less polite, but I’ll keep them to myself.

  20. Jim says:

    Good grief, why dignify him by addressing him as “Pastor?” This cretin isn’t fit to lead a pack of starving mongrels, let alone a church.

    It was sarcasm. He’s such a puss he might as well just put a collar around his neck and let the little girls he wants to defend lead him by a leash. Males (he’s not a man) like this are just as bad or worse than the spoiled bitch cunt harpies he worships.

  21. Pingback: Raising an army of LARPers. | Reaction Times

  22. Jason says:

    It’s so corny Feeriker. Pastors talking about being a “Christian soldier” and how serious it is. Comparisons to knighthood. Going on retreats and giving the men “a shield” or a “sword” and at the same time telling them to “grow up” and “grow some” (while giving them pretend toys mind you…who the freak uses a sword today????) How about some TRUTH? How about some real life, real talk about forming trust, dedication…and friendship with their fellow brothers in the church? That would require work, and time. How about teaching men like Christ did? How about building up fellowship with them? How about speaking from the heart instead of ANOTHER workbook, workshop, mandatory read (that is usually written by an ‘amazing’ Christian woman). How about solutions instead of “you gotta be a real man” (and in modern protestant culture that means: football, football, talking about football, wearing your favorite jersey to church..because real men love football…and *listening* to your wife, ’cause she’s the daughter of the King most High.

    Exactly why non-believing men DON’T want anything to do with most churches today. It looks and is silly.

  23. “RPC says:
    May 14, 2017 at 3:17 pm
    Courage is the ability to do the right thing, despite the cost.

    Right, except when the “right thing” is standing up to wifely rebellion in the church and actually preaching the scriptures on headship.”

    TOO RIGHT!! RPC’s statement about this gutless gelding’s utter LACK of courage (to say nothing of his chutzpah by using the word) while exhibiting NONE of it, is what basically came to my mind (but in ‘unflattering’ terms that I learned in my own twenty years of Naval service).
    Courage (I’ve found by experience) is also doing the ‘right thing’ which needs to be done, even though you’re scared to death while doing it.
    If “Pastor” Chandler wants to preach about “Courage”, he should show some spine and “do the right thing, despite the cost” — which is, UNAPOLOGETICALLY preach about things like “wifely submission”, a wife’s vows to “love, honor, and OBEY”, the FINAL marital authority of MALE headship, etc.

  24. feeriker says:

    How about some TRUTH? How about some real life, real talk about forming trust, dedication…and friendship with their fellow brothers in the church? That would require work, and time. How about teaching men like Christ did?

    You nailed it, with those bolded words.

    If these people really, truly believed in what the Scriptures taught, if they really, truly were followers of Jesus and His message, then they wouldn’t hesitate for a second to do whatever needed to be done, not only to bring others to Christ, but to keep others on the path, to educate themselves and others non-stop in the Word, to offer spiritual “mat and potatoes,” rather than just milk.

    But they don’t and they aren’t, which is why they fail so spectacularly to have any impact whatsoever on the world. They don’t really believe, they have ZE-RO genuine faith, and are so deeply in love with the World (that they are most completely OF) that they are, not surprisingly, indistinguishable from it. The world knows it and, I suspect, so do they themselves. It costs them nothing tangible (not yet, anyway) to “play Christian,” so they do it, not really caring about the consequences.

    No, the church has never been perfect and never will be, but I think it bears thinking about that the very fruits of what Christianity at its best has wrought (i.e., Western Civilization) has also created the very conditions under which it has been allowed to stagnate and atrophy. It is a faith that thrives under adversity and persecution.

  25. Adam says:

    This so-called pastor revels in the feeling of power. That is what he desires most of all, and his use of the Omaha beach scene is revealing. That scene galvanizes him because he lusts after the power to be able to command men to run into just such a beach. He has no intention of running into any fire, but more than anything he desires the ability to be able to command that power.

    Dalrock understands this. The key is in the final quote from ‘Bob’.

  26. What is so odd to me as a Roman Catholic is that these feminized, “man up” Churchians completely ignore Christianity’s long, hallowed tradition of single men building a patriarchal Church. This required extraordinary works of mercy, proselytizing, developing doctrine and theology, implementing the sacraments, and on and on. The process began with Jesus Christ himself, who was single. St. Paul emphasized in the New Testament that it is better to be single and celibate, but take a bride if you have to. Being single so that you can focus on your faith is how the faith was built. Combine this with Dalrock’s insights on “Christian” marriage 2.0 (must make her feel loved, denial of sex, and divorce threatpoint, all to enforce female headship), and Christian MGTOW becomes a proper, reasonable response to the current situation.

  27. Mandy says:

    As Andrew Bacebich wrote, when George Bush convinced Congress to send men to Iraq we had fewer veterans in Congress than ever before in our history. He attributed their eagerness to start a war with this lack of actual service

  28. seventiesjason says:

    Was reading a study out of England done by my church (The Salvation Army). It was mentioning that over 3/4 of the Soldiers (members) who single and male feel very lonely and out of place in their respected Corps (churches). Of course everyone in Headquarter in London was “Shocked! Shocked!” to learn this info. The solution? Hollow words and phrases of “equipping men” and looking how to “restore manhood” in His Army…the reality is more workbooks, more Bible study and more retreats / seminars like the one Dalrock talks about. All talk, zero or little action and a lot more of nothing changing.

  29. Anonymous Reader says:

    In most churches that are that small, the pastor needs men forming ranks around him, with his DNA—

    Maybe I’m off base but that looks kind of like a cult of personality. A real leader doesn’t want clones.

  30. I am reminded of the scene in To Kill a Mockingbird when Mr. Finch shoots the dog. That was a man stepping up and doing something hard that needed to be done, not masturbating over charging a machinegun nest in your dreams. Chandler wants to be a “hero”, not a man.

  31. @Jason

    I’ve done some historical fencing. If a man has really faced someone pointing a piece of steel at him, even unsharpened, he comes away with a different perspective. Pointy steel is scary:


  32. Scott says:

    When I was in Afghanistan I travelled by air all the time. A coupe times we took small arms fire from the ground and you could hear the plinking.

    It was pretty exciting the first time.

    That was enough for me.

    Guess I don’t love war enough.

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    Saving Private Ryan my foot. What these preachers are asking men to do nowadays is more like this:

  34. Lost Patrol says:

    The key is in the final quote from ‘Bob’.

    Yes. I don’t know where ‘Bob’ fits in, but he delivers the money quote for all of them. As the old cowboy said, a man will often enough reveal his bad intentions if you listen to what he says.

    “as long as they’re energized and mobilized for what I think they ought to be doing. I’m concerned they’re going to get energized and mobilized and go head in their own direction”

    If this program ever delivered the kind of men it claims to want in that video, it would be game over. They do not want what they claim to want. Maybe they haven’t thought it through.

  35. I can hardly wait until these pastors revive the MMA kick evangelicals were getting into back in the day when Mark Driscoll had a sizable following.

    https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/mma/post/2010/02/times-highlights-growing-christian-interest-in-mixed-martial-arts/1

    This evangelical embrace of MMA is not really surprising because it allows for the thrills without the danger. This want to reconnect with masculinity is all with ‘mommy’s’ permission, but a lot of these guys really buy into the LARP.

    Similarly, evangelicals nerfing game and rediscovering their masculinity in half-measure allows them to get a small testosterone high without truly questioning their core beliefs about women and men or the influence that the Feminine Imperative has on their church culture. That would be really dangerous as they’re psychologically and socially invested in their religious identities, just as we all are with our own identities. That’s the challenge of the red pill. Self-discovery and fundamental change are real scary because they begin by questioning everything you ever though and felt about life, and you have no real idea who you’ll become when you’re done.

    So the MMA/God-Warrior/ Dangerous Christian Evangelical man connection makes sense to me. It’s an easy cop out: a safe roller coaster ride that will end with the restraint bar rising upwards and a safe exit from the exciting ride to return to a mundane reality without exposing their inner selves to any frighteningly serious danger. That’s the connection.

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    Everyone should read the transript pdf Dalrock points to. It’s not long. It’s revealing.
    Years ago I stated that TradCons are like generals in WW I in some nice estate 50 or more miles behind the front, ordering young men for one more frontal charge at entrenchments. Read the transcript and tell me if I was wrong.

  37. Frank K says:

    I did martial arts (Tae Kwon Do) years ago. I thought it had many benefits, fitness being one of them. But our instructor hammered into us the notion that you only fight when there is no other choice, in other words, when you can’t run away. Not very “manly” but it makes perfect sense: you can’t get beat up if you don’t fight and escape instead.

    MMA has the additional appeal in that you can see the fight on TV (usually on pay per view), so I could see amateurs fancying themselves as bad ass butt kickers (like the guys on TV)

  38. Bart says:

    Reading the transcripts of Bob, Kenny, and Dennis, was really telling. They are trying to get men to “man up” and do what the pastor wants them too.

    If the men ever really “man up” in the true Christian sense, they will diligently study the Bible, and then do what GOD wants them to do. It isn’t about you, I, our wives, or the pastors.

    Christ is our King, our Lord, our Captain, our Master! We must listen to (hearken unto) the voice of God (speaking in the Bible), and not to the voice of our wives (like Adam in Gen.3), nor to hypocritical shepherd’s that fleece the sheep.

  39. Frank K says:

    “What is so odd to me as a Roman Catholic is that these feminized, “man up” Churchians completely ignore Christianity’s long, hallowed tradition of single men building a patriarchal Church.”

    That’s because on the other side of the aisle bachelorhood is viewed with the greatest suspicion. As others have noted in other discussions on this blog. single men are never hired by evangelical; congregations to serve as Pastor, and why on so many church websites there will be a picture of the pastor with his master (AKA, his wife) and children.

    To be fair, the Orthodox won’t ordain men to the priesthood to serve in parishes until they are married. In their view, celibacy is only for the monastery, Of course, Evangs don’t have monastic orders at all.

  40. The Calvary is coming? Confused or religious reference?

  41. Tarl says:

    Never mind that Saving Private Ryan is a movie about a group of men risking their lives to save one man due to the war having killed all his other brothers and the anguish of the mother being more than enough for the General to send all those other men to their deaths to rescue him.

    Yes. There you go. Saving Private Ryan was about the Feminine Imperative. Ryan’s mother might feel sad, let’s send some Rangers to their deaths so she can be happy! As one of the soldiers in the squad said, “What about my mom? I have a mother too, you know.”

  42. PeterW. says:

    I grew up knowing a lot of WW2 vets, and a couple of remarkable old gentlemen who had served in both World Wars. You have to seriously believe in something to put your hand up for a second round.

    My perspective is that no sane man wants to be in a situation as bad as that….. but every man who values his masculinity, wants to believe that he could do it if he had to. That he would not leave others to go through that kind of hardship, while taking the safe choice, himself.

    We do not quote “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life….” with reference to our veterans, without good reason.

    Courage is a virtue. Inspiring it is not wrong. But courage in the wrong cause or for the wrong reason, is a waste, and we should despise those who waste it.

  43. Oldflyer says:

    Well, some pithy statements mixed with a lot of horse shit here. Manhood comes in many forms. The basic article seems to be typical clap trap; and some of the comments are equally inane. The man who loves his wife, provides for his family, and sets an example for his sons by going to work each day, meeting his obligations, and never, ever complaining when life throws a hard ball at his head, is as much a man as any other. We will never know how much of his own inclinations he may subordinate to meet those responsibilities; but, to suggest that his wife is “calling the shots” is just plan stupid. He has accepted responsibilities and faces up to them. Such a man, when necessity dictates will gear up and go to war, as my father did in WWII, but that is not what defines him; and that is not what makes him a man. He could do that, then return to be the gentle soul that he was before, because he was a man. Admittedly, he was formed in a time when this sort of manhood was expected and respected. There was no need for artificial definitions, nor for remedial training programs.

  44. BillyS says:

    Might want to include a link to the first quote.

    I couldn’t stomach watching enough of the video to hear him say it, but I would guess you saw the transcript at http://www.tvcresources.net/resource-library/sermons/mans-purpose

    He is so wussy that I can’t even handle listening to him, and I listen to a wide range of preachers.

    Disgusting.

  45. Frank K says:

    Those soldiers who died on Omaha Beach died because the collective world lacked the intestinal fortitude to stop Hitler when it would have been a lot easier. Reminds me of how no one seems to have the nerve to stop the “Fat, Crazy Kid” in North Korea before he can blackmail the world with his nukes.

  46. BillyS says:

    The opening clip above seems reasonable, without context. I would agree men are trained to be wimps today, especially by those putting on this conference. Men in churches need to stop being wimps, but it will take a major mental shift for most to realize what really needs to be done. Too bad they don’t have a conference on that.

  47. Sean says:

    That’s because on the other side of the aisle bachelorhood is viewed with the greatest suspicion. As others have noted in other discussions on this blog. single men are never hired by evangelical; congregations to serve as Pastor,

    That’s because there are Scriptural demands of a pastor. Specifically I TIm 3, TItus 2. He is to be the husband of one woman whose household is to be in order. Now, one doesn’t *need* to be married to be a pastor but one should be. It’s amazing how the papists have taken one thought from Paul in I Cor 7 and made doctrine out of it but yet the specific commands of Paul in I Tim and Titus (the same man who wrote I Cor) get magically wished away.

    Even Christ has a bride. Peter was married. Paul even says that Ephesians 5 and 6, the marriage of a man to a woman, is the image of Christ and the church (Eph 5:23).

  48. Anonymous Reader says:

    BillyS
    He is so wussy that I can’t even handle listening to him, and I listen to a wide range of preachers.

    Speech patterns often map with thinking patterns. I don’t know what the psychologists have to say about that, but I noticed it when I was maybe 20 years old. Matt Chandler talks in an effeminate manner. If he came out as a homosexual it would not surprise me, but then again I have met more than one active church leader with a wife and one or more children whose body language, vocal tones, speech patterns etc. were all quite womanlike.

    Anyway I’m with BillyS, can’t stand this guy for even 30 seconds. Not just because of the above but he also reminds me of a Multi Level Marketer. Can’t figure out why.

  49. Frank K says:

    1 Timothy 3. Says that he should be married only once, not that he must be married.

    I was wondering how long until the slur “Papist” would be used. Being that Paul didn’t marry, I guess that made him a “Papist”, I suppose. 🙂

  50. Oscar says:

    Frank K,

    1 Tim 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

    Note the use of the word “must”, not “should”. Also, how would an overseer have a household (which he “must” manage well) and children (whom he “must” keep submissive) without a wife? Note that managing his own household is a prerequisite for caring for God’s church.

    Also, not that he “must not be a recent convert”. If all the other “musts” can be dismissed as “shoulds”, does that mean we can also dismiss that “must” as a “should”?

  51. Oscar says:

    That was supposed to read: note that he “must not be a recent convert”. Oops.

  52. Bart says:

    Frank P. –

    I intend to keep using the word “papist” for a good long time. 😏. Halfway kidding

    I do prefer papists to Mohammedians. These days, the Mohammedians are much more likely to kill those who disagree with them.

    Also, I appreciate good red pill Roman Catholic men like you, even while vigorously disagreeing about substantial doctrinal matters.

    Speaking of the Reformation, I’d trade a hundred Matt Chandlers for one man like Martin Luther, John Calvin, or John Knox (as clearly and deeply flawed as those men were, they were serious Bible guys).

  53. Bart says:

    Frank –
    The RCC position of a mandatory celebrate ministry completely turns the Timothy and Titus instructions on their head. Paul’s instructions clearly assume that church leaders will (at least usually) be married men.

    How can Rome get from “husband of one wife” to “must not have a wife”?

  54. Mineter says:

    Not allowing RCC priests is great for plausible deniability with regards to the efficacy of marital advice: “do you see any of OUR priests getting divorced?”

  55. Scott says:

    AR-

    In most churches that are that small, the pastor needs men forming ranks around him, with his DNA—

    Maybe I’m off base but that looks kind of like a cult of personality. A real leader doesn’t want clones.

    Agreed. The DNA part was really awkward.

  56. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Back in the 1970s, when I was about age 11, I saw The Longest Day on TV. Yes, I wanted to be there on D-Day. All my friends did. We thought World War 2 was cool. We played soldier during recess.

    So I guess Pastor Chandler still has the maturity of an 11-year-old.

  57. So many issues. Firstly, who watch “Saving Private Ryan” very often? Modern Batman movies is a much better reference, minus the fact that Batman actually wins. Can’t have that.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Circumcellions

    The problem when you lose tether on the Lord is that Christian groups take specific aspects of the Bible and blow them out of proportion. In this case, we have an entire set of Christian sects that, rather than martyr themselves, really want to watch others get martyred for them. That’s hyper feminine, in the main, so that really isn’t too surprising.

    On the movie itself, it was military policy at the time that if a family lost a large number of sons that they would remove the others from the front lines. You know, back when they actually cared a bit about winning wars and surviving on the other side. However, they’d have never needed to do what they did in the movie. Though give the opening scene all of the credit in the world for “War is bad, k?”.

    Also, having seen these types enough, I’d pay them to do my taxes. That’s about the extent to which they’re capable of leading anything. They have all of the hallmarks of Men in positions of authority & influence because they happened to simply be there. They’ve got no actual leadership skills.

  58. Hmm says:

    The root of celibacy in the RCC historically is an appeal to Jesus’ and Paul’s singleness. But it was not always that way, and came to the forefront some time after the church conquered the Roman empire, and the hierarchy began to worry about losing its wealth and power to the heirs of married priests. It’s basically the same reason that the highest advisors to the Babylonian kings were eunuchs.

    But the Israelites in the Old Testament had no problem with hereditary priesthood at all. Deeply ingrained in their culture was “teach your sons!”

  59. Those who’d like to see a marvelous illustration of what it means to be a man and to take on a man’s responsibility should watch the Essential Craftsman videos on YouTube:

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzr30osBdTmuFUS8IfXtXmg

    Start with his “Top Ten Tools” video, since he talks about much more than tools, including friendship and God.

  60. DrTorch says:

    That quote by Chandler reads a lot like John Eldridge. I don’t think Chandler wrote that, I think he plagiarized it. And while not everyone likes Eldridge, his work is important in the red-pill awakening (a metaphor he used as well). He’s proto-red-pill at worst.

    Frank K- Your absurd accounting of the past (fake history) was and is a liability to the real Church.

  61. Pingback: Raising an army of LARPers. - Top

  62. Oscar says:

    @ Looking Glass says:
    May 15, 2017 at 3:10 am

    “Firstly, who watch ‘Saving Private Ryan’ very often? Modern Batman movies is a much better reference… ”

    Bingo! It’s a fantasy for Chandler and others. Saving Private Ryan portrayed the horrors of war more accurately than any movie I’d seen before it, especially the opening and closing battle scenes. None of the characters actually wanted to be there, and they were Rangers, for crying out loud! In fact, CPT Miller at one point says that accomplishing the mission is his ticket home.

    War isn’t a comic book. People really do die in horrific ways, and many who don’t die return shattered in horrific ways. It’s not to be entered into lightly or joyfully. It’s to be entered into with grim determination, and only when the alternative is worse, and with the willingness to kill 1/3 of the enemy’s male population to ensure he never wants to fight you again.

  63. BuenaVista says:

    As everyone has noted, no one who’s been busted up and airlifted out is “motivated” by the beach scene in “Saving Private Ryan”, much less the concluding scene at the mother’s Iowa farmhouse. There is something deeply obscene (not simply stupid) about Chandler’s church-building strategy. He seeks to turn a voluntary and spiritual community into yet another meat-grinder — because that’s where the money is. Owing to men like him there are a few million men walking the streets at night, alone and at tremendous risk. Most of those men have children, who cannot possibly ransom their pain.

  64. Hose_B says:

    Heard an odd version of the “step up” message this Sunday. Preacher was going through Ruth and was describing how “Ruth CHALLENGED Boaz to STEP UP and DO THE RIGHT THING” while the nearer kinsman redeemer had no integrity because he wouldn’t redeem Ruth.
    Her faithfulness to Naomi was applauded, but at each step there was some “man cautioning” message. To the point that he actually stopped talking about Ruth to warn the “men” or the church about how “scary” we are to our wives. But nothing about how Ruth’s hard work and submissiveness wins Boaz over. Naaaaa….she challenged him to “step up”.

  65. Scott says:

    To be fair, the Orthodox won’t ordain men to the priesthood to serve in parishes until they are married. In their view, celibacy is only for the monastery, Of course, Evangs don’t have monastic orders at all.

    This may be jurisdictional. My understanding is that marriage is not disqualifying, but you can’t get married if you are already a priest. The two largest Orthodox seminaries I know of have single men in them.

  66. Keith says:

    LARPing indeed it should be labeled how to build a better beta. What a terrible prospect for old bobby that men might get energized and go their own way with their own agenda

  67. Cane Caldo says:

    Judging by the comments, I have a very different interpretation of this post than most of you.
    Chandler is right that men glorify war; that it stirs up manly impulses. From Exodus

    “I will sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously;
    the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea.
    2 The Lord is my strength and my song,
    and he has become my salvation;
    this is my God, and I will praise him,
    my father’s God, and I will exalt him.
    3 The Lord is a man of war;
    the Lord is his name.

    and from Revelation

    Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

    What I read Dalrock to be saying is three-fold.

    1) Chandler, Rainey, etc. are deceiving. They pretend to exhort men to battle the world’s ways while actually commanding men to march into its concentration camps. Specifically, for men to harken unto the voices of their wives rather than to obey God and say true things lest husbands make wives feel bad.

    2) Chandler, Rainey, etc. are not anything like men of war themselves. They themselves do not understand the tropes and symbolism they use to stir men up. They are effeminate.

    3) Chandler, Rainey, etc. aren’t only misguided; they aren’t simply deceived themselves. They also have an ulterior motive of self-glorification, and abuse the tropes of manliness to aggrandize themselves by making minions of other men.

    Those are all important and true points. However; we should not have disdain for the manly impulse to fight.

    @Michael W. Perry

    Those who’d like to see a marvelous illustration of what it means to be a man and to take on a man’s responsibility should watch the Essential Craftsman videos on YouTube

    I’ve been subscribed to Essential Craftsman for a couple weeks. He’s a natural presenter, knows his craft, and seems like a great guy. However; he is not tough-minded when it comes to women. As his video series goes on he makes more “Women can do this too!” comments. It’s disappointing, but he’s also relatively successful, almost 60, and from a white rural background. That demographic is almost impenetrable to the truth about modern cultural pressures. I would not be surprised if he is a Promise Keeper. He’s the core demographic.

    @DrTorch

    That quote by Chandler reads a lot like John Eldridge. I don’t think Chandler wrote that, I think he plagiarized it. And while not everyone likes Eldridge, his work is important in the red-pill awakening (a metaphor he used as well). He’s proto-red-pill at worst.

    I’d buy that about Eldridge. I read his book Wild at Heart over a dozen years ago, and I liked what he wrote at the beginning of the book. He couldn’t end it though because, I believe, he lost his nerve. He built-up the idea that men are supposed to be dangerous leaders, but then he didn’t have the heart to write that men should demonstrate an expectation that their leadership be followed by wives and children.

    Even so, you’re right that he was important in the “red-pill awakening”, and in some ways it was because of that fear. I put down the book thinking, This isn’t right. Why did he bail out on his thesis?, and that led to further reading and thinking.

    This is a common theme. It frustrates me that we in this corner of the Web (Men’s Sphere, Alt-Right, Neo-Reaction, etc.) are too quick to spit on those who intellectually came just before us; who showed some light down the road even if it wasn’t as far down as we will need. You don’t get Donald Trump without the Tea Party and candidates like Herman Cain. Now the Tea Party people are described as just a bunch of “cucks”, but WarHammer 40K memes are powerful and mature. (Talk about cartoonish LARPing!) It is better when we just shine the light a little bit brighter; when we pull them a little farther back up the road of repentance. I hope someone does that for me one day, God willing.

  68. Cane Caldo says:

    @Buena Vista

    He seeks to turn a voluntary and spiritual community into yet another meat-grinder

    The Christian life is a spiritual meat-grinder. We sacrifice the flesh for eternal life. Chandler’s wrong because he uses war tropes to propose a spiritual spirit-grinder.

  69. R.C. says:

    Re: Catholic, Orthodox, etc.:

    1. Catholic and Orthodox both have married priests (“presbyteroi”); but neither Catholic nor Orthodox have married bishops (“episkopoi”).

    2. The Catholic church is made out of 20-odd “particular churches” with their various patriarchs. The largest is the “Latin Church” of which the Bishop of Rome is also patriarch (“Patriarch of the West”). In the “Latin Church” priests normatively do not marry, but may be married. Often a “Latin Church” priest may be married if he’s a convert who married prior to becoming a Catholic (e.g. Fr. Dwight Longenecker in South Carolina). In the smaller “particular churches” (e.g. Melkite, Syro-Malabar, Ethiopian, etc.) married priests are more frequent.

    3. The preference for unmarried priests, in all the ancient churches, is a matter of discipline but not dogma. That is why it can be changed as circumstances require, and why exceptions can be made. It’s very different from, say, the dogma that women cannot be ordained to the sacramental priesthood. That, being a dogma, will last until the Lord returns.

    4. Although the preference for unwed priests is a matter of discipline, not dogma, it is longstanding because it turns out to really have great advantages by preventing divided loyalties. If, for example, a priest is serving in a war zone, he need not be torn between his responsibility to care for his biological spouse and biological children, and his responsibility to stay in the zone and care for his spiritual children (his flock in the war-zone) and his spiritual bride (his parish). He similarly doesn’t face a situation where both his biological child at home, and a parishoner at the hospital, are sick and needing fatherly/pastoral care at 2 a.m. He doesn’t wind up “neglecting his family because of his job.”

    5. In addition to these practical reasons, there is the deeper reason to prefer the celibate life: It more perfectly images Jesus Christ, and follows the clear advice/preference of the Apostle Paul. However, it is a “gift” not given to all men (see Matthew 19:11-12).

    Those who become “eunuchs for the kingdom of God” have a gift according to Christ. The Latin Church normatively selects her priests only from among those who have this gift. The other “particular churches” select their priests from those with and without this gift, but try to retain a balance between those with it, and those without. And, all the ancient churches restrict advancement to the bishopric (“episcopate”) only to those men having this gift.

    6. Returning to the distinction between married priests and married bishops: From the first century forward, bishops, up to and including the Twelve and the Seventy, ceased “exercising their conjugal rights” if married, and did not marry if unmarried. Bishops (including apostles) who were married largely functioned as unmarried men. They considered themselves “fathers” of their flock and “spouses” to their churches, after the example of Christ.

    7. Consequently, it is anachronistic to claim, as some do, that in “the Middle Ages” or “the Dark Ages” or at some other point after the year 300, this discipline was introduced as a novelty. On the contrary, the lax discipline of the late Middle Ages was considered a scandal because the number of clergy having spouses and children had risen rather beyond its earlier historical norms, and this made the clergy look worldly in the eyes of the laity. The eventual response was disciplinary reform making the requirement for unmarried clergy a universal discipline, which could only be dispensed by the Holy See.

    There ya’ go. “Papist” or not, one ought to get the historical details right.

  70. PokeSalad says:

    Yes. There you go. Saving Private Ryan was about the Feminine Imperative. Ryan’s mother might feel sad, let’s send some Rangers to their deaths so she can be happy! As one of the soldiers in the squad said, “What about my mom? I have a mother too, you know.”

    As an amateur historian who has spent a great deal of time reading/studying the ETO in WWII, I find it all but impossible that the real George C. Marshall would have acted or reacted in the cartoonish way he did in the movie. He was made of far sterner stuff than that, and would not have ordered a squad to almost certain death to “save” one other. We were losing hundreds of soldiers a week in France, and many other moms were suffering just a much as “Mrs Ryan” was.

    In my mind, it is simply a plot device to kick off the movie, since the squad had to have a “reason” to undertake such a foolish mission. The movie shows what a LARPing Spielberg *imagined* an Army Chief of Staff might have said.

    That said, the landing scene is by far the most realistic ever filmed, a technical masterpiece….as is the concluding battle in the town. It’s everything in between that is LARPing nonsense, with a paper-thin plot.

  71. PokeSalad says:

    There ya’ go. “Papist” or not, one ought to get the historical details right.

    You guys keep this up, and I’ll have to watch my DVD of Gangs of New York again 😉

  72. anonymous_ng says:

    I can’t remember where I read this, but the author wrote (paraphrased) “With the easy access of credit, anyone can drive a Cadillac or other luxury car. It takes then someone who is secure in themselves to drive a Pontiac.” It might have been Charles Givens.

    Thus, I conclude that the crazy desire to consider oneself a warrior is a kissing cousin with the inordinate focus on youth versus age and experience. At the root is that society no longer values the stable family man.

    There once was a time when providing well for your wife and your children was worthy of respect.

  73. I recommend King David’s art, taught to Russians one-thousand years ago… http://www.russianmartialart.com. Most men are absolutely incurious. King David’s art? Really. Most men: yawn. Not me. I became an instructor. Men’s bible study folk really hate to be curious. They’d rather study Romans again! Again? That’s right, again. Not King David’s art. Nope.

    But if you are curious, not an incurious pastor, but interested: http://www.russianmartialart.com .

  74. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    What I read Dalrock to be saying is three-fold.

    1) Chandler, Rainey, etc. are deceiving. They pretend to exhort men to battle the world’s ways while actually commanding men to march into its concentration camps. Specifically, for men to harken unto the voices of their wives rather than to obey God and say true things lest husbands make wives feel bad.

    2) Chandler, Rainey, etc. are not anything like men of war themselves. They themselves do not understand the tropes and symbolism they use to stir men up. They are effeminate.

    3) Chandler, Rainey, etc. aren’t only misguided; they aren’t simply deceived themselves. They also have an ulterior motive of self-glorification, and abuse the tropes of manliness to aggrandize themselves by making minions of other men.

    Right on all three points, although I didn’t get the sense that this was widely missed.

    Those are all important and true points. However; we should not have disdain for the manly impulse to fight.

    Correct. Even more to the point, we should honor and revere the incredible bravery and sacrifice other men have shown on the field of battle. We don’t honor this by entertaining a boy’s fantasy about how great it would have been to be there on Normandy getting your guts shot out, or watching the same happen to your close friends. This is not an expression of reverence. This was something my father taught me at a fairly young age. He flew CSAR in Viet Nam and prior to that ferried/medivacked Green Berets and Meo tribsemen around SE Asia. He was and is proud of his service, but I don’t think you could get him to watch Saving Private Ryan. If he did, his reaction would not be giddiness.

    The whole thing is bizarre: Man up and think like a boy.

  75. Frank K says:

    “Speaking of the Reformation, I’d trade a hundred Matt Chandlers for one man like Martin Luther, John Calvin, or John Knox (as clearly and deeply flawed as those men were, they were serious Bible guys).”

    And yet, they could not agree on how to interpret the scriptures. Calvin and Luther might have been “serious Bible guys”, but they didn’t like each other’s take on the scriptures on bit. IIRC, Luther once said that he “rather drink blood with the Papists than drink wine with the Reformed”

    Then of course are the more modern interpretations that were unknown to the Reformation dudes. The “Rapture” and “Churchianity” come to mind. One can’t help but wonder when the Protestants can finally announce that they got it right and are all in agreement. Maybe it’ll be that day they announce that they are all Unitarians.

  76. Scott says:

    If he did, his reaction would not be giddiness.

    I never faced the enemy and tried to kill him while he tried to kill me.

    But the gore that came into the hospital where I spent most of my time had this same effect on me.

  77. Reformed Trombonist says:

    Educate me, please: what do you mean when you say, “complementarian Christian”? And what would a reasonable position be, in your view, that does make whatever mistake is being made by complementarian Christians?

  78. SuperHudson1916 says:

    Holy shit. This just says it all. Makes you want to fucking kick the very next person who says to you “man up!”

  79. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    We don’t honor this by entertaining a boy’s fantasy about how great it would have been to be there on Normandy getting your guts shot out, or watching the same happen to your close friends.

    I agree, and Chandler’s choice of scene reveals his

    The whole thing is bizarre: Man up and think like a boy.

    There is a pincer attack on men and courage. Matt Chandler represents one prong: He is cowardly and effeminate. The other prong is this: If you celebrate heroic victory and have desires to take part in that exalted company, then you’re a silly boy.

    Let me say that my experience with fighting is severely limited. I’ve been in several knock-down drag-out fights as an adult, but I’ve never been in combat. But it seems to me that what boys have which men lose is two things: a sense of invulnerability, and an intrinsic sense of honor. Boys are excited by honor, but our culture teaches men that the only expressions of honor which are permissible are tragic…even hang-dog. It seems to me that we don’t celebrate sacrifice and victory. We won D-Day. Boys see victory. Fear and sorrow blinds it from men because we that is what we were taught.

    C.S. Lewis was acquainted with war. He fought in the trenches of WWI, was injured, and lost many friends including his best friend; whose mother and sister he took in as his own. Lewis wrote about this very thing–making tragedy of courage–in The Abolition of Man under the essay “Men Without Chests”. We’re more steeped in the “tragedy of courage” born of nihilism now than when Lewis wrote about it 70 years ago.

    I’m not saying that is what you wrote. I’m saying that we should be aware and on-guard against it just as we should be on-guard against effeminate leaders who fill the void left where celebration of courage should be.

    “26 “So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

  80. Cane Caldo says:

    The Protestant vs. Papist comments are off-topic, but there is a related vein: The RCC celebrates the crucified Christ which signifies Christ’s sacrifice for us. Protestants celebrate the empty cross which signifies the defeat of death itself. Which of them is right? Should we cry all day every day that the Son of God was killed for our sins, or do we, like children, celebrate His heroism and victory?

    Which of us has been crucified, or are we all little boys?

  81. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    There is a pincer attack on men and courage. Matt Chandler represents one prong: He is cowardly and effeminate. The other prong is this: If you celebrate heroic victory and have desires to take part in that exalted company, then you’re a silly boy…

    But it seems to me that what boys have which men lose is two things: a sense of invulnerability, and an intrinsic sense of honor. Boys are excited by honor, but our culture teaches men that the only expressions of honor which are permissible are tragic…even hang-dog. It seems to me that we don’t celebrate sacrifice and victory. We won D-Day. Boys see victory. Fear and sorrow blinds it from men because we that is what we were taught.

    This is a good point. I may not have been clear, but my objection is not to celebrating the victory, but to a lack of reverence toward the men who actually achieved it. The silly boy puffs himself up with the deeds of others.

  82. Dalrock says:

    Welcome Reformed Trombonist. You ask:

    Educate me, please: what do you mean when you say, “complementarian Christian”?

    The term complementarian was coined by the founders of the CBMW. They wanted a term that would sound traditional(ish) while benefiting from the insights of modern feminism:

    Traditional positions have not been totally satisfactory, because they have not fully answered the recent evangelical feminist arguments. Moreover, most Christians will admit that selfishness, irresponsibility, passivity, and abuse have often contaminated “traditional” patterns of how men and women relate to each other…

    We want to help Christians recover a noble vision of manhood and womanhood as God created them to be -hence the main title, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Our vision is not entirely the same as “a traditional view.” We affirm that the evangelical feminist movement has pointed out many selfish and hurtful practices that have previously gone unquestioned. But we hope that this new vision-a vision of Biblical “complementarity”-will both correct the previous mistakes and avoid the opposite mistakes that come from the feminist blurring of God-given sexual distinctions…

    A brief note about terms: If one word must be used to describe our position, we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women. We are uncomfortable with the term “traditionalist” because it implies an unwillingness to let Scripture challenge traditional patterns of behavior, and we certainly reject the term “hierarchicalist” because it overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of equality or the beauty of mutual interdependence.

    Your next question:

    And what would a reasonable position be, in your view, that does make whatever mistake is being made by complementarian Christians?

    The biblical view the complementarians are rejecting. What Christians accepted for 2,000 years, prior to 2nd wave feminism.

  83. Gunner Q says:

    “So, when the local church… the pastors are writing me and going, “I never knew this could be. I didn’t know that I could be the main beneficiary of a solid outreach to men, where we not only develop the man but we develop the leader;”

    Oh, puke. When did clergy EVER develop the men in their church? I’ve been in dozens of churches and never once seen a pastor training his replacement in-house. He just teaches week after week and never even checks if the sheep are learning anything. I remember this particular pastor who envisioned a process to foster talent in-house… a TWENTY-YEAR-LONG process of paying dues then slowly advancing into all the backroom subcommittees he didn’t want to be bothered with. All I heard was “flick you until I’m dead”. Meanwhile, Christ trained at least 70 disciples before His roughly three-year-long public ministry was half over.

    Pastors, if your men are supporting you then you have failed the Great Commission. You were supposed to train the men to replace you so YOU could be in the FIRST wave to hit Omaha Beach, leading by example as Christ did. Not so you could armchair-quarterback a spiritual war.

    Frank K @ 10:20 am:
    “One can’t help but wonder when the Protestants can finally announce that they got it right and are all in agreement.”

    Why would we care about reaching that kind of unity? Christ’s own disciples bickered among themselves and Christ was okay with it. Peter is even on record disagreeing with himself. Twice.

    Unity is for when Christ takes the blinders off. Until then, it’s just the blind leading the blind.

  84. MC227 says:

    I get on my hands and knees every morning and thank the Good Lord I am not married any longer nor will I ever be again. What happened to the man being the King of his Castle? How can any man live with himself getting bossed around by his wife? Men built western civilization not women. Women did their part- taking care of the kids and their husband. Women did not build western civilization because they never ever see the big picture. That is the reason men are the builders, innovators and inventors they see the big picture and the big picture is men lead and women follow.

  85. Reformed Trombonist says:

    > Welcome Reformed Trombonist.

    Thanks!

    > …The biblical view the complementarians are rejecting. What Christians accepted for 2,000 years, prior to 2nd wave feminism.

    if all that’s what complementarians believe, then it would appear you and I are in complete agreement.

    My church leans toward Calvinism. They acknowledge that the role of the husband is to love the wife “as Christ loves the Church”, willing to die for her. But they also urge wives to respect their husbands and submit to them. By submission, they don’t mean, suffer oppression. That’s what the elders of the church are for. If a wife is being treated cruelly or unfairly, our church would certainly not condone that in the name of submission. The wife submits to the husband, but the husband submits to the elders.

    What does submission mean? It does not mean a wife is not allowed to disagree with her husband. It does not mean she can’t argue with him (argue does not mean scold, berate, belittle). It means, simply, that the husband’s decisions on family matters wins in case of a tie.

    Many seem to think the Bible says all women have to submit to all men. No. She is commanded to submit to her husband, period. She can run a business and the men who work for her must submit to her rule in that sphere; they’re not her husband.

    My wife of 34 years and I have had our difficulties a time or two, but we are deeply committed. She shows her love and respect for me daily. I would give my life for her.

    But I won’t submit to her. Often, I will defer to her — she’s a very intelligent woman and I’d be an idiot not to defer to her opinion at times — but that’s not the same thing.

    Enjoyed these articles. Thanks!

  86. BuenaVista says:

    Cane Caldo wishes to rebuke:

    “The Christian life is a spiritual meat-grinder. We sacrifice the flesh for eternal life. Chandler’s wrong because he uses war tropes to propose a spiritual spirit-grinder.”

    Actually, the Christian life is one of humility, trust and hope. But thank you for reminding me that for many, it is violence and loss. Your comment is very odd, and lacks scriptural footing. To be fair, it does a good job of celebrating Chandler’s war porn, however.

  87. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Here’s another possibility concerning Chandler: I almost suspect that he’s not making these “Saving Private Ryan” appeals because he has a cartoonish idea of war as a thrilling matinee adventure that he thinks will also appeal to Christian men. He’s making these comparisons because he does know that war is brutal, dehumanizing, and destructive, and because he also believes that’s exactly the sort of treatment that the men of his church need and deserve. He doesn’t want strong men, ready and able to lead an advance for the cause of Christ on their own. He wants beaten men, pressed down and subjugated to a point of compliance where they’ll follow any order he gives without question. War is pretty effective way to get a man to that point — but there are others, and Chandler hasn’t been shy about saying advocating those either as a way of making sure that the men of his church stay broken and limping for the good of his cause:

    See, I’ll tell you where I’m primarily provoked. I am primarily provoked in Spirit, and don’t get offended ladies, by our men. Like, why are men going to bed these days with so much energy? That’s not what God designed you for! God designed you to go to bed tired, why you going to bed so strong? We work hard at work for the glory of God, we pull into our driveway, we say a prayer, we go inside the house, we love and serve mama, because the Bible has put on our shoulders by the Holy Spirit that our wives would look like well-watered vines, that they would grow in their gifting, that they would feel cherished and loved. Then we get on the floor, and we play with our kids. We tuck them in bed, and we pray. We lead out spiritually in our homes. Then when everybody is down, we sit with Mama some more, check on her heart, pray, and then go to bed exhausted, wrung out for the kingdom of God. That’s not how so many men are going to bed. We have tons of energy. It’s why so many of you are getting yourselves so jammed up, because God has not designed you for a bunch of free time. He has created you to make war, and you’re punting on that.
    A bored man is a dangerous man.

    There’s a link to the sermon transcript below. Interestingly, Pastor Chandler also happened to tackle the issue of feminism in the same sermon. Any chance he might call the women out on their sins like he does so gladly for the men, or advocate for the Bible’s take on male-female relations as opposed to the modern age’s fixation on “equality of the sexes?” Not exactly:

    Where the gospel of Jesus Christ is fully and faithfully preached, strong, gifted, driven women flourish. They are drawn to it, and they flourish. Now the narrative outside of our walls is that Christianity is repressive, but nothing and no movement has done more for the welfare, the growth, and the flourishing of women in culture than the gospel of Jesus Christ. Nothing. “What about feminism?” Feminism, in its early form, was driven by gospel principles and served the purpose of what Christians call the imago Dei, all of us being made in the image of God. Male and female. He created them equal yet distinct. I’m not talking about goofy feminism now, but its roots were, “We’re equal.” They’re drawn to it. Do you see what’s happening here? These women are intelligent, gifted. They keep saying they’re in high standing.

    Has anyone else ever noticed that “complementarians” like Chandler always seem to be in the business of selling two different gospels? If you’re a woman, the gospel that’s offered includes things like “flourishing,” “feeling cherished,” and “growing in your gifting.” If you’re a man, the gospel that’s offered pretty much amounts to a kick upside the head from the pastor on behalf of the Almighty, so that by your pain the church will be made to prosper.

    I’d say the women’s gospel sounds a lot better, but then I remember that I’m a man — and then I also remember that don’t go to church anymore. There’s a connection there . . .

    Link to Chandler’s sermon transcript is here: http://www.tvcresources.net/resource-library/sermons/the-second-wave

  88. Cane Caldo says:

    @Buena Vista

    Actually, the Christian life is one of humility, trust and hope. But thank you for reminding me that for many, it is violence and loss. Your comment is very odd, and lacks scriptural footing.

    To be humble, trust God, and hope in God means violence against the flesh, and it means to be at odds with most those around oneself. From Luke 9

    21 And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one, 22 saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”

    23 And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. 25 For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? 26 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

    From John 12

    24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.

    From Matthew 10

    34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

    From Romans 8

    12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

    This list is far from exhaustive. You just don’t know the Scriptures very well.

  89. Dalrock says:

    @Reformed Trombonist

    if all that’s what complementarians believe, then it would appear you and I are in complete agreement.

    Excellent.

    My church leans toward Calvinism.

    For a complementarian example on the Reformed side, see Pastor Tim Keller of the PCA. Pastor Keller writes approvingly of his wife Kathy’s “submission” in the form of a “Godly Tantrum”, where she took out a hammer and started smashing their wedding china when she didn’t get her way.

    They acknowledge that the role of the husband is to love the wife “as Christ loves the Church”, willing to die for her. But they also urge wives to respect their husbands and submit to them. By submission, they don’t mean, suffer oppression.

    The problem we have is that headship now means abuse. That we can’t discuss headship and submission now without always, always including the caveat that we don’t mean abuse is one symptom of this. Neither the apostles Paul nor Peter felt the need to make this caveat in any of their epistles, but in our age we feel the need to always make this apology for it.

    To illustrate, imagine a scenario where a wife gets drunk and starts yelling at her husband for some imagined slight (perhaps he didn’t notice her new haircut). The husband wants to be left alone and decides to retire into another room. This enrages the wife further, causing her to scream louder. The neighbors hear the wife yelling at her husband and call the police. When the police arrive, per their training they will arrest the husband, since he is the larger and stronger person and therefore the “aggressor”. The courts will then give the husband the choice of jail time, or completing a workshop for abusers. At the workshop, he will learn what the police and judge already know, that abuse is all about male privilege. If he held your view of headship, he would fail the course and have to go to jail.

  90. feministhater says:

    If he held your view of headship, he would fail the course and have to go to jail.

    This is one of the main reasons I just cannot see ever getting married. Headship itself equals abuse. Biblical marriage is then by that ideal also abuse and there is no way around this but to place yourself under the headship of your wife. Which is what all these complementarians are in effect trying to do. No thanks.

    God’s ideal for marriage is decreed by the courts and the state to be ‘abuse’ and instead of fighting back against the destruction of Biblical Marriage, these cucks double down and pander to their wives and the women in their Church, hoping not to be called an abusive Christian husband.

    Pathetic!

  91. Sean says:

    Headship itself equals abuse. Biblical marriage is then by that ideal also abuse and there is no way around this but to place yourself under the headship of your wife.

    Headship is a Biblical concept. Biblical marriage is male headship. Full stop. You’re following the feminist playbook by calling marriage bad. You cannot have functioning family units that bring Glory to God without male headship of the family.

    Wives become heads when husbands are not leading. I would submit that husbands who are second in houses are those that not only didn’t vet their wives enough before marriage or those that were brought up in single mother/dysfunctional families as kids.

    Nature abhors a vacuum and a leader will always rise up even if it’s one that shouldn’t be.

  92. Gunner Q says:

    Good find, Cane. From Chandler:

    “It’s why so many of you are getting yourselves so jammed up, because God has not designed you for a bunch of free time.”

    Is this the same God who rested on the seventh day of Creation, liked to walk with Adam in the Garden of Eden’s shade and who, as Christ, took vacations even during the height of His ministry?

    “He has created you to make war, and you’re punting on that.”

    Yep. Be grateful, Chandler. God gave you this window to let you come to your senses. Funny thing about war, it never works out the way you chickenhawks expect.

  93. feministhater says:

    Headship is a Biblical concept. Biblical marriage is male headship. Full stop. You’re following the feminist playbook by calling marriage bad. You cannot have functioning family units that bring Glory to God without male headship of the family.

    Yeah thanks, we know this, the courts and state don’t see it the same way and will imprison you for it. My point wasn’t how I see marriage but how the state and court see marriage. And because I find that unacceptable but the Church currently does not, I will not get married.

    You’re here to shame. We’ve heard it all before. The state has given wives the power in marriage. A man only leads because his wife lets him. That can all come tumbling down in a second.

  94. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sean
    Wives become heads when husbands are not leading. I would submit that husbands who are second in houses are those that not only didn’t vet their wives enough before marriage or those that were brought up in single mother/dysfunctional families as kids.

    Or grew up in an egalitarian / equalitarian home with a conservative feminist mother and Betaized father. Or was born into a two parent family that was blown up when he was 5 because Mom wasn’t haaaaapy and frivorced Dad. Maybe you are not intentionally sneering at men who don’t know what they don’t know but it looks that way.

    “Stinks to be you, loser” may be emotionally satisfying for you, but it doesn’t do any good for the target of your contempt.

  95. Snowy says:

    @Jason.

    Learning about the horrors of war is enough to make one think they’d be better off dead in such situations as your Grandad in POW camp. One would certainly have to dig deep to find motivation to keep on living, if they even had that option. Matt Chandler needs to grow up.

    @Robert What?

    You give an excellent summary of the situation past and present. Indeed, to have men enjoying some actual status in society as some reward for their sacrifices to family and society is a completely foreign notion today. It would make a huge difference to the mental health and well-being of men too.

  96. BillyS says:

    R.C.

    6. Returning to the distinction between married priests and married bishops: From the first century forward, bishops, up to and including the Twelve and the Seventy, ceased “exercising their conjugal rights” if married, and did not marry if unmarried. Bishops (including apostles) who were married largely functioned as unmarried men. They considered themselves “fathers” of their flock and “spouses” to their churches, after the example of Christ.

    What proof do you have of this?

    Paul talked about the other Apostles bringing their spouses along and the Scriptures clearly indicate married couples are not to abstain from sex except for a brief period, so that idea would completely violate what is written.

    A general question for others: How can we say single men should be in that position if it requires men to be married to one wife and have children that are under control? Which exact position is being covered? It is possible Timothy (if unmarried) was not eligible for that role, even if he was eligible to appoint others to it.

    A hand is not a forearm, after all.

  97. > For a complementarian example on the Reformed side, see Pastor Tim Keller of the PCA. Pastor Keller writes approvingly of his wife Kathy’s “submission” in the form of a “Godly Tantrum”, where she took out a hammer and started smashing their wedding china when she didn’t get her way.

    That kind of behavior wouldn’t fly past our elders. There’s no such thing as a “Godly Tantrum”.

    > The problem we have is that headship now means abuse.

    Not to me, and not to my church. I have no doubt it’s someone else’s problem, just not mine, or ours.

    > That we can’t discuss headship and submission now without always, always including the caveat that we don’t mean abuse is one symptom of this.

    The caveat was always there. As a husband, I’m admonished to love my wife as Christ loves the church, willing to give my life for her. That’s scriptural — no way out of that, even if I wanted one. Likewise, it’s on her to respect me and submit. Again, scriptural. Throwing “Godly Tantrums” is not submission, and abusing my wife isn’t loving my wife as Christ loved the church.

    > Neither the apostles Paul nor Peter felt the need to make this caveat in any of their epistles…

    Their admonishments are their own caveats. There are limits.

    > ,,,but in our age we feel the need to always make this apology for it.

    Not an apology, just scriptural facts.

    > To illustrate, imagine a scenario where a wife gets drunk and starts yelling at her husband for some imagined slight (perhaps he didn’t notice her new haircut).

    Then she is neither respecting her husband nor submitting to his authority.

    > The husband wants to be left alone … If he held your view of headship, he would fail the course and have to go to jail.

    Okay. The local magistrates aren’t necessarily Christian, nor are the laws they enforce. Those laws are awful, as are the prejudices behind them. But that’s a different subject. I’m beholden to Biblical truth whether or not City Hall follows it or not.

  98. Anonymous Reader says:

    That kind of behavior wouldn’t fly past our elders. There’s no such thing as a “Godly Tantrum”.

    Could you name the denonimation, if fhat would not be too doxxy?

  99. feministhater says:

    Not to me, and not to my church. I have no doubt it’s someone else’s problem, just not mine, or ours.

    I would love to see your Church stand behind the man whose wife decided to accuse him of abuse to allow her an easy divorce. Churches stand idly by whilst those men suffer the consequences of following a Biblical practice.

    Okay. The local magistrates aren’t necessarily Christian, nor are the laws they enforce. Those laws are awful, as are the prejudices behind them. But that’s a different subject. I’m beholden to Biblical truth whether or not City Hall follows it or not.

    So you know the problem, you just don’t think you’re beholden to it. No man thinks he’s going to marry a woman who would use the courts and the system unjustly until that woman does. He thinks his friends, family and Church will stay by his side. The won’t and have not. She has the power, you don’t. You can try and weasel out of this problem but it’s the same subject matter. Marriage. You cannot skip over it.

    Can’t you tradcons come up with something else other than ‘you must’? There is no ‘must’ when it comes to marriage. If a man sees himself not being able to accept marriage as it is, then he does not need to get married. Refer to Jesus, refer to Paul.

    The caveat was always there. As a husband, I’m admonished to love my wife as Christ loves the church, willing to give my life for her. That’s scriptural — no way out of that, even if I wanted one. Likewise, it’s on her to respect me and submit. Again, scriptural. Throwing “Godly Tantrums” is not submission, and abusing my wife isn’t loving my wife as Christ loved the church.

    So.. we all know this, what does all this mean when she doesn’t have to do it but you can get thrown in jail for following your part? That is what we’re dealing with. The fact that headship has been turned into abuse by the legal system and try as you might, if your wife decides to push that button, your Biblical truth will be used against you and you will probably go to jail, even though you haven’t touched her, shouted at her or done anything remotely abusive, save for being the head of the family.

    Advising men to marry with that sword in the background is the height of hubris.

  100. Pingback: Christian MGTOW as Pauline celibacy | American Dad

  101. Jason says:

    @ Snowy

    Thanks! Good insight. My grandfather was never a “hero” in war. He didn’t break out of the POW camp. He didn’t keep record of the “kills” he did make in 1942. As a young teenager, I called him my “hero” once (early / mid 1980’s), and he told me in his thick Welsh accent “I just did what was expected of me when the Crown called. There were countless men like that, and many of them never came home.”

    He was not a pacifist. He just personally believed that war….any war……is never a simple task. Enemies are always underestimated, and the cost and projections or strategy are never enough. War brings out the worst in people.

    That generation of men (in general) had a very “make do, or do without” mentality across the West. Not just the UK, or the USA. I mean, the British Government NEVER paid him for the years he was in a POW camp, even though he was in a British Uniform, held by the enemy in a war. Why? The Crown did not consider you in service for pay if you were held as a POW. He was never “mad” about it. He never demanded that Parliament “do” something about it. He never expected anything from the Crown. His basic rights and freedoms were enough, and he was Welsh….in those times, you were a second-class subject in the ‘subjectated kingdom’ in the UK.

    As I get older, and after my humble return to Christ……the values as a man I knew in my grandfather I emulate……well, I try to! No, he wasn’t the strongest man. No, he wasn’t “rich” or “well off” nor was he considered the “best looking” guy even when he was young…..but he had a confidence in who he was. A pride that was able to be taught. The ability to listen. The tenacity to have something to live for……no matter how small it was. The ability to know what he was good at, and knowledge to understand and respect men who were good at other things he wasn’t. A fun but not sinister sense of humor, and being well read in a variety of topics…and a hobby or two that he demanded mastery of (his was golf and camping / hiking).

    What Chandler and his ilk should be expecting of men is not this projection of heroism, or running on to a beach that very bloody June day in 1944……..but a solid brotherhood in Christ. A place where men can break bread, pray, uplift….push each other on LEARNING and APPLYING the Word of God. Trust. Your “yes” meaning yes, and your “no” meaning no. A handshake is your word to anyone. Honesty is not a virtue or value, it’s who you are. So many men in the bOdy today have zero friends. Sure, they have Bible studies….but most men my age have no one they can call up or really talk with.

    We need to quit fobbing off football, “saving private ryan” and other silly trappings of manhood as “biblical” because it isn’t.

  102. I suppose this pastor forgot about the scripture that says it’s better to be a live dog than a dead lion.

  103. Jason says:

    @ Snowy

    Thanks! Good insight. My grandfather was never a “hero” in war. He didn’t break out of the POW camp. He didn’t keep record of the “kills” he did make in 1942. As a young teenager, I called him my “hero” once (early / mid 1980’s), and he told me in his thick Welsh accent “I just did what was expected of me when the Crown called. There were countless men like that, and many of them never came home.”

    He was not a pacifist. He just personally believed that war….any war……is never a simple task. Enemies are always underestimated, and the cost and projections or strategy are never enough. War brings out the worst in people.

    That generation of men (in general) had a very “make do, or do without” mentality across the West. Not just the UK, or the USA. I mean, the British Government NEVER paid him for the years he was in a POW camp, even though he was in a British Uniform, held by the enemy in a war. Why? The Crown did not consider you in service for pay if you were held as a POW. He was never “mad” about it. He never demanded that Parliament “do” something about it. He never expected anything from the Crown. His basic rights and freedoms were enough, and he was Welsh….in those times, you were a second-class subject in the ‘subjectated kingdom’ in the UK.

    As I get older, and after my humble return to Christ……the values as a man I knew in my grandfather I emulate……well, I try to! No, he wasn’t the strongest man. No, he wasn’t “rich” or “well off” nor was he considered the “best looking” guy even when he was young…..but he had a confidence in who he was. A pride that was able to be taught. The ability to listen. The tenacity to have something to live for……no matter how small it was. The ability to know what he was good at, and knowledge to understand and respect men who were good at other things he wasn’t. A fun but not sinister sense of humor, and being well read in a variety of topics…and a hobby or two that he demanded mastery of (his was golf and camping / hiking).

    What Chandler and his ilk should be expecting of men is not this projection of heroism, or running on to a beach that very bloody June day in 1944……..but a solid brotherhood in Christ. A place where men can break bread, pray, uplift….push each other on LEARNING and APPLYING the Word of God. Trust. Your “yes” meaning yes, and your “no” meaning no. A handshake is your word to anyone. Honesty is not a virtue or value, it’s who you are. So many men in the bOdy today have zero friends. Sure, they have Bible studies….but most men my age have no one they can call up or really talk with.

    We need to quit fobbing off football, “saving private ryan” and other silly trappings of manhood as “biblical” because it isn’t.

  104. Gunner Q says:

    Reformed Trombonist @ 6:03 pm:
    “To illustrate, imagine a scenario where a wife gets drunk and starts yelling at her husband for some imagined slight (perhaps he didn’t notice her new haircut).”

    “Then she is neither respecting her husband nor submitting to his authority.”

    Yes, Captain Obvious. So what does hubby do when wifey disrespects and disobeys him? Wave a Bible at her? Spank her? Call the cops? Attend a seminar? I hope you don’t think so little of us as to actually suggest those as solutions to modern troubles.

    But it’d be very interesting to hear your pastors would publicly shame her for disobedience. Even more interesting to hear their doing so hasn’t yet made the mainstream media.

  105. Scott says:

    If he held your view of headship, he would fail the course and have to go to jail.

    There’s a real disconnect on this part that is super disturbing.

    Simply believing the man to be the final authority in the home is essentially grounds for being sent back to jail from one of these programs because the facilitator must, by law, report such a failure to progress to the probabtion officer. (It is the definition of “male privilege).

    No matter how loving or kind or wise of a leader he is.

  106. Lost Patrol says:

    Simply believing the man to be the final authority in the home…

    Whoa. Back to jail literally for a thought crime. His belief is failure to “progress” and is jail worthy. Must he freely confess this crime for the facilitator to be aware of and report it, or do they extrapolate? How much longer until they start checking for these crimes with a Polygraph? Sodium Pentothal?

    Super disturbing indeed. *puts on tinfoil hat*

  107. Scott says:

    Whoa. Back to jail literally for a thought crime. His belief is failure to “progress” and is jail worthy. Must he freely confess this crime for the facilitator to be aware of and report it, or do they extrapolate? How much longer until they start checking for these crimes with a Polygraph? Sodium Pentothal?

    Kind of. In practice what happens is the client is under so much cognitive load –remember, 2 hour groups every week for a year is the standard– with the encouraged shaming, confronting and “accountability” from the facilitator, eventually we get (got) the truth out of you.

  108. Snowy says:

    I really enjoyed reading your last comment, Jason. The significance of having something to live for is not to be understated. I like your point of “no matter how small.” It’s particularly pertinent in our day and age, because the bigger things that men used to live for (especially family, work, and contribution to society / civilisation) are now all but destroyed, courtesy of rampant gynocentrism. Not only, but men are actively torn down (and women lifted up to cult / goddess status) by our gynocentric culture.

    The need to find something to live for, no matter how small, is a paramount need for what is becoming the majority of men, and is certainly true for me personally. Thanks so much for pointing that out.

    As the days go by, I am more and more of the belief that we are on a precipice, extremely near to a tipping point. What will happen, I have no idea. But something has got to give soon. Maybe it’s a breaking point?

  109. seventiesjason says:

    Snowy

    Now Pastor Chandler and men of his flock would counter “Something to live for? You are supposed to be living your life for Jesus only!!!!!”

    If you profess Christ. Believe The Bible, understand and know you are a sinner, believe that He is fully God and truly human…..well its a given that you are to be conducting your life for Him.

    Something to live for that gives Him glory and the credit is fine. The gifts that Paul spoke of are such a blessing, and that in itself is a gift to The Body. Sadly, most pastors like Chandler, Platt, Driscoll, Noble…..well they seem to be convinced that they have ALL the gifts that Paul spoke of and the rest of men in the flock…..well….they just don’t have the gifts, well none that matter anyway. That is the impression that is given….though all would deny this. Look at Driscoll with his “aww shucks” attitude after his deserved removal from Mars Hill Church campuses . multi-plexes.

    Ordinary men throughout the history of Christianity did great things in their personal lives, in community, in family, without recognition or expecting it…..and these ordinary men. Men who lived for that small thing in faith and ended up turning the world upside down.

    Their names are not remembered for the most part. They had humilty. They didn’t own publishing companies. They didn’t have retreats or workshops, or podcasts, or seminars, or in depth studies or conferences. They had faith. They had a small thing in their lives. They were men. They were ordinary and didn’t need to lead or belong to a church that focused on numbers or faux manhood.

    Yes….many of these men stood alone.
    Good banter here Snowy!!

  110. BillyS says:

    An assistant pastor at my previous church preached “divorce is not an option” the Sunday before my wife filed for divorce. While the pastor and associate pastor did call my wife once, long after it was too late. The pastor’s wife never told my wife filing for divorce was wrong when I got her to call his wife, because she was more afraid of false claims my wife had made.

    This church that supposedly opposed divorce did not when push came to shove. And they could never admit any errors in their handling this, finally asking me to leave early with an email.

    Churches don’t stand behind men today, which is something many need to repent of.

  111. Snowy says:

    @BillyS

    They’re expert at false claims. My ex-wife claimed at the compulsory Family-Court-ordered relationship mediation that she feared for the safety of my two sons, should they be left in my care (among other false claims made not necessarily to make herself look good, but me bad).

    I couldn’t see, and still can’t see, how a man can defend himself from such behaviour. Once the spectre is created, you’re stuck with it. I rationalised that my only defence was to stay the hell away from my sons until they were old enough to have some legal standing of their own. By then, it was way too late. Years of indoctrination by their mother, and in their eyes I’m a deadbeat Dad who abandoned them. In fact they say they “grew up without a father.” And it’s my fault, of course. They’re 19 and 17 years old this year. All I can do is tell them that I’m always available to them. Otherwise, they treat me as a non-entity; I don’t exist.

    She did remarry, so they have had a Stepdad for most of the time. But of course she still wants to rule the roost in the second marriage, so he’s kept himself very detached from my sons (probably for good reason). That’s probably why they don’t acknowledge him as their Dad, to me. He’s a “good man”, and I’m surprised she hasn’t destroyed him…yet.

  112. BillyS says:

    I had it much easier Snowy, especially since all our children are adults. My son would still like to have some connection to his mom, but she has withdrawn. He is not very sympathetic to her though and that is part of the reason for their disconnect.

  113. feministhater says:

    What Chandler and his ilk should be expecting of men is not this projection of heroism, or running on to a beach that very bloody June day in 1944……..but a solid brotherhood in Christ. A place where men can break bread, pray, uplift….push each other on LEARNING and APPLYING the Word of God. Trust. Your “yes” meaning yes, and your “no” meaning no. A handshake is your word to anyone. Honesty is not a virtue or value, it’s who you are. So many men in the bOdy today have zero friends. Sure, they have Bible studies….but most men my age have no one they can call up or really talk with.

    Thank you, this was very well stated. I concur. A true brotherhood of men in Christ.

  114. > Could you name the denonimation, if fhat would not be too doxxy?

    Our church is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America, or PCA — not to be confused with the United Presbyterian Church. We believe what they used to believe. Theologically, we lean toward Calvinism and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

    > I would love to see your Church stand behind the man whose wife decided to accuse him of abuse to allow her an easy divorce.

    Our elders would take something like that very seriously. They have on one or two occasions gone to the mat for our members when law enforcement got involved. However, personally, I couldn’t say whether that has helped or hurt our cause. Pastors and elders don’t hold sway the way they used to, and the “Department of Family Services” has more power than I’m comfortable with, as an American who was once much freer.

    > So you know the problem, you just don’t think you’re beholden to it.

    If you’re asking me to choose between God’s truth and man’s, I hope I’ll always pick God’s. As a sinful man, I’m just trying to live a godly life in a sinful world. Nobody ever promised it would always be peaches and cream. Jesus did promise the world would hate us because of Him. Religious freedom has had a very good run here in the U.S., but the curtain may be falling on that as we speak.

    > No man thinks he’s going to marry a woman who would use the courts and the system unjustly until that woman does.

    Sounds to me like you’re just looking for a sparring partner and decided to go a round or two with me, whether my views line up against yours or not. I’m not in denial about how the world works.

    > Can’t you tradcons come up with something else other than ‘you must’? There is no ‘must’ when it comes to marriage. If a man sees himself not being able to accept marriage as it is, then he does not need to get married. Refer to Jesus, refer to Paul.

    I never said a man must get married. But I did get married. So the rules, so to speak, apply to me.

    > So.. we all know this, what does all this mean when she doesn’t have to do it but you can get thrown in jail for following your part?

    It means we live in a sinful world. We all know this too.

    > The fact that headship has been turned into abuse by the legal system and try as you might, if your wife decides to push that button, your Biblical truth will be used against you and you will probably go to jail, even though you haven’t touched her, shouted at her or done anything remotely abusive, save for being the head of the family.

    Fortunately, after 34 years of marriage, I’m confident my wife would never do this to me, as she is confident I would never raise a hand to her.

    > Advising men to marry with that sword in the background is the height of hubris.

    I never advised anyone to marry. That can’t be your real objection to what I’m saying.

  115. feministhater says:

    If you’re asking me to choose between God’s truth and man’s, I hope I’ll always pick God’s. As a sinful man, I’m just trying to live a godly life in a sinful world. Nobody ever promised it would always be peaches and cream. Jesus did promise the world would hate us because of Him. Religious freedom has had a very good run here in the U.S., but the curtain may be falling on that as we speak.

    I never asked you to choose between either of those. I might have mistaken your call for men to get married, for which I’m sorry, so please do not mistake my call for you to believe anything other than what you choose to.

    However, what I meant by that paragraph wasn’t a distinction between God’s truth and the world’s truth, for lack of a better phrase, but the reality of what married men deal with in the sphere of the legal system. You stated:

    “Those laws are awful, as are the prejudices behind them. But that’s a different subject. I’m beholden to Biblical truth whether or not City Hall follows it or not.”

    I don’t think they are, I think that very Biblical truth is used against Christian husbands in marriage all the time, to the point the Church says men need to watch out they don’t use their Biblical Authority within marriage too much for fear of abuse. Whether you like it or not. This isn’t about truth or fiction, it’s about the level of power the state holds over your marriage, power they have given to your wife, who can choose when to use it in a divorce or how to leverage that power over you during a marriage. I think it is hubris to think that your wife will never do this, countless men thought the same.

    We all can advise men to be Godly husbands as much as we like, but until you find some recourse for that specific problem at hand, it is unwise to tell them to ‘man up’ and deal with it. They do not have the authority to do so, their hands are tied up by the system, by a wife who might not be like yours and instead relishes her power over him. The problem is that proper authority has been turned on its head, the fear of men abusing their wives has been so overblown to the point the system now hands women the power to both physically, mentally and emotionally abuse their husbands with the husband having little to no recourse and still being told that he is the abusive one.

    It means we live in a sinful world. We all know this too.

    And? You don’t think we should find a solution to this problem… you can’t keep placing responsibility on men without some level of authority being given to them as well. Out of one side of your mouth you tell men they need to be better husbands whilst also admitting that the system is stacked against them, then out the other side of your mouth, you acknowledge that women are given carte blanch over their marriages to do as they please and just dismiss it as a ‘sinful world’.

    Fortunately, after 34 years of marriage, I’m confident my wife would never do this to me, as she is confident I would never raise a hand to her.

    Great, good for you. I hope you have many more years of marriage. However, most Christian women are not fearing for their lives, they don’t have husbands raising their hands to them, don’t fall into the trap of feminists who claim Christian men are the most abusive men in the world. This is a myth built to specifically remove marital authority from the husband. It’s sanctimonious crap. Women use the abuse card, not because of actual abuse but because it gives them such power in court, such power over the man. Suddenly it goes from a marriage dispute between two people into a marriage dispute between the husband and the state. The state always wins. Don’t think for a second you are above this. Whilst on earth you are subject to early laws.

    I never advised anyone to marry. That can’t be your real objection to what I’m saying.

    Sorry, you haven’t advised anyone to marry. Please accept my apologies for assuming so. I hope the above gives you a clearer idea of what we disagree on.

  116. Reformed Trombonist says:

    > So you know the problem, you just don’t think you’re beholden to it.
    > I never asked you to choose between either of those.

    Frankly, I couldn’t tell what you were getting at, which is why I said, “if” you were asking me to choose…

    > I think that very Biblical truth is used against Christian husbands in marriage all the time, to the point the Church says men need to watch out they don’t use their Biblical Authority within marriage too much for fear of abuse.

    As I’ve said, I can’t imagine my church wimping out like that, but reading what the linked articles are saying, I can’t deny that, apparently, that’s what some pastors would advice.

    > Whether you like it or not.

    I don’t like it.

    > I think it is hubris to think that your wife will never do this, countless men thought the same.

    Well, I think it’s hubris for you to suggest you know my wife of 34 years better than I do.

    > it is unwise to tell them to ‘man up’ and deal with it.

    I never said that and I’m not defending pastors who preach it. My advice to a married man who is being abused by his wife is to leave the house and get a restraining order on her. That doesn’t solve the long-term problem, but at least it ends the immediate situation. Jesus said men should not divorce their wives and marry another, but He didn’t prohibit leaving. Nobody can think clearly when emotions run high, and a separation might clear the way for some serious thinking. But that’s me talking, not my church or the Lord. A body cam might not be a bad investment, either. It’s hard for a wife to successfully accuse her husband of physical abuse when there’s video that says otherwise.

    > You don’t think we should find a solution to this problem… you can’t keep placing responsibility on men without some level of authority being given to them as well.

    Now you’re shadowboxing.

    > Out of one side of your mouth you tell men they need to be better husbands whilst also admitting that the system is stacked against them, then out the other side of your mouth, you acknowledge that women are given carte blanch over their marriages to do as they please and just dismiss it as a ‘sinful world’.

    I’m not speaking out of both sides of my mouth; I’m just calling it straight down the middle as I see it. Husbands need to be better husbands; wives need to be better wives; the law ought to be just, but isn’t, because the world is sinful. Pastors who exhort their men to be doormats aren’t doing anyone any favors. I don’t blame men who, looking at the incentive structure, decide not to get married.

    I don’t know any solution. Do you?

    As Thomas Sowell says, we can’t dictate results, we can only initiate processes. If you want to address the political situation, write letters to your city councilmen, your state delegates, your Congressmen and Senators, join pressure groups, publicize the plight of young men. If you want to address it in spiritual terms, join a church that’s right with scripture and find like-minded allies. Write articles. Give speeches. Point out that this is an existential threat to our country and way of life. It is, you know. Marriage is just another institution ruined by the Left. It’s about to fall completely, as another casualty in the Left’s quest for total power.

    There has to be something in it for young men, or they will opt out. When young men don’t get married, the consequences are dire. But the pastors in question think the answer is to get young men to ignore the incentive structure. I would disagree; the answer is to fight for changing that incentive structure for the better.

  117. feministhater says:

    I don’t know any solution. Do you?

    The solution is time itself. I chose MGTOW because there is no way to fix this short term. Writing all those letters, doing all that pressure group stuff has already been tried, things only got worse. I’ve given back to my Church, become more involved but they turn on me as soon as I mention any of this. I’ve stopped talking and just left it as is.

    Time is the solution because things will get dire, as they should. Men should opt out, there is nothing in it for them. Until women realise that, nothing will change. The threat has been pointed out and… few listened. That is the way of things.

    Well, I think it’s hubris for you to suggest you know my wife of 34 years better than I do.

    I don’t know your wife at all. I didn’t pretend to. However, there have been and will be men who thought as you do; and their wives proved them wrong. That is the hubris I’m talking about. You are saying indirectly to these men that you knew better and chose your wife better. You did it right and they did it wrong. That is the hubris I speak of. You’re no better than them. Remember that.

  118. Reformed Trombonist says:

    You said

    > I think it is hubris to think that your wife will never do this,
    > I don’t know your wife at all. I didn’t pretend to.

    One of these statements doesn’t belong. Either you know something about my wife that I don’t, or it’s hubris for you to suggest she would turn on me when I have 34 years of experience with which to argue my case. That’s okay, I’m a big boy, I’ve been called worse. But at least own what you said.

    > That is the hubris I’m talking about. You are saying indirectly to these men that you knew better and chose your wife better.

    Well, since we’re still together, still very much in love with each other, since I’ve never hit her and she’s never called the cops on me, since we’re happy in each other’s company… then, well, I certainly chose better than a lot of men, didn’t I?

    > You’re no better than them. Remember that.

    That’s where you run off the rails. I’m willing to take none of the credit for making a good choice. I was just as young and stupid and testosterone-addled as any other man in my twenties. A secularist could call it dumb luck; I see it as the Lord’s mercy.

  119. feministhater says:

    You’re trying to be the big man in the house now, I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt. I said it’s hubris to think your wife will never do it. I didn’t say I know your wife well enough that I think she would.

    Learn to notice a subtle difference. I won’t acknowledge something I never meant, you take words out of context and use them to shame. Your little digs are noticed, cowardly as they are.

    Well, since we’re still together, still very much in love with each other, since I’ve never hit her and she’s never called the cops on me, since we’re happy in each other’s company… then, well, I certainly chose better than a lot of men, didn’t I?

    Ah, they just need to do what you did, ah, got it… as if we haven’t heard that countless times. You’re lucky, we get it. Most men are not. You still use that to try and bolster your position. It doesn’t work on a grand scale. Most men will get fucked taking your advice.

    That’s where you run off the rails. I’m willing to take none of the credit for making a good choice. I was just as young and stupid and testosterone-addled as any other man in my twenties. A secularist could call it dumb luck; I see it as the Lord’s mercy.

    Well, obviously the Lord values you more than all those other men combined..

  120. Reformed Trombonist says:

    > You’re trying to be the big man in the house now,

    …aaaaand, I’m outa here.

  121. feministhater says:

    That’s where you run off the rails. I’m willing to take none of the credit for making a good choice. I was just as young and stupid and testosterone-addled as any other man in my twenties. A secularist could call it dumb luck; I see it as the Lord’s mercy.

    Lol no, you prove my point. You do take credit for it, I mean you did choose better, didn’t you? You do think you are better than those lowly men who got divorced are rung through the meat grinder. If they had just chosen like you, God would have taken mercy on them and not let them suffer through a bitter divorce.

    You think you’re above it all.

  122. feministhater says:

    …aaaaand, I’m outa here.

    Bye, big boy!

  123. Mike J Baron says:

    Bob (apparently the moderator) said, “I’m concerned these men are going to get energized and mobilized and go head in their own direction and have their own agenda…

    WOW! Is Bob worried the Lord himself might give assignments to His disciples?

    Is Bob thinking, “Gosh, how would the pastor control these churchmen who have “their own” agenda?

    Mike J. Baron
    AMBEC
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/reportAMBEC/

  124. @feministhater
    “Time is the solution because things will get dire, as they should. Men should opt out, there is nothing in it for them.”
    I agree. Don’t forget the married men who are miserable in their marriages (i.e., most of them). Game helps, but after years of married misery followed by two frivorces initiated by my Churchian wives (yes I am a slow learner), being a single, Christian MGTOW is bliss. I really feel badly for my married male friends.
    Is it just me or do things seem to be reaching a tipping point? I travel for work and it is becoming rare for me to see a thin, well-dressed, attractive woman versus the everyday tattoed, overweight, pierced women with strange hair colors. I tell all the single men I can about the Red Pill, and most accept it, especially the younger ones. I guess we’ll see. Reading Dalrock and the commenter’s on this topic (cowardly “man up” Churchians) is a treat: it’s like watching a well-oiled artillery battery dropping rounds onto an unsuspecting enemy.

  125. PokeSalad says:

    then, well, I certainly chose better than a lot of men, didn’t I?

    I see it as the Lord’s mercy.

    See the contradiction in these two statements? Your arrogance serves you poorly.

  126. Gunner Q says:

    “Our church is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America, or PCA”

    If that’s anything like the OPC I once associated with, his church is a cherrypicker. The wives are obedient because the men are upper class. He’s gone so I can’t ask him how many frivorced men he personally knows in church. I bet it’s low.

    “My wife of 34 years…”

    He’s a Baby Boomer. That explains a lot.

  127. Anonymous Reader says:

    Reformed Trombonist
    Our church is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America, or PCA

    Thanks for that information.

    The “holy tantrum” Dalrock referenced is described by Tim Keller in one of his books; early in his carrer as a pastor, his wife Kathy threw it. Tim Keller may be retired /retiring now but for decades he was a preacher in the PCA in New York City. Therefore at least one PCA pastor allowed for a ‘holy tantrum” and claimed to have learned from it.

  128. Reformed Trombonist says:

    > See the contradiction in these two statements? Your arrogance serves you poorly.

    Somehow, in this weird little world here, when someone refuses to accept his good fortune as his own doing, that is arrogance; but when someone else claims a woman — a specific woman he doesn’t know and has never met — might turn on her husband, that isn’t hubris.

    My perspective is that your overly sensitive nature might serve you poorly, but I’d be speculating about your life outside this weird little world, and that would be arrogant.

  129. Reformed Trombonist says:

    > Therefore at least one PCA pastor allowed for a ‘holy tantrum” and claimed to have learned from it.

    That doesn’t surprise me. I made no claim about the PCA, only about my particular church, with the elders we have now.

  130. Gunner Q says:

    Since you’re still here, Trombomist, how many frivorced men do you personally know in your church? I’m curious if you have any real-world awareness of what we’re talking about.

  131. thedeti says:

    Reformed Trombonist:

    “If you’re asking me to choose between God’s truth and man’s, I hope I’ll always pick God’s. As a sinful man, I’m just trying to live a godly life in a sinful world. Nobody ever promised it would always be peaches and cream. Jesus did promise the world would hate us because of Him.”

    I can tell you right now – if your wife decides to accuse you of abuse, the cops and courts will believe her and disbelieve you. Even if your wife doesn’t accuse you and the neighbors hear a loud disagreement and call the cops, you’ll be nice and jammed up for a good long time. And you will either go through the family course and pass it; or go to jail. Those will be your only options, your faith notwithstanding. That, of course, and divorce.

    If it were me? Cops show up at the house and I’m frogmarched out, that’s it. That’s the end. The marriage is done, even if Mrs deti didn’t call the cops. I’m not going to live like that. No way. I’m not going to live in a marriage in which I’m constantly in fear of cops showing up at my door just because someone at the house was yelling. Yelling and fighting and talking loudly breaks no laws, other than perhaps a petty “disturbing the peace” or “disorderly conduct”, which isn’t even that because it’s conduct taking place completely on private property. Husbands and wives have been yelling at each other, fighting with each other and talking loudly to each other since time immemorial. If police now have to mediate every single one of these trivial disputes, well, then, stick a fork in it because it’s done.

  132. Reformed Trombonist says:

    > If that’s anything like the OPC I once associated with, his church is a cherrypicker.

    If I were upper class, I’d be an Episcopalian. Or a Lutheran. Presbyterians are Baptists who like to drink, but don’t make enough money to become Episcopalian.

    > The wives are obedient because the men are upper class. He’s gone so I can’t ask him how many frivorced men he personally knows in church. I bet it’s low.

    I haven’t taken a survey. A substantial portion of our membership emigrated here from Cameroon; I’m sure they’re rich by Cameroonian standards, but, apparently, not by ours.

    And PS, one of them is divorced and went through the same mill a lot of other divorced men endured.

    > He’s a Baby Boomer. That explains a lot.

    Pro tip: if you don’t like someone’s argument, address the argument, not the person.

  133. Reformed Trombonist says:

    > No way. I’m not going to live in a marriage in which I’m constantly in fear of cops showing up at my door just because someone at the house was yelling.

    Neither am I.

  134. feministhater says:

    Somehow, in this weird little world here, when someone refuses to accept his good fortune as his own doing, that is arrogance; but when someone else claims a woman — a specific woman he doesn’t know and has never met — might turn on her husband, that isn’t hubris.

    This is a false statement. I don’t know your wife. Your arrogance is quite apparent because you fail to see that I was stating that no matter how well you think you might know a woman, they can surprise you and the law is on their side when you do. Your hubris is to think that your wife would never do it to you. Making that statements requires me to have absolutely zero knowledge about your wife as a specific person to say this. It applies to every single person here, including Dalrock.

    Still, you think you are so above it that no one can question your logic.

  135. thedeti says:

    “fight for changing that incentive structure for the better.”

    That’s a systemic solution that no one really wants, and even if they wanted it they lack the time, resources, fortitude and knowhow to implement it.

    You still think the system can be saved or reformed. I don’t. The only way to go now is individual solutions, with each man deciding what’s best for him individually.

  136. feministhater says:

    Pro tip: if you don’t like someone’s argument, address the argument, not the person.

    Pro tip: Have an argument.

  137. thedeti says:

    “Neither am I.”

    If your wife decides to call the cops on you for any reason, you will have nothing to say about it. Your only recourse is to end the marriage and take the crushing financial loss that will come with it.

  138. feministhater says:

    Deti, that will never, ever happen to him you see. Cause unlike all those other guys, he chose well and his wife still luuuvs him… oh and he got lucky and has God’s mercy, unlike those other Christian guys who God didn’t give two shits about.

  139. Broski says:

    “We love Saving Private Ryan, everybody getting shot up on the beach. We want to run up on that beach with them. It’s in us.”

    This is the mindset of a grown man who still thinks like a little boy. My opinion: Little boys dream of war and combat, while men dream of peace and fight only when necessary. The glorification of “getting shot up on the beach” is telling of where’s Chandler’s mind is at.

  140. thedeti says:

    Reformed Trombonist:

    If you believe your wife isn’t capable of divorce raping you and hanging you out to dry, you’re very mistaken. Every woman alive has that ability, and has that evil within her to do it. She has it in her because she’s human.

    Here’s a direct quote from my mother, which she said to me when I was a 16 year old high school junior: “If your dad ever cheated on me, I’d divorce him and take him to the cleaners.”

    This is a mother, talking to her son, about her husband and her son’s father.

    I know Mrs. deti has it in her to do this. I’ve seen it in her. I’ve seen the hatred, the vengefulness, the spite. She has it in her because she’s human. Just like my mom. Just like FH’s mother. Just like your wife.

    All Women Are Like That. All of them. Every single solitary one of them. Your wife isn’t immune. Neither are you.

  141. Gunner Q says:

    Reformed Trombonist @ 10:20 am:
    “I haven’t taken a survey.”

    So, you personally know zero frivorced men and know OF one. To illustrate how fatally out of touch you are, both my childhood best friends and half of my male supervisors suffered frivorce, and at least half a dozen married men I knew warned me in so many words that their lives ended on their wedding day. Probably more but in California, things are so bad it’s inappropriate to ask about a guy’s family in casual conversation. I’d comment on my own church’s stats but haven’t attended for some years. I’m not welcome in church, you see. Any church. I keep thumping the Bible and demanding a voice. Speaking of being welcome in church…

    “A substantial portion of our membership emigrated here from Cameroon;”

    Please, please tell me your church did NOT help bring a Dindu colony into North America. We sons of America are reduced to spiritual hobos while Third World foreigners get the red carpet… do you see the problem yet?

    Your generation will go to its grave in total, remorseless denial of the crimes they have inflicted upon your children, grandchildren, Christ and country. Don’t die with them. Listen to us, come to your senses and repent. The hour is late.

  142. Anonymous Reader says:

    Therefore at least one PCA pastor allowed for a ‘holy tantrum” and claimed to have learned from it.

    Reformed Trombonist
    That doesn’t surprise me. I made no claim about the PCA, only about my particular church, with the elders we have now.

    In other words, “The group of men that I know right now in this one church wouldn’t stand for bad behavior by a pastor’s wife like Kathy Keller did to Tim”. That’s kind of thin, isn’t it? Especially given the celebrity status Keller has. It’s likely that one or more of your elders have at least one of Keller’s books. His writing is influential. So it’s not at all clear just what any group of elders would or would not stand for anymore if it was pitched as “for the women”. That’s one of the longer term issues or points around here. Hopefully you’ll stick around.

    Deti, Feminist hater and others: Trombonist says he’s been married for 34 years, so he’s surely in his 50’s. We all know that the chances of divorce decline with age, that women over 45 are less and less likely to frivorce due to unhaaaapiness. Even though the Boomers are changing that, it is still not very likely that a culturally conservative woman in a culturally conservative social circle (church) is going to frivorce.

    Sometimes we all get a bit like the old Spearhead around here. Given the number of divorced men, men rejected by women, men in not so good marriages that’s not a surprise. But don’t dump all that righteous anger on a man who just showed up & observes that his marriage is ok / pretty good. If nothing else it looks like pettiness, sour grapes.

  143. feministhater says:

    Somehow, in this weird little world here, when someone refuses to accept his good fortune as his own doing, that is arrogance.

    Well no, you first state..

    Well, since we’re still together, still very much in love with each other, since I’ve never hit her and she’s never called the cops on me, since we’re happy in each other’s company… then, well, I certainly chose better than a lot of men, didn’t I?

    and then you state..

    I’m willing to take none of the credit for making a good choice. I was just as young and stupid and testosterone-addled as any other man in my twenties. A secularist could call it dumb luck; I see it as the Lord’s mercy.

    Your statements read contradictory to each other, never mind that a closer read shows your statements to be another line of ‘do as I do’ and ‘I made bad choices but God favours me above those other loser men’.

    In the end, you either think you are above other men in this regard by thinking oneself immune or you think God specifically showed you mercy whilst allowing other men to be railroaded. Pick one.

    Both make you a douche though. Lol!

  144. Mich says:

    Sometimes we all get a bit like the old Spearhead around here. Given the number of divorced men, men rejected by women, men in not so good marriages that’s not a surprise. But don’t dump all that righteous anger on a man who just showed up & observes that his marriage is ok / pretty good. If nothing else it looks like pettiness, sour grapes.

    I picked a much better woman than the divorced men I know and that’s one of the reasons we’ve been happily married for 26 years. My wife picked a better man than the women we know who were divorced and/or mistreated by lowlifes. Everyone, man and woman, is responsible for their choice of husband or wife and mother/father of their children. That’s not hubris or arrogance.

    It’s definitely sour grapes. It’s easier to tell yourself it just can’t be done than it is to do it. It’s the “fat acceptance” of the ‘sphere.

  145. Sean says:

    Yeah thanks, we know this, the courts and state don’t see it the same way and will imprison you for it. My point wasn’t how I see marriage but how the state and court see marriage. And because I find that unacceptable but the Church currently does not, I will not get married.

    You’re here to shame. We’ve heard it all before. The state has given wives the power in marriage. A man only leads because his wife lets him. That can all come tumbling down in a second.

    Right, because anytime someone speaks about the benefits and the Godly goodness that is marriage, it’s a shaming tactic. Listen, you hate marriage, that’s fine. It’s pretty clear.

    And what is this “Church” you speak of? Maybe find a local church that supports marriage, preaches on headship, holds women accountable and actually believes in the inerrant, sufficient Word of God. I’m in one of those: my pastor does all of those things. The Church is not this big edifice/monolith: it’s universal, small-c catholic, yes, but it’s not Rome nor Constantinople.

    I’m not here to shame at all. I got married because wearing a millstone is heavy. I support marriage wholeheartedly. Full stop. Best thing I’ve ever done. Maybe instead of searching for the perfect 10 that others men drool over you look for one that wants to be a wife instead of a bride. Vet her properly first and then marry her. However, I’m also Reformed: should she want to divorce rape me, well, that’s also God’s prerogative. Nothing happens without His involvment and nothing that does happen doesn’t bring Him Glory. Trials and tribulations exist to bring one closer to Him.

  146. Sean says:

    AnonReader:
    Or grew up in an egalitarian / equalitarian home with a conservative feminist mother and Betaized father. Or was born into a two parent family that was blown up when he was 5 because Mom wasn’t haaaaapy and frivorced Dad. Maybe you are not intentionally sneering at men who don’t know what they don’t know but it looks that way.

    “Stinks to be you, loser” may be emotionally satisfying for you, but it doesn’t do any good for the target of your contempt.

    Cute strawman, shame if something were to happen to it. Who’s sneering? It’s a fact of life that men aren’t being shepherded by either fathers nor other older men in the Titus 2 tradition. I was/am one of them but I’ve sought out those that I respect and ask for guidance from. Are you guiding a younger, married/single man in your church? Are you showing him what it means to be manly? No? Then shut the hell up and stop whining that it’s not happening.

    The only way the egalitarian/egalimentarian (not a typo) loop ends is with us marrying in the face of all the dangers present, finding submissive, Christian women, accepting that they may not be 10s, putting our faith in Christ and our lives in His hands and marching forward. Again, I’m Reformed: God is in all things, does all things and uses all things to His Glory. Divorce, deaths of children, cancer, doesn’t matter: it all furthers His Glory and His Kingdom.

  147. feministhater says:

    Right, because anytime someone speaks about the benefits and the Godly goodness that is marriage, it’s a shaming tactic. Listen, you hate marriage, that’s fine. It’s pretty clear.

    Your diatribe consists of pure shaming and ‘man up and marry the slut’. Nothing new. I dislike modern marriage with a passion, I’m not entering into it save your butt.

    Pretending us if we are only want 10s is just another attempt at removing the blame from women and placing it on men. You really think we’re just telling 6s or 7s, who are submissive, to go away because we’re only interested in perfect supermodels. Plain retarded.

    Benefits of marriage, make a list, show how they benefit a man specifically. Then name your Church so we can all come and get Godly instruction.

    No man has to get married, get that through your head. Spend all your efforts, I have better places to spend mine.

  148. feministhater says:

    And what is this “Church” you speak of? Maybe find a local church that supports marriage, preaches on headship, holds women accountable and actually believes in the inerrant, sufficient Word of God. I’m in one of those: my pastor does all of those things.

    The Church is local, most Churches pretend to support marriage and then backtrack when things get messy. You really pretend as if no one has actually thought of the stuff you say before. As if they didn’t stop and think to go find another Church, duh… that they didn’t think to find a submissive women, that they didn’t think to find a mentor… it’s pure bullshit because none of it deals with the dilemma of the state, modern marriage or the current state of the modern female. None of it, it’s all a plaster over a wound.

  149. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sean, here is what you wrote:
    Wives become heads when husbands are not leading. I would submit that husbands who are second in houses are those that not only didn’t vet their wives enough before marriage or those that were brought up in single mother/dysfunctional families as kids.

    My critique of that statement is accurate. A man who has never been shown how to lead is not going to know how to lead.

    Sean:
    Cute strawman, shame if something were to happen to it.

    Reality is not a strawman. If this statement offends you, then reality offends you.

    Who’s sneering?

    You, as far as I can tell. Certainly the statement above that I replied to looked and looks like sneering in a “stinks to be you”, childish, manner.

    It’s a fact of life that men aren’t being shepherded by either fathers nor other older men in the Titus 2 tradition. I was/am one of them but I’ve sought out those that I respect and ask for guidance from. Are you guiding a younger, married/single man in your church? Are you showing him what it means to be manly? No? Then shut the hell up and stop whining that it’s not happening.

    This is different from what you previously wrote. Previously you made it clear that any man who has a contentious wife has only himself to blame even if no one ever showed him or taught him otherwise. That is what I took issue with. Now you shift your goalposts and show us all what a real strawman fallacy looks like.

    From a different comment:
    Maybe find a local church that supports marriage, preaches on headship, holds women accountable and actually believes in the inerrant, sufficient Word of God. I’m in one of those: my pastor does all of those things.

    Which church denomination is that? Many men who read here would very much like to find a church that actually holds women accountable. Like the church that kicked out Jenny Erikson, for example.

  150. Jim says:

    Deti, that will never, ever happen to him you see. Cause unlike all those other guys, he chose well and his wife still luuuvs him… oh and he got lucky and has God’s mercy, unlike those other Christian guys who God didn’t give two shits about.

    Yup. Isn’t it funny how all tiny portion of men who win the lottery thinks everyone else can win it too? *smfh*

    I had a now ex-friend who swore up and down that his wife was a wonderful little Christian angel and was married for 35-40 years. Guess what happened? “Out of nowhere” (his words) she wanted a divorce. She took everything and did everything she could to not just take his income (alimony, his 401k, pension, house, etc) of 40+ years but to BREAK HIS SPIRIT.

    So where was God there? If men with guns can come to your house on the mere whim of a cunt you HAVE NO RIGHTS. PERIOD. Get it guys? And EVERY SINGLE one of these cunts are capable of it. That’s human nature for you (especially women).

    Some people need to get their tiny heads out of their asses and get a clue (and this is from a guy who actually “won” in the end but him and his children paid a horrible price and on top of that was educated about the system. 99% of guys aren’t and don’t have the time to become legal experts):





  151. thedeti says:

    “Given the number of divorced men, men rejected by women, men in not so good marriages that’s not a surprise. But don’t dump all that righteous anger on a man who just showed up & observes that his marriage is ok / pretty good. If nothing else it looks like pettiness, sour grapes.”

    Perhaps. There are lots of men who thought they wouldn’t end up divorced, and did. There were a lot of men who did their best, and were still involuntarily sent through the meat grinder, even at 50+. Fact remains, no one is immune from the meat grinder. No one.

  152. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    Heroes are people unlucky enough to be put in a situation to be heroic. Most people are fortunate enough to never face such a situation.

    What about those everyday acts that don’t require courage to perform, but made you a coward if you didn’t? Shouldn’t we recognize the boring quotidian heroism that is needed just to make it through a day of modern life, or is that not sexy enough to “inspire Godliness” in women?

  153. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, we both know it’s about probabilities, not certainty. The chances of rolling snake-eyes with honest dice is a lot lower than rolling a 7, but it happens. The chances of men like Sean or Reformed Trombonist being frivorced are not zero, but they are lower than other men.

    I’m just suggesting we not treat men new to the comments as if they were 3rd stage feminists. Anger can be useful but needs to be controlled & directed, and I’m writing to myself as much as anyone else.

    Since Trombonist is in the PCA it’s worth pointing out that denomination has apparently gone through the whole “women as deacons” debate again with a commission to study the issue. The report is supposed to be out this summer at the denominational convention. It will be interesting to see what the result is. Frankly, even if the result is “Nope” we can expect another push from conservative feminists a few years down the line. Because they just want to be helpers and they could help ever so much more if the bumbling men would get out of the way and let the strong women do work. Female Imperative never goes away.

  154. feministhater says:

    I picked a much better woman than the divorced men I know and that’s one of the reasons we’ve been happily married for 26 years. My wife picked a better man than the women we know who were divorced and/or mistreated by lowlifes. Everyone, man and woman, is responsible for their choice of husband or wife and mother/father of their children. That’s not hubris or arrogance.

    It is arrogance. You are suggesting that men just need to choose better, like you’ve done. Just be more like you and less like those men dragged through the courts. It’s as if you have some secret everyone else just needs to discover but then don’t want to say what that secret is for fear of losing it.

    Even if what you were saying was 100% true, it in no way protects men from the courts or the system. You can do one hundred questions with your future wife, vet all her known associates, get her father’s blessing, get her to sign a prenup. Get her to say infront of the entire Church that she will completely and utterly submit herself to you as your wife. So you get married, having crossed all you T’s and dotted all your ‘i’s. And then she can decide she actually doesn’t want to do any of that… and then you have an issue..

    The problem isn’t vetting, the problem isn’t even women. It’s a system that provokes women to use it, it provides an incentive to screw over married men. Of course everyone is responsible for their choices but nobody dares hole women to account. Sour grapes, have no need. I’m not married and I will not get married. It’s the pestering of you lot with your ‘just do better and be like me’ shenanigans while you ignore the mountain of evidence of men who did just that and got burned and dragged through the divorce courts. And then you shit on them by calling them losers….

  155. Sean says:

    Anon Reader:

    Wives become heads when husbands are not leading. I would submit that husbands who are second in houses are those that not only didn’t vet their wives enough before marriage or those that were brought up in single mother/dysfunctional families as kids.

    My critique of that statement is accurate. A man who has never been shown how to lead is not going to know how to lead.

    Not accurate still because of the first clause. If you think that a good chunk of unhappy husbands aren’t that way because they went for a 10 and disregarded all the red flags she presented, I’m afraid I don’t know what to say. Again, it’s not sneering to speak of reality in the second clause if it’s true. I believe that the two greatest causes of husbandly unhappiness are disregarding red flags and the fact they think it’s normal for a woman to be a ball busting harridan ’cause their mother was that way.

    Perhaps my intent doesn’t come through clearly since I don’t have a large body of work here as a lurker. It’s an indictment of the world’s culture that marriage has ended up this way. However, when you see a man being henpecked, beaten down or obviously unhappy about being second fiddle, what are you doing about it? Are you helping to build him up? Are you speaking to your pastor that perhaps someone needs a little help and would he mind accompanying you to speak to him? Men require other men for help although we’ll be damned to admit it.

    You think that the two comments are mutually exclusive. You can be a man raised up by a harridan who has no idea how to lead but you can also be the man who realizes later that this is wrong and something needs to be done. I’ve seen more than a few men who grew up in the environment that was the 80s and 90s become Godly men after finding their way. I also firmly believe that marriage makes men have a goal, an endgame worth pursuing instead of the eternal adolescence that I once was part of also. Not to toot my own horn but I’m an example of how men can change by the Grace of God. My father was a drunk and my mom overbearing.

    Which church denomination is that? Many men who read here would very much like to find a church that actually holds women accountable. Like the church that kicked out Jenny Erikson, for example.

    I wouldn’t say a denomination per se because all have issues since it’s God’s House in the stewardship of fallen man.The Orthodox Presbyterians would anathematize the PCUSA (sorta: Protestants don’t anathematize, we evangelize). I’m a Reformed Baptist and part of a Reformed Baptist congregation. It’s up to the Pastor and the congregation: if they will be part of sound teaching then there’s hope. Mine just did a Genesis 3 sermon and tied it to Ephesians 5, Titus 2 and other headship passages. While also speaking on men laying down their lives for their wives, a purely Scriptural ideal, he also spoke on women being submissive in all things. There was no holding back and his marriage counseling is of the same. Sit in the services, ask questions, listen to past sermons, and find out not only what they practice but also what they believe. I’m Canadian: even here in the land of the heathen one can find churches worth attending.

  156. BillyS says:

    Sean,

    Wives become heads when husbands are not leading. I would submit that husbands who are second in houses are those that not only didn’t vet their wives enough before marriage or those that were brought up in single mother/dysfunctional families as kids.

    And what things need to be vetted?

    How will the husband make sure the wife does not get swayed by the world over time, especially since his authority is greatly limited?

    My wife seemed correct and while a few warning signs were there that I should have paid more heed to, I know God put us together. That does not guarantee success in the sinful environment we have today.

    You also fail to cover the lack of societal and church support for husbands.

  157. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mich
    I picked a much better woman than the divorced men I know and that’s one of the reasons we’ve been happily married for 26 years. My wife picked a better man than the women we know who were divorced and/or mistreated by lowlifes. Everyone, man and woman, is responsible for their choice of husband or wife and mother/father of their children. That’s not hubris or arrogance.

    Good for you, and good for both of you that neither of you changed for the worst. Be happy with the results. Not everyone is so fortunate.

    Some men I know have married women who acted a certain way prior to marriage, but it was an act, it wasn’t them. Sure, they should have vetted harder – if they knew how to. But they have to make the situation work anyway. Plus people change with time, if you didn’t notice any change in your wife after children then count yourself doubly fortunate. Bear in mind that some women change quite a bit with hormone shifts. That includes menopause, by the way, one of the risk factors for grey divorce in my opinion.

    The androsphere has angry men in it for a reason. Some men don’t get past their anger for a long time, some never get past it. For every angry man that works his way out of that anger and leaves, another one or two arrive in the ‘sphere to take his place. Tellling angry men to shut up hasn’t worked well for the feminists, nor for the traditional conservatives.

    Telling angry men how to process their anger and work out their own issues in order to be better men is more useful. No feminists and extremely few tracons have ever deigned to consider actually helping men, though.

  158. BillyS says:

    Trombonist,

    Fortunately, after 34 years of marriage, I’m confident my wife would never do this to me, as she is confident I would never raise a hand to her.

    I would have likely said that a year ago, yet I am likely to be legally divorced this week. I wasn’t married quite as long, but it was close. I was also in a church that proclaimed “no divorce” as well, though not PCA. The culture is corrupt and Christians are not magically immune from it.

    You need to step back a bit and really think things through. You will get pushback from some here who oppose all marriage under the current scheme. Even those of us who still see it as God’s appropriate plan for civilization get the same at times. Live with some hassle and hear what is being said instead of saying, “you losers,” in another manner, and thinking you are a special snowflake. Things are rough here and people have different experiences and views, but the core group is supportive overall, even when we disagree, for the most part at least.

  159. Mich says:

    Men through the “meat grinder” and “abused women” have a lot in common, and the first question is always, “Why did you marry this person?” There are enough successful marriages out there to see it can be done.

    I’m twice my wife’s size. I could do far more than beat her if I was so inclined, but I’m not and she knows it. No amount of harping about how I could one day turn and hurt her or our children would make her fear me. On the reverse side, my wife is a woman of character and good sense; no amount of third party screeching about the what ifs negates that and makes me fear what she could theoretically do, any more than she’s worried about me theoretically killing her.

    So yes, a frivorced man made a mistake, knowingly or unknowingly. So did a battered woman. Both could have vetted well and I both could have ended up screwed anyway. But, it’s unlikely. Neither deserves what is happening to them, but let’s not pretend it was some random accident of fate.

  160. PokeSalad says:

    It is arrogance. You are suggesting that men just need to choose better, like you’ve done. Just be more like you and less like those men dragged through the courts. It’s as if you have some secret everyone else just needs to discover but then don’t want to say what that secret is for fear of losing it.

    He has no “secret.” He already said that he basically hit the wife lottery (in his opinion), but that ALL men can hit the lottery any time they want, its their own fault for being losers at life.

    Sean hits allllllll the tired notes we “body of work” guys have seen ad nauseum:

    1. I’m a real man, if you rolled snake eyes on a woman you’re a loser. Got it

    2. Wives only lead because they HAVE to (aka, ‘forcing women into combat roles’ trope). Been there

    3. Why aren’t you kvetchers here out there dying on your sword somewhere and changing marriage in America by the force of your logic? (“Hey Anne Frank, don’t be a wuss, come out and fight the Nazis!” trope). Seen it

    It’s a Greatest Hits collection from the last six months or so……also covered by about 15 other guys who care to descend from their thrones and say the same old worthless stuff the other 14 did. It’s just as worthless.

  161. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sean:
    Anon Reader:

    Wives become heads when husbands are not leading. I would submit that husbands who are second in houses are those that not only didn’t vet their wives enough before marriage or those that were brought up in single mother/dysfunctional families as kids.

    My critique of that statement is accurate. A man who has never been shown how to lead is not going to know how to lead.

    Not accurate still because of the first clause.

    My critique is accurate specifically because of the first clause. I’ll illustrate by changing a word or two:

    “Wives become heads when husbands are not winning MMA fights”.
    “Wives become heads when husbands are not building houses from the ground up”.
    “Wives become heads when husbands are not performing open heart surgery.”

    Because most men can’t win MMA fights,are not general contractors or heart surgeons. So they don’t know how to do those things. Given the equalitarian, blank-slate “men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies” world of feminism that we all grew up in, a whole lot of men reject the idea of leadership itself. I can point to any number of sites written by church going people who reject patriarchy, reject complementariianism (for any of the various definitions) and who insist that “mutual submission” is required. Outside the church world, who teaches men they have a right to lead women? Who? Nobody. Quite the opposite.

    If a man is never taught how to lead he doesn’t know how to lead. If a boy is taught from age 4 that masculinity is toxic, that boys are stupid (throw rocks at them), that because he has a penis he is a rapist, that all of his natural urges are bad, bad, bad then how exactly is he supposed to lead a woman after marriage? I see 20-something men who can’t even talk to a woman for 10 seconds. I see married men who constantly defer to “the boss”, and their church culture agrees. I see church leaders who defer to their wives in all sorts of important things, including some pretty conservative men.

    Look, if I put 20 pounds of cement on each of your feet, then ridiculed you for being unable to run a 50 yard dash in 10 seconds, what would that make me? That’s what you are doing, when you essentially say “Just man up!” to men who have seen “men” denegrated all their lives.

    If you think that a good chunk of unhappy husbands aren’t that way because they went for a 10 and disregarded all the red flags she presented, I’m afraid I don’t know what to say.

    I am absolutely certain that none of the men I know went for a 10. Not one of them. Between work and social circles I know quite a few men from 20-something up to 80-something and not one of them went for a 10. I know military men who have very impressive command presence within their organization who totally cater to their average looking wives. I know very intelligent men married to reasonably intelligent women who continually test them on every single decision, making for a perpetually fractious association. Men who married for intelligence rather than looks.

    Some men I know are married to average women who are making them miserable, and all the advice that those men get from “experts” is wrong. All of it. “Do more chores”, “rub her feet”, “tell her more compliments / build her up more”, “be a servant leader doormat”, it all fails. None of the marriage advice given anywhere in the church world actually works all that well.

    This idea that all men went for a pretty girl and didn’t vet? Ridiculous straw man. Try again.

    Again, it’s not sneering to speak of reality in the second clause if it’s true. I believe that the two greatest causes of husbandly unhappiness are disregarding red flags and the fact they think it’s normal for a woman to be a ball busting harridan ’cause their mother was that way.

    Then you need to broaden your view, because while I agree with both of your points (red flags and mother) there’s more to it than that. First of all a lot of men of all ages do not know a red flag when they see it. How could they, if no one ever taught them? The average age of marriage for women is pushing up close to 29, who will tell a 32 year old Beta man that the 29.999 year old ex carousel rider who suddenly wants to “settle down” might be a risk?

    Perhaps my intent doesn’t come through clearly since I don’t have a large body of work here as a lurker. It’s an indictment of the world’s culture that marriage has ended up this way. However, when you see a man being henpecked, beaten down or obviously unhappy about being second fiddle, what are you doing about it? Are you helping to build him up? Are you speaking to your pastor that perhaps someone needs a little help and would he mind accompanying you to speak to him? Men require other men for help although we’ll be damned to admit it.

    I’ve seen pastors that are beaten down and henpecked quite badly by their wives. To whom should one go in that case?

    You think that the two comments are mutually exclusive. You can be a man raised up by a harridan who has no idea how to lead but you can also be the man who realizes later that this is wrong and something needs to be done.

    That right there is a big part of what the androsphere is about, men helping other men to figure out their mistakes and fix them. It’s what this site is partly about, so it’s kind of funny to read your critique.

    Which church denomination is that? Many men who read here would very much like to find a church that actually holds women accountable. Like the church that kicked out Jenny Erikson, for example.

    I wouldn’t say a denomination per se because all have issues since it’s God’s House in the stewardship of fallen man.The Orthodox Presbyterians would anathematize the PCUSA (sorta: Protestants don’t anathematize, we evangelize). I’m a Reformed Baptist and part of a Reformed Baptist congregation.

    Denomination – bashing is not interesting to me. Sharing useful information is better. For a few years Dalrock had an open request for someone to share a church where frivorce was condemned by the church leaders, and for years there was no answer. The Jenny Erikson saga produced one denomination, a man from the Church of Christ (independent churches mostly) posted a few years back. If you would take the time to read older postings, you might get a better feel for what Dalrock is writing about.

    It’s up to the Pastor and the congregation: if they will be part of sound teaching then there’s hope. Mine just did a Genesis 3 sermon and tied it to Ephesians 5, Titus 2 and other headship passages. While also speaking on men laying down their lives for their wives, a purely Scriptural ideal, he also spoke on women being submissive in all things. There was no holding back and his marriage counseling is of the same. Sit in the services, ask questions, listen to past sermons, and find out not only what they practice but also what they believe. I’m Canadian: even here in the land of the heathen one can find churches worth attending.

    As I pointed out to Deti, it’s probabilities. There are things that one can do to reduce risk, and if you search this site for “interviewing a potential wife” you would find that Dalrock and others have addressed this a time or two before. You’re not bringing anything new so far.

    There are Canadians who may want to contact you, too.

  162. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sean, let me give you a real-world example of “red flag not seen”. I cannot give details. But here you go.

    A man married in his early 30’s to a woman in her late 20’s. One of his red flags was abortion – he’s opposed to it and would never marry a woman who had ever had one. When his wife was pregnant with their first child her full medical record wound up in his view and he found out that some years before their marriage she’d had an abortion. Stuff happens. As far as I know they worked that out, but it’s an example of how you are being way too high handed about men and “red flags”.

    There are other less extreme examples. A friend of mine married a former party girl, even though he was warned about her. “Love conquers all”, ok. They had one child, when that child was about 4 she frivorced my friend and later remarried. He never remarried. You could argue they didn’t go to the right church. Maybe you’d be right. But from my perspective, you’re denying the existence of events that I’ve seen with my own eyes, or read in mail from men I trust.

    One of the first things about feminism that angered me was the feminist habit of denying men’s experience. Denying that what we’ve seen mattered, or even that it had happened (gaslighting).
    TradCons are fond of that as well.

    When someone tells me to believe them and ignore my lying eyes, that’s a big red flag that warns me “do not trust this person”.

  163. BillyS says:

    Link to those sermons. I haven’t heard a sermon preaching true submission in my recent memory. Some claim to preach it, but I hear so many caveats it is not worthwhile.

    I listen to a lot of sermons, as I like to play them in the background many times, so it isn’t for a lack of trying.

  164. feministhater says:

    It’s a Greatest Hits collection from the last six months or so……also covered by about 15 other guys who care to descend from their thrones and say the same old worthless stuff the other 14 did. It’s just as worthless.

    It’s the same hit collection from most men I’ve heard throughout my life. Most now divorced. Kek!

  165. Anonymous Reader says:

    Agree with BillyS, links to those sermons would be a good thing. A lot of churches, even small ones, have a web site and a collection of recent sermons in some format such as .wav, so it should be easy to point to them.

  166. thedeti says:

    Anon Reader:
    Epic comment at 3:19 pm.

    Perhaps Sean, Mich and Reformed were taught how to vet. Many weren’t. I certainly wasn’t.

    Perhaps they were taught how to lead by example or by explicit instruction. Many weren’t. I certainly wasn’t.

    How can we expect men to vet women properly when they’ve never been taught, and in fact are taught that proper vetting is sexist and evil and mean-spirited and judgmental?

    How can we expect men to lead in a marriage when they’ve never been taught, and in fact are taught NOT to lead?

  167. ys says:

    @ Jim
    “So where was God there? If men with guns can come to your house on the mere whim of a cunt you HAVE NO RIGHTS. PERIOD. Get it guys? And EVERY SINGLE one of these cunts are capable of it. That’s human nature for you (especially women).”

    Are you suggesting God was not there when all of this, bad as it was, happened?

  168. Sean says:

    Anon, Deti and Billy.

    I think we’ve got different definitions of a “red flag”. A red flag is what she does that makes you go “Just what exactly are you doing/talking about?” If she’s a bitch to you in public, if she won’t submit, if she’s distant from her family and specifically her father, if she looks like a 4 year old being scolded when you talking to her. Things that show character and values. Yes, a previous abortion should be a red flag, too. As Chad (isn’t he Deep Strength) said years ago when first going out searching: put her in a position to show you who she is. Give her responsibility in the relationship. IIRC, he got the woman to serve him lunch, to keep growing out her hair, etc. If she won’t listen to you whilst trying to be wooed, she’ll not change with a ring. I vetted my wife for two solid years before marrying her: her hair grown out, lost weight, extremely tight with her family and especially her father, etc. I made every attempt that I could to make her colours change and they didn’t. This is what I mean.

    Anon:
    I’ve seen pastors that are beaten down and henpecked quite badly by their wives. To whom should one go in that case?

    So talk to him. Ask him out for the 4th Church Ordinance after Communion, Baptism and Potluck: coffee. If you can’t approach and/or speak to your pastor on a friendly level, why are you there? I’ve had coffee with mine a couple of times, had lunch a couple times, overheat the keyboards emailing. He’s a good man, great wife, really good leader who can preach and exegete; I wouldn’t think of leaving this church.

    For a few years Dalrock had an open request for someone to share a church where frivorce was condemned by the church leaders, and for years there was no answer. The Jenny Erikson saga produced one denomination, a man from the Church of Christ (independent churches mostly) posted a few years back. If you would take the time to read older postings, you might get a better feel for what Dalrock is writing about.

    I can give you a couple off of the top of my head:
    Grace Family Baptist in Houston, TX. Church where Voddie Baucham used to preach before heading off to Zambia. Firm believers in the permanence of marriage.
    Fellowship Baptist, Sidney, MT. J.D. Hall’s pulpit where he preaches and does not give into frivorce (a word that most pastors would have no idea of until you defined it for them.)
    Grace Community Church, Los Angeles, CA. John MacArthur does not believe in divorce, neither does Phil Johnson and have preached on it previously.
    Trinity Baptist Church of Montville, New Jersey. Albert Martin has not only preached against divorce from the pulpit but also lost his mind for a solid hour in a Sunday School on the women dressing immodestly in the church.
    I could give a couple Canadian ones but would be doxxing myself

  169. Sean says:

    PokeSalad:
    Sean hits allllllll the tired notes we “body of work” guys have seen ad nauseum:

    1. I’m a real man, if you rolled snake eyes on a woman you’re a loser. Got it

    2. Wives only lead because they HAVE to (aka, ‘forcing women into combat roles’ trope). Been there

    3. Why aren’t you kvetchers here out there dying on your sword somewhere and changing marriage in America by the force of your logic? (“Hey Anne Frank, don’t be a wuss, come out and fight the Nazis!” trope). Seen it

    I didn’t say anything about being a “real man” nor have I said anything about snake eyes. I did, however, say that it’s all up to God and it’s His prerogative as to what happens not only with my marriage but anyone else’s. God uses good, bad and horrible marriages for His Glory. Do with that what you like.

    Someone has to lead, don’t they? Or do you just believe that the man is leading whether or not he actually does anything about it? Look, I think feminism is bad. Horrible, even. I have seen with my own eyes what it’s done to exes that I, through God’s guidance, have avoided marrying. But let’s stop saying that it’s always the women’s fault and let’s stop calling what God makes bad. Marriage is an institution created by God to picture Christ with His Church. Woe to those that call good evil and evil good. If you don’t want to get married, that’s your choice. Live how you’d like to, doesn’t matter to me. But if you’re saying marriage has no value even today, well, you’re likely to think that the church can be ruined in the world, too.

    Okay, I gotta ask: exactly what do you think is going to fix marriage? Are you just caving into the feminist playbook, “all marriage sucks because ___________” ? Again, perhaps just putting your life in the hands of Christ is too much to ask for you to do. Maybe trusting in Him to keep your marriage together is too much.

  170. Gunner Q says:

    “Grace Community Church, Los Angeles, CA. John MacArthur does not believe in divorce, neither does Phil Johnson and have preached on it previously.”

    Scratch this one. I was there.

  171. Sean says:

    For fear of being called spam…

    http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/messages Pastors Bratton and Wright have been doing a Sunday School series on Disciplines of Christian life: marriage, singleness, motherhood, husband, wife.

    http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sourceOnly=true&currSection=sermonssource&keyword=jdhallsermonaudio&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Spouses%2C+Children%2C+Slaves (Fellowship, Sidney, MT)

    https://www.gty.org/library/resources/sermons-library/scripture/1?book=49&chapter=5 MacARthur on Ephesians 5.

  172. Sean says:

    “Grace Community Church, Los Angeles, CA. John MacArthur does not believe in divorce, neither does Phil Johnson and have preached on it previously.”

    Scratch this one. I was there.

    Uh huh. Please show examples.

  173. Gunner Q says:

    Would you listen if I did give examples? I don’t care to retell the story to a guy who thinks I’d lie in order to thwart his five minutes’ Internet research. It still hurts. Convince me I should.

  174. Snowy says:

    @feministhater & Emperor Constantine, et al.

    Totally agree. So much so that I won’t be too surprised if we start seeing many of those miserable husbands initiating divorce and going Galt, in spite of the meat grinder. They may see the meat grinder as worth it. Surely they’re starting to wake up and say, “Enough is enough.”

  175. Snowy says:

    feministhater says, “The problem isn’t vetting, the problem isn’t even women. It’s a system that provokes women to use it, it provides an incentive to screw over married men. Of course everyone is responsible for their choices but nobody dares hole women to account.”

    Not only does the system invite, encourage, tempt, provoke, and empower women to screw over married men, it’s actually designed to screw men over full stop. Men are screwed. Period.

    Men are screwed. It actually sounds funny when it’s said and done. But it isn’t.

  176. Jason says:

    Snowy….

    Many men also will turn away from church, and will find a prayer group online, or personal study on their own, and “their own way”

    I am right at that point now. I could go into the details, but I won’t at this time. I have a prayer life that is VERY strong, dedicated and loyal to Christ. No, He has not slipped me the answer, but my prayer life has been “the gift” I have that has kept me from porn. kept me from going back to drugs and drink. Has convicted me to “crack open the Word” and just read it. A knowing that I am indeed loved.

    We all have gifts and what bothers me so much, we’re not allowed to use them inside the church, a place that NEEDS so much help, healing, and building (not in numbers / attendance or tithing, or facilities, or silly ministries) but in a REAL family that uplifts, teaches, rebukes, hold on to, prays for, and TRUSTS each other.

    Imagine that! revolutionary indeed!

  177. Snowy says:

    Sean says,

    “…where he preaches and does not give into frivorce (a word that most pastors would have no idea of until you defined it for them.)”

    That’s telling. These pastorbators need to get their freaking heads out of the freaking sand. And so does Sean.

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

    I apologize if I am making an observation that someone else has already made on this thread (or, in the comment threads on Dalrock’s previous or following posts); I have scrolled past a lot of what seemed to me to be incomprehensible bickering (i.e., I don’t comprehend what benefits flow to anyone here, from this particular bickering — I’m faulting my own comprehension, here, not faulting anyone else, nor taking sides) — and so I may have scrolled past, and missed, someone else noticing this same odd thing. And, if so, my apologies.

    But anyway, it’s this:

    “[…] I’m concerned these men are going to get energized and mobilized and go head in their own direction and have their own agenda […]”

    Now, that’s a mighty odd turn of phrase, no? It’s almost the same as if he’d said,

    “[…] I’m concerned these men are going to get energized and mobilized and go [head in] their own way[…]”

    — but … only almost?

    It’s as if his thoughts were leading him towards mentioning certain of the contemporary MMP realities, but then he flinched just before “accidentally” mentioning the Elephant In The Room.

    Or am I reading too much into that peculiarly only-almost-androsphere-trope turn of phrase of his?

  179. Snowy says:

    @Jason

    Yes, I pined for a real bricks and mortar meeting-place church for quite some time, but came up with zilch. All this-worldly and none preaching the whole truth. Usually opposite: preaching half-truths and lies.

    I’ve been doing personal study “in my own way” for a number of years now. I’m making amazing progress with the late Norman Percy Grubb’s work. After hearing so many lies for such a long time, it’s hard at first to hear and accept what he has to say. But he is totally Biblical. Unfortunately, some have labelled him a heretic. I got 10 of his hard-copy books from Amazon. But there is so much in them that I’ve only fully read “God Unlimited” and about two thirds through “Who Am I?” Although I’ve still read a lot of bits and pieces of his material.

    And the old audio recordings of his messages are excellent listening. Look up “Sermon Audio” and listen and/or download, especially his “The Meaning of Life” series (also in transcript book form), “Romans” series, and “The Final Word”, “Life – From Frustration to Adventure”, “Not Becoming, But Being”, “The True Use of Self”, and “Who We Are”. A work that he wrote very late in his life called “The Sole Purpose of Our Creation” will blow your mind, and is available in text at one of the websites.

    Note that the audio quality of some of the old recordings is very poor, but you can usually pick up the really important parts. I wouldn’t mind having a go at audio processing some of them one day to see if we can sharpen them up. They’re pure gold.

  180. Sean said:

    “So talk to him. Ask him out for the 4th Church Ordinance after Communion, Baptism and Potluck: coffee. If you can’t approach and/or speak to your pastor on a friendly level, why are you there?”

    Shared some versions from Proverbs about the nature of women in a whatsapp chat group for men (husbands and boyfriends) in our small group. Within an hour, pastor replied with a long message by giving a balanced “perspective”, i.e., these verses must be taken into context and not cited on their own only. He further explained that there are verses praising women or referring to their positive nature too.

    The very next Sunday, he pulled me aside and asked if we could meet. When we met, I had a rather heated argument with him about women, their nature, and leadership in church (he had no issue with women becoming pastors). He threw up mutual submission, Deborah (“She led the Israelites in Judges!”) and this — “By sharing these verses from Proverbs, why are you making it already harder for women as wives or wives-to-be? Why are you making it harder for husbands and wives to submit mutually?” (Paraphrasing him)

    Two Sundays ago, the senior pastor preached about Deborah in a message about the call for men and women to serve (in spreading the Gospel). He flashed a couple of slides showing all the female heads of countries but did not make any mention about roles vis-a-vis leadership in God’s kingdom based on the Pauline epistles. He also talked about how the status of women in the first centuries were lowly.

    Last Sunday, the pastor (whom I had the heated argument) preached from Ephesians 6:1-4. He talked about how children should submit (and parents should not provoke them to anger). But hey, at no point, he threw up the “mutual submission” (i.e., parents and their children should mutually submit) thing that always accompany the troublesome “wives, submit to your husbands” shite in it.

  181. @ BillyS says: (and AR seconded)
    May 16, 2017 at 3:29 pm
    “Link to those sermons. I haven’t heard a sermon preaching true submission in my recent memory. Some claim to preach it, but I hear so many caveats it is not worthwhile.”

    Behold, a “Black Swan” sermon on the prevailing Jezebel spirit, preached by an actual Roman Catholic priest to an actual RC congregation. Pretty good except for the mush about women being sensitive and relational at the end, I guess he had to throw that in. Other than that, it’s very good.
    Now if we can only get the other 15,000 RC churches to start preaching this way…

    Here are the notes on the homily.
    “Published on Jan 8, 2017
    Since the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, a Jezebel spirit roams about the world seeking to convince women to usurp authority within the family – take the scepter from the man – while an Ahab-like spirit infects countless men causing them to flee from responsibility – shrink from exercising their God-given authority. Granted that men and women are equal in their human dignity, God has brought order to this equality. Remember that Adam was created first and then came Eve. First the head of the family was created and then the helpmate – created from Adam’s side making Eve the heart of the human family. But then came sin and with sin infection within the divine institution of marriage. The key to restoring marriage – the key to defeat the Jezebel spirit and the weakness of Ahab is found in St. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians: Wives should be submissive to their husbands as if to the Lord because the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is Head of the Body the Church, as well as her Savior. As the Church submits to Christ, so wives should submit to their husbands in everything. For more please visit http://www.reginaprophetarum.org & remember to say 3 Hail Marys for the priest”

  182. feeriker says:

    Many men also will turn away from church, and will find a prayer group online, or personal study on their own, and “their own way”

    You could probably just use the first eight words of that statement, full stop.

    I’ve been thinking a lot lately of Pastor Saeed Abedini. After spending several horrible years locked up in a prison in his native Iran, he returned to the U.S. and (what he probably thought was) freedom, only to not only have his wife abandon him and steal his children from him under false pretenses, but have the bulk of his fellow Christians, his church, turn their backs on him as well.

    Considering Saeed’s background (he was a Shi’ite Muslim who converted to Christianity – NOT a minor act; one that, in fact, is life threatening for a Muslim), one cannot help but wonder, after all the suffering for his faith, followed by betrayal by those who should have been loving and caring for him in this time of trial, how badly his faith has been shaken. Do the failings of his fellow Christian ever cause him to doubt the wisdom of his conversion? Has his resolve to share the Word of Jesus been affected by his wounds? Have those (so-called) Christians who have wronged Saeed ever stopped to think that they are the Devil’s servants, and that the wrong they’ve caused to one man might have far-reaching and destructive consequences for their faith?

    I would be elated to hear that Saeed has started a home fellowship of men, one that is steadily growing in size because it focuses on the Word of God above all else. It would be difficult, after all he has been through at the hands of those who should have had his back, to fault him for giving serious thought to renouncing Christianity and giving Islam another shot. A perfect example of churchian “reverse fishing.”

  183. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sean
    I think we’ve got different definitions of a “red flag”.

    Maybe. Maybe not.

    A red flag is what she does that makes you go “Just what exactly are you doing/talking about?”

    Not bad. But not complete.

    If she’s a bitch to you in public, if she won’t submit, if she’s distant from her family and specifically her father, if she looks like a 4 year old being scolded when you talking to her. Things that show character and values.

    The man I knew who married a party girl? I saw them in public before they had their church marriage. She was polite, kind, nice. None of the red flags above. Some men warned him about her past, which he mostly refused to acknowledge. Because she’d “changed”.

    Yes, a previous abortion should be a red flag, too.

    You aren’t paying attention. You’re skimming to find a keyword that you can then argue with.
    Try again: imagine that you marry a woman and you find out when she is pregnant with your first child that she had an abortion some years before. What then? Seriously, what would you do then?

    As Chad (isn’t he Deep Strength) said years ago when first going out searching: put her in a position to show you who she is. Give her responsibility in the relationship. IIRC, he got the woman to serve him lunch, to keep growing out her hair, etc. If she won’t listen to you whilst trying to be wooed, she’ll not change with a ring. I vetted my wife for two solid years before marrying her: her hair grown out, lost weight, extremely tight with her family and especially her father, etc. I made every attempt that I could to make her colours change and they didn’t. This is what I mean.

    Cool. Good for you that your wife isn’t a very good actress. Be informed that Not All Women Are Like Your Wife. Stop being so solipsistic.

    I’ve seen pastors that are beaten down and henpecked quite badly by their wives. To whom should one go in that case?

    So talk to him.

    On travel I am a guest at churches sometimes. I see things that others don’t see.
    But you miss the point totally, as you have been for a while. When pastor is clearly beaten down and henpecked by his wife, to whom should one go? It should be rather obvious that talking with the man himself won’t do a thing. Do you understand why?

    Consider reading some of the older postings on this site, and learning for a while.

  184. BillyS says:

    The idea that women never change in marriage is more than a bit naive. No amount of vetting can prevent that.

    Also note that a church can preach that divorce is not an option, but not fully support that when abuse is claimed. My wife had been unhappy for a long time, so I heard later, so they figured her claims I had threatened some things meant she had to “be safe.” The pastor’s wife never told her that her filing for divorce was wrong, even though the filing happened just after the sermon on “Divorce is Not an Option” was presented in the Sunday service. The pastor stood completely behind his wife’s advice that my wife stay away from me because of the danger and could never admit that not addressing divorce was a true evil.

  185. Jim says:

    The idea that women never change in marriage is more than a bit naive. No amount of vetting can prevent that.

    Yup. I’ve seen that in the flesh myself and others I’ve talked to as well. Way too many! And it’s a bit more than naive. It’s just plain desperate and stupid. This isn’t rocket science. Women are fickle.

    And you can’t wear the pants when men with guns can just rip it and your entire life away from you on a woman’s whim. No one can stand against that. I don’t care how “alpha” or tough guys think they are. You can’t fight the armed might of the state alone.

  186. ys says:

    Sean has done good work compiling names of some solid pastors. Oh well. Some here can’t bear for there to be any good pastors, anywhere. Because then they might have to actually, you know. find a congregation and attend that. Much better (and easier, too) to come here, say all churches are converged, have the echo chamber agree with you, and then go on your way.

  187. Anonymous Reader says:

    ys
    Sean has done good work compiling names of some solid pastors.

    Good point. Thanks for that list, Sean.

    Some here can’t bear for there to be any good pastors, anywhere. Because then they might have to actually, you know. find a congregation and attend that.

    Bad strawman, ys.

  188. ys says:

    Anonymous Reader,
    It isn’t a strawman. It’s true. We could see it back in January, when discussion began in comments about a Doug Wilson post, see here: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/fear-woman-bringeth-two-three-snares.html#disqus_thread

    Wilson is not right about everything. But, as far as it goes, that post was very good. There is nothing wrong with it, it’s true, and so forth. Some here, though, still were with comments like “Wilson’s a sellout, still a feminist, etc.” They couldn’t seem to bear, even once, to admit that a pastor somewhere had gotten it right. I have seen that several times, that was just one easy example.

  189. Jason says:

    Blood and Fire!

  190. feministhater says:

    ys, no it is a strawmen. Dalrock looked specifically at Wilson. Some even tried to have a debate on his website and here if I’m not mistaken. Like you, he defends women and berates men. The same old story. He is not what you think he is. Dalrock has numerous articles exposing his false narrative, from thinking women don’t understand abortion LOL!, thought they might in a 1000 years, to blaming men for lack of sex within marriage. Don’t try and play this bullshit. We have reason to suspect these Pastors.

  191. BillyS says:

    Are you being dense on purpose ys?

    Open your eyes a bit if so.

  192. thedeti says:

    feeriker:

    Prominent Christians have thrown Saeed Abedini to the wolves. He’s no longer a martyr for Christ; he’s no longer a suitable symbol of persecuted Christianity. To most of Churchianity in the US, Abedini is a wife abuser and a porn addict, though he has never been proven to be any of those things. He’s also divorced, which I am sure Churchians will hold against him (but not Charles Stanley or Paula White (2 divorces) or John Hagee or Joyce Meyer).

    What happened was that Naghmeh refused to submit to her husband, trash talked him while he was still in prison, abandoned him, refused to publicly advocate for him, and then separated from him immediately after he returned, claiming he “abused” her and was addicted to pornography. Because of her refusal to submit and her refusal even to come forward with evidence of the alleged abuse (which should have been easy to do), he divorced her (which he was within his legal right due to her marital abandonment).

    because he’s stood for authentic Christianity, he’s been tossed under the bus. Because our prominent Christian leaders worship women and not God; listen to women and not God’s word.

    Our Church has abandoned God. Our Church no longer fears God or reveres Him; but instead fears and reveres women.

    So be it.

  193. ys says:

    Exactly. Thank you for proving my point, FeminstHater. See, Wilson has been wrong sometimes, so he couldn’t have been correct that time. He clearly held women to account in that article. Did you read it?
    That article is also from this year. Maybe he is having a red-pill awakening, right before our eyes. It is possible, and if so, it would be a process. But again, you guys don’t want him to have undergone that. Because if a pastor, even just one, was right…

  194. Anonymous Reader says:

    ys, it is accurate. BillyS goes to a church that talked “no divorce” but when his wife demanded it they refused to walk “no divorce”. There are other men here who have tested churches and found them wanting. You are erecting a strawman and bashing it.

    As for Wilson, possibly he is seeing more clearly, only time will tell. But if we are to take his words at face value, he’s made only a baby step or two.

    You have some emotional investment in bashing men, especially men who have been wronged not only by an individual woman, not only by a certain church, not only by a given preacher, but also by the much larger church world. If the men you are bashing were women you’d be accused of “blaming the victim”.

    Do you want men to be harmed? If so, why? If not, why do you bash them?

  195. ys says:

    I’m not bashing men. I have no emotional investment in it whatsoever. I detest the Family Life Today and other garbage we have discussed on here.
    Having said that….one person up this thread actually asked where God was when someone got frivorced.
    Essentially, we have two groups here. There is one group that sees the rot in the churches, and rebukes it, and hopes for change and restoration for the Bride of Christ.
    There is another group that is not Christian. They hide behind feminism in the church as a reason to bash the church, in general. It may not be obvious, but it is here.
    Are churches bad? Yes, many of them are. I knew a man who got frivorced and hosed too. Maybe not as bad as some here, but he wasn’t in a good place. That was a decade ago. He is doing much better now, but his church wasn’t too much help at the time.
    Yet, some churches are good. There was that list above. It was a real, good list. Some can’t stand even the existence of that list. They talk it down. Why do you think that is? You may not agree, but I think it’s because some on here are good at cloaking their comments in Christianity, but really, aren’t. They aren’t Christian. And they are using the church’s compromise on feminism to do what they would do anyway: Bash the church.

  196. feministhater says:

    Yet, some churches are good. There was that list above. It was a real, good list. Some can’t stand even the existence of that list. They talk it down. Why do you think that is? You may not agree, but I think it’s because some on here are good at cloaking their comments in Christianity, but really, aren’t. They aren’t Christian. And they are using the church’s compromise on feminism to do what they would do anyway: Bash the church.

    Yeah, you’re the only true Christian, right? Lol! The Church hasn’t just ‘compromised’ on feminism. They have wholly swallowed it and made it their mantra. We’ve done all this before, only experience will teach you. You tried this back on Scot’s blog, it didn’t work then, it won’t work now. We don’t answer to you.

  197. feministhater says:

    Exactly. Thank you for proving my point, FeminstHater. See, Wilson has been wrong sometimes, so he couldn’t have been correct that time. He clearly held women to account in that article. Did you read it?
    That article is also from this year. Maybe he is having a red-pill awakening, right before our eyes. It is possible, and if so, it would be a process. But again, you guys don’t want him to have undergone that. Because if a pastor, even just one, was right…

    A broken clock is still correct twice a day. Your point is moot, until we see a true awakening and an apology, yes he actually has to ask for forgiveness for his attempts at blaming the sins of women on men, then nothing changes.

  198. feministhater says:

    You have some emotional investment in bashing men, especially men who have been wronged not only by an individual woman, not only by a certain church, not only by a given preacher, but also by the much larger church world. If the men you are bashing were women you’d be accused of “blaming the victim”.

    I don’t believe this to be the case. I believe he is anti-MGTOW. He can’t stand men just walking away, he still feels that this can be turned around and fixed. As I said, only experience can teach him.

  199. ys says:

    So Wilson has to apologize? What are the odds of that? You know he won’t, even if he awakens. You’re just raising the requirements, again, so Wilson can’t be right, etc.
    What exactly do you want experience to teach me?

  200. Gunner Q says:

    ys @ 4:17 pm:
    “It is possible, and if so, it would be a process.”

    No, it would be a repentance, and Wilson is not repentant. Assuming that repentance happens, Wilson will not quietly correct his teaching and pretend the evil he taught never happened. He will make a public confession that leaves no room for doubt, and probably no room for his continued employment in the System. But it will save Wilson’s soul.

    @ 4:52 pm:
    “There was that list above. It was a real, good list. Some can’t stand even the existence of that list. They talk it down. Why do you think that is? You may not agree, but I think it’s because some on here are good at cloaking their comments in Christianity, but really, aren’t. They aren’t Christian.”

    You can use my name, ys. I can take a punch and you won’t be the first or fifth guy to accuse me of not being a real Christian. But I can’t bother giving that story to people who have already decided I’m wrong. I already gave it on this blog anyway, several years ago, so feel free to do some homework.

  201. feministhater says:

    Experience teaches all. In light of my comment, sometimes you just have to live it yourself or see it firsthand to understand.

    After being told by local Churches, big Churches, the answer is always the same, re-re-re commit to doing the same stuff that got us into this mess. No changes necessary. I couldn’t keep doing that, which is one of the many reasons I discovered Dalrock’s blog and others like him all those years ago. It’s a disconnect that happens between yourself and those you went to Church with. When reality doesn’t align with what one was taught.

    That is the experience most men on this blog have to go through at one time or another.

  202. feministhater says:

    So Wilson has to apologize? What are the odds of that? You know he won’t, even if he awakens. You’re just raising the requirements, again, so Wilson can’t be right..

    He made a statement condoning women who have abortions, absolving them of responsibility on the flimsy reasoning of women not understanding exactly what an abortion was.

    We are dealing with millions of cases. It is the view of politically active pro-lifers that the penalties should fall on those who know what they are doing. Medically trained doctors know exactly what they are doing. The ghouls at Planned Parenthood know exactly what they have been selling.

    And the view about the mothers, taken as a class, is that they have been fraudulently manipulated into a form of negligent manslaughter. That kind of problem is best answered with information — ultrasounds and more. This is why pro-lifers for decades have offered support, information, care, and medical services to mothers. The laws have been aimed at doctors who were after the blood money. And in the main, this has been a very effective and reasonable distinction.

    It’s those meany Doctors, not the innocent angels who somehow got pregnant, probably also against their will. Always being manipulated…

    Take your pick but Wilson either truly believes women are idiots or he knows they’re not and is covering for them.

  203. feeriker says:

    thedeti says:
    May 17, 2017 at 3:59 pm

    Saeed is also one o’ them Eye-raynians, which, in the “mind” of the average pig-ignorant Amoricon churchian, makes him a non-human worthy of hatred and derision by itself. One doesn’t have to look far or listen carefully to find blind bigotry in the “church.”

    Speaking of which, it seems to be a matter of unspoken doctrine within evangelical churchian franchises that Christians do not and never can exist in the Islamic world. When I mention to them that, for example, Lebanon was historically majority Christian up until a couple of decades ago and that Syria, up until the outbreak of civil war, had a 13 percent Christian population, a community almost as old as the Faith itself, I get a blank, moronic stare in response.

    It really is getting harder and harder to stay the course.

    At any rate, I would be thrilled to hear that SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE within the body of Christ is giving Saeed some support.

  204. ys says:

    Well, we’re getting off course here, but I know the reality. Feminism has infiltrated the church. I think anyone can see that. You are missing my point: There are non-Christians using concerns with feminism as an excuse to do what they would do anyway: bash the church and believers.
    Again, in this thread, someone actually said, “Where was God when,” X happened. Implying God was not there. That is blasphemy. From what I saw, I am the only person who said anything about it. Yet, all I have to do is appear like I am shaming men and I have commenters all over me like blackbirds on a hawk.
    So, your priorities are making sure men are not shamed. Your priorities are making sure pastors like Wilson can never be right (Yes, I am aware of his abortion comments…he was a fool for saying it. Doesn’t mean he is always wrong). Your priorities are not defending the name and honor of the Most High.

  205. ys says:

    GunnerQ,
    Wasn’t just talking, or necessarily talking, about you. It was more of a general comment. I would say you if I meant you, like I just did.
    Side comment, I am interested in this idea that Wilson will be condemned for eternity if he doesn’t repent of some of his feminist comments. What is your basis for that belief?

  206. PokeSalad says:

    Read the Wilson post. It has its merits, but it’s amusing how he walks right up to the edge of the issue and backs away…’but what if…what if….it was the wimminzs??’ and leaves it right there and then moans about how he would be pilloried if he “went all the way” told the truth (which is certainly true). His pill is definitely pinkening (new word there) but he ain’t red yet.

    ys reminds me of those classic anecdotal arguments women love more than a Lifetime movie…. like the Allstate commercial where the woman says, “If WOMEN are poorer drivers than MEN, how come I (sample size – one) got a discount?”

  207. ys says:

    PokeSalad-
    To be fair, most of the stories the men on here have about their lives are anecdotal. Can’t just pull that card now to dismiss me.
    I agree, Wilson didn’t go far enough. What was the most entertaining about it was the comment section. The womyn were freaking (even the ones who normally support Doug). Most of them wouldn’t concede even part of the point. That is to be expected.
    One of his articles this week has him mention, in passing, the idea that women lie about rape. It isn’t his main point, but again, as you said, the pill is pinkening.

  208. Gunner Q says:

    “Side comment, I am interested in this idea that Wilson will be condemned for eternity if he doesn’t repent of some of his feminist comments. What is your basis for that belief?”

    Christianity. Salvation.

    We believers can’t hide in this darkening world. If Wilson comes to realize that his entire life’s work is the exact same crime that got Adam kicked out of God’s presence then he can’t go right without the Cathedral noticing. He might as well hold the press conference. Christ would want it, people would listen to him and this world’s retaliation will be no greater. Heck, it might be less, since Tradcons are the people so terrified of “making a martyr” of their enemies.

    Go big, go public with your Christian awakening. Don’t let them quietly summon you to the Lubyanka. That is not the better path.

  209. Gunner Q says:

    “To be fair, most of the stories the men on here have about their lives are anecdotal. ”

    *Facepalm*

  210. feministhater says:

    To be fair, most of the stories the men on here have about their lives are anecdotal.

    Lol, Miss Irony meet Captain Obvious

  211. PokeSalad says:

    To be fair, most of the stories the men on here have about their lives are anecdotal.

    Ho ho, now she wants affidavits and court documents. Begone, Jezebel. Somewhere there’s a sammich that needs making.

  212. Anonymous Reader says:

    ys
    Feminism has infiltrated the church. I think anyone can see that.

    You think wrong. Virtually no one can see that. Doug Wilson can’t see it, Moore can’t see it, the current Pope can’t see it, arguably the previous Pope couldn’t see it, John Piper can’t see it, Tim Keller can’t see it, the average preacher can’t see it.

    So why do you make such a foolish claim? Maybe to try to shut down the righteously angry men?

    You are missing my point: There are non-Christians using concerns with feminism as an excuse to do what they would do anyway: bash the church and believers.

    So?
    This is not a religious blog. This is a blog largely concerned about marriage within a Christian world view, but it’s not a Christian-only blog. Agnostics, atheists, Jews, Moslems and many different forms of Christian have participated over the years.

    Perhaps your point could be made more clearly on a blog of your own?

  213. thedeti says:

    Feeriker:

    I disagree that Saeed Abedini’s “fall from grace” in the Churchian world has anything to do with his ethnicity or his status as a former Muslim who converted to Christianity. It has literally EVERYTHING to do with Naghmeh’s allegations against him, and his decision to divorce a rebellious wife who either couldn’t or wouldn’t come forward publicly with hard evidence to support her very public allegations against him.

    You should read Abedini’s Facebook page. He writes his thoughts about his ministry, his former marriage, his moving to Virginia (across the country from Idaho, his former home base and where his kids live with his ex-wife), and his perception that virtually all the people who supported him and agitated for his release have seemingly abandoned him.

    And he’s right. Churchianity has abandoned him because it believed Naghmeh’s evidence-free claims that Abedini is a porn addict and a wife abuser. Churchianity’s abandonment of him is little more than virtue signaling.

    Like I said: Our church worships women now. It worships feelings now. It no longer rejoices in the truth.

  214. thedeti says:

    Feeriker:

    And with Abedini’s public statements about prominent Christians’ and Christianity’s treatment of him, what you are seeing is a man choking down the red pill, literally in real time.

  215. ys says:

    Anonymous Reader,
    Now it’s not a Christian blog? That’s going to be your excuse? Doubtful. Perhaps you missed the post from Sunday where the Bible was directly quoted. This is a Christian blog, and the pretense is that there are Christians here calling out heretics in the church for their feminism. If you weren’t Christian, why would you care? Who cares if there are heretics in the church if you aren’t a believer?
    But really, there could be unbelievers here. And, if they are here as unbelievers, what would be the most effective attack? Pretend like you are a believer, and criticize from in-house. It’s exactly what Sheila Gregiore does. Does she say, “I’m a ball-busting feminist! Die Patriarchs!” No, she acts like the good Christian wife, coming to your town, to show YOUR wife how to be the good Christian wife. That’s what makes her attacks so deadly. It’s the same here.

  216. PokeSalad says:

    Now it’s not a Christian blog?
    Ah, the ole bob-and-weave. AR said its not a religious blog…..if you don’t know the difference, you really are clueless.

    Don’t misquote, hon, it only makes you look worse than you already do.

  217. ys says:

    PokeSalad,
    You seem like a smart guy. What is the difference?

  218. BillyS says:

    Try reading many other threads ys and maybe you will see the difference, though I won’t hold my breath.

    This exact question has been discussed before.

  219. BillyS says:

    Side comment, I am interested in this idea that Wilson will be condemned for eternity if he doesn’t repent of some of his feminist comments. What is your basis for that belief?

    I have a firmer position on Eternal Security than many here, so I wouldn’t take that position, but he is definitely doing significant harm that should not be.

    I put the anger against those teaching such as a natural part of the response. It is just like political anger: Pushing it down doesn’t remove it, it only makes it come out stronger later on, assuming it has some basis in reality.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Christian revolution in these areas at some point, as dissent continues to be opposed. Reality will win out, though it will likely take longer than I would prefer.

  220. ys says:

    BillyS-
    It’s apparently simple and easy to see the difference between a religious and Christian blog. Cool, I must be missing. Go right ahead and explain, then.
    Regarding your other post, some of it is the eternal security issue. Some of it is people basically dropping trou and doing what they do at the thought of a pastor who supported feminism going to hell. They think to themselves that their sins are just fine, God will accept them. But if some Christian gets feminism wrong (particularly if they are famous) then start the fiery flames.

  221. Anonymous Reader says:

    ys
    This is a Christian blog,

    Have you informed Dalrock ? He ought to be at least the 3rd or 4th to know. Since it’s his blog.

  222. Anonymous Reader says:

    ys, it looks like you don’t care so much about the ongoing marriage crisis, but are more eager to police the tone of comments.

    You might read this sometime:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/comment-policy/

    There are other useful links at the top of the blog main page as well as a Search tool.
    Dalrock’s posts on vetting a wife would be a good place to start, or go back in time on the “weak men screwing up feminism” category. Unless you’re just trolling for flames, of course.

  223. ys says:

    By their fruits you shall know them. This blog quotes scripture very often. It quotes scripture with the idea that it is authoritative. It talks of feminism infiltrating the church, with idea being that it’s a bad thing. The author is a Christian. Many readers here are Christians. What would anyone who read this blog think? There are many who are not Christians here, of course, but there is no accompanying articles about feminism infiltrating the mosque or the synagogue.
    Don’t be stupid. I know I am seen now as one who promotes the badthink, and several are teaming up against me, etc. But to think this isn’t a Christian blog? Is agreeing with me so horrible that you would rather be stupid instead?

  224. ys says:

    What makes you think I don’t care about the marriage crisis?

  225. BillyS says:

    Scan the backlogs if you really want to know ys.

  226. feministhater says:

    It’s a discussion blog ys, not a religious blog. The difference is in how the blog is policed. Read the comment policy and try to see that there is no policing based on Christianity. The blog most certainly is Christian in nature as it is run by a Christian and commented on mostly by Christians but it discusses secular issues as well as those of the Faith.

  227. Gunner Q says:

    Wow, God made two insanitybytes. I shall complain to management.

  228. feeriker says:

    Guys, is there some compelling reason why you’re still paying any attention to ys? It’s time to put up the Please Don’t Feed the Trolls sign.

  229. Marquess of Kekbury says:

    Good morning, please take a danish and be seated.

    I am very disappointed.

    I’m very disappointed in you all.

    You call yourself Christians.

    You think you’re big men, huh? All strutting about, anonymously posting polite, restrained criticism of the most unimpeachable servant-leader-lambs of our lord?

    How dare you. HOW DARE YOU!

    How dare you make the Baby Jesus cry!

    How dare you. [Ahem.]

    Now, turn to page two in your workbooks, entitled “Power and Control: Metaphysical Violence.”

    Okay, preist abusers, listen up. This is the “Metaphysical Violence” wheel. We will begin your rehabilitation with a lesson on section six: “Using Male Cognitive Privilege.”

  230. BillyS says:

    Or ys is insanitybytes…..

  231. ys says:

    What can I say, FeministHater. Last month you admonished a fellow commenter to not blaspheme. I was simply doing the same, and then it spiraled.

  232. feministhater says:

    I asked them to please not blaspheme, I did not admonish him. It means nothing anyway, I am but a commentator, I can say and do much of anything, it does not make this a religious blog.

    You’re like the demonrats, slinging poo hoping some will stick. We don’t care about that sort of crap contest.

  233. ys says:

    It isn’t slinging poo, it would be thinking someone might agree. Sadly, sticking with the groupthink here is more important than how God is esteemed. You guys put people in boxes, scream that comments aren’t policed here and it’s totes awesome, and then dogpile someone who disagrees (because comments aren’t policed here, bro). Then you put people in comments and categorize. Hence me being accused of not caring about the marriage crisis. My comments in this thread had nothing to do with that, but the second someone questions one aspect, or isn’t “dup, dup, AWALT,” you all resort to your normal tricks, call them a woman, a feminist, etc.
    I agree with over 90 percent of the OPs here. I comment if I have something different to contribute or question. There would be nothing accomplished by me being comment no. 79 in the “Yeah guys, feminism sucks,” circle-jerk.

  234. feministhater says:

    No, you’re mistaken, God is esteemed here but we allow the conversation to take place.

    Nothing has been accomplished by your derailing either, nothing. It’s a discussion blog, plain and simple, not a religious one. That means we discuss issues in the way men here deem acceptable. It doesn’t mean we can’t teach other men, or advise them, or even talk anecdotal stories about Christianity. Some people come here and actually gain advice and use it in their lives for success or understanding. It’s about gaining knowledge, a new perspective; it’s not about changing the world around us. It’s about changing ourselves. Once you learn that you can learn to let go of your over serious attitude.

    Try it. You might get along with others here a bit better then.

  235. feministhater says:

    You guys put people in boxes, scream that comments aren’t policed here and it’s totes awesome, and then dogpile someone who disagrees (because comments aren’t policed here, bro).

    They have disagreed with you and criticised your points. They have not policed you. Your questions serve to derail the conversation as they have now done. The only person you can actually police you around here is Dalrock. Others can merely voice their opinions.

    More poo being flung.

  236. ys says:

    Indeed, knowledge and new perspectives are good. Hence, I have asked questions, and they are dismissed and called stupid.
    Right, and you know what I mean by policing. There’s actual policing, and then social policing. They are different but can have the same net-effect, which is silencing (any) dissent.
    Again, ironic that you assume I haven’t gained knowledge from this blog, simply because I don’t agree with some parts of it. That is a narrow and unintelligent view.
    I also wouldn’t want to sidetrack a conversation in the early goings, but this thread is not the newest, and has many comments, and people here often do this after that period.

  237. Snowy says:

    @ys

    Yes you’re right about the “Where was God?” comment, but you can’t expect all Christians to be on the same level of understanding regarding the sovereignty of God (God is all in all) and other deep spiritual matters. I actually think Jim was just throwing that out there to get a bite. And he got it from you. Anyway, God’s big enough to take all the shit we’ve got to throw at Him. He’s not phased.

    And being a professing Christian is no prerequisite to commenting on Dalrock’s blog, as far as I know. Note that I’m not speaking on Jim’s behalf, because I don’t know where he’s at in that regard. In any case, there are times when secularists can see things more clearly, perhaps because they’re on the outside looking in. There have been, and there are, some self-confessed non-Christians commenting on Dalrock’s blog who have had, and have, valuable things to contribute. Just saying.

  238. Snowy says:

    Furthermore, what is wrong with Jim asking the question, “Where was God?” Or are you telling us that Christians never question God, never have doubts, always understand God and His ways, never have their confidence crushed, etc.? You’re kind of starting to sound like the only Christian in the room, ys.

    And as to “policing”, is not your call to rebuke Jim’s comment in itself policing? Again, just saying.

  239. ys says:

    We all ask where was God at times. I am speaking in terms of blasphemy. As far as policing goes, hey, everyone wants policing. The question: What is the standard? Here, the standard of not shaming men, ever, ranks higher than honoring God, it seems.
    This is my point, and it will likely be tl;dr: I don’t like it when people try to cuck me. We all know about the liberals, who appeal to the Bible to try to get America to take in rapefugees. It’s disgusting, they’re false Christians, and we know they’re just using our Christian standards to get us to bring in a bunch of Muslims.
    Turning to here, we have people here, I think, who hate the church. They have no relationship with God, and they don’t plan to. So, they bash pastors who get the marriage teaching wrong. Is their goal correction, so that the Word of God is taught correctly? No, it’s not, it’s to bash the church, and they quote Eph. 5 so the Christians here will join them, and tear down the church. It’s fine to call out false teaching. It’s very good. But when non-Christians are super-eager to correct errant Christian teaching, it makes me wonder what the rest of the agenda is.

  240. Boxer says:

    But when non-Christians are super-eager to correct errant Christian teaching, it makes me wonder what the rest of the agenda is.

    Non-Christian here, from birth. The fact that I have a different tradition doesn’t mean that I’m completely uninterested in the greatest work of literature ever produced in the English language.* Nor does it mean that I don’t care about the (arguably) Christian underpinnings of the civilization that I grew to manhood in.

    You don’t need to be religious to realize that when some feminist priest tells you that men should submit to women, he’s misquoting the bible. Anyone who can read common English ought to be able to see the problem with that, and those of us with any allegiance at all to our neighbors have a duty to criticize this sort of antisocial deception.

    Regards,

    Boxer

    *I’m sure someone will argue that Shakespeare ought to replace the KJV. Sure. Y’all know what I mean.

  241. Dalrock says:

    @YS
    I took some time today to read through your posts to understand what your complaint about this site is. I see two chief complaints from you:

    1) That the comments section is an echo chamber.
    2) That I don’t police the comments section for orthodoxy.

    This place (the men’s sphere in general) is a space where conversations can occur that simply don’t happen anywhere else. There is a breadth of perspectives that I think is escaping you, and is something I have explained in the past.

    What I would suggest is that if you are interested in the conversation and have ideas on how to make it better (especially around moderation), then take 5 min and click on the bottom of the page to start your own free blog. There you will be master of your own blogging universe, free to police the comments to your heart’s content. You can enforce orthodoxy while making sure there is plenty of disagreement. And after you have shown how it can be done better, I and others will have the opportunity to learn from your example, just as I learned from Cane and Scott’s example as I referenced here. I am in Cane and Scott’s debt, and it is certainly possible I will have the good fortune to be in your debt as well.

    However if you decide that you don’t want to put in the kind of work it would take to be master of your own blogging universe, then your other option would be to work on being more effective at influencing the conversation in the comboxes. This is admittedly an art, but accusing a wildly diverse group of commenters of being an echo chamber isn’t an effective way to win friends and influence people. It is, ironically, an incredibly effective way to galvanize such a diverse group and make them hostile to whatever it is that you are trying to instruct them. If you learn nothing else but that, you will be much better served.

    As to your original comment that men shouldn’t avoid going to church, I agree with you, as I suspect the vast majority of Christian readers here do as well. My good friend Cane Caldo has written quite convincingly on the topic, although the links to the specific posts are escaping me at the moment.

    Edit: Here is one of Cane Caldo’s posts on the topic of going to church.

  242. ys says:

    Thanks for the linkage, Dalrock. Always have loved that you do that to connect the topics in your posts. It’s helpful.
    Wasn’t trying to get you, or imply you should, censor anyone. My point likely came off poorly. Just wished more people were zealous for that kind of thing (honoring the Name of God).
    This place is an echo chamber, but pretty much any blog on a topic of this precise of a genre, will be. Millions of blogs all over the internet are echo chambers, from political ones to this one to which years comprise the glory days of Metallica’s music to the peak Simpsons years. A consensus develops, and people fiercely defend their positions.

  243. ys says:

    Boxer,
    Having you as an ally is appreciated.

  244. PeterW. says:

    ys…..

    Are you familiar with the concept of a self-refuting argument?

    Your own presence here refutes the charge that the commentary section of this blog is an “echo chamber”.

  245. feeriker says:

    Just wished more people were zealous for that kind of thing (honoring the Name of God).

    This place is an echo chamber

    Hamsterlation: “Men are speaking truths that are hurtful and make me feel bad!!!!!!!!😣😣😣😭😭😭😭😭

    No one is forcing you to be here, sweetie. If the echos are giving you a headache, there’s a whole internet out there that is full of “diverse” [*smirk*] opinions just waiting for your indispensible wisdom to make it even richer and more orthod, er, I mean “diverse.”

  246. ys says:

    PeterW,
    You know what I mean. Don’t be stupid.
    Feeriker,
    Calling me sweetie….no thanks pal, I’m not gay.

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