The cost of going with the crowd.

You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. 2 You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice

–Exodus 23:1-2 ESV

In After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians Are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate Dr. Russell Moore takes secular commenters to task for bearing false witness against conservative evangelical men:

One of the most important pieces of sociological data in recent years comes from the University of Virginia’s W. Bradford Wilcox in his landmark book, Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands

[Wilcox] brings forth the demographic statistics and survey results on issues ranging from paternal hugging of children to paternal yelling, from female responses about marital happiness to the divisions of household labor. In virtually every category, the most conservative and evangelical households were also the “softest” in terms of familial harmony, relational happiness, and emotional health.

Unlike many secular university researchers, Wilcox actually studies real live evangelicals, rather than simply speculating on how such “misogynist throwbacks” must live. He has read what evangelicals read, listened to evangelical radio programs, and otherwise immersed himself in an evangelical subculture that few academics seem to understand. Wilcox demonstrates that his results are not an anomaly. It is not akin to discovering that nineteenth century slaveholders had less racist attitudes than northern abolitionists. Instead he shows that the “softness” of evangelical fathers is a result of patriarchy…

This raises the question, why do secular academics believe that conservative Christian men are selfish monsters who are forever abusing their wives, when the truth is quite easily observed?  One obvious answer is the secular academics are merely listening to what conservative Christian leaders have to say about Christian husbands.  If you read the conservative Christian press, there is no more vile group in our society than married Christian fathers.  Articles like Ditch Your Delusions of Grandeur and Love Your Child are fan favorites over at CBMW.

The secular academics would get the same impression from reading Dr. Moore as well.  Moore is constantly berating Christian husbands as wife abusers.  In articles like The Church and Violence Against Women, Moore warns against the barbarian horde of hateful Christian married fathers with their selfish materialism, their libidinal fantasies, and wrathful temper tantrums:

We must teach from our pulpits, our Sunday school classes, and our Vacation Bible Schools that women are to be cherished, honored, and protected by men. This means we teach men to reject American playboy consumerism in light of a Judgment Seat at which they will give account for their care for their families. It means we explicitly tell the women in our congregations, “A man who hits you has surrendered his headship, and that is the business both of the civil state in enacting public justice and of this church in enacting church discipline.”

Church discipline against wife-beaters must be clear and consistent. We must stand with women against predatory men in all areas of abandonment, divorce, and neglect. We must train up men, through godly mentoring as well as through biblical instruction, who will know that the model of a husband is a man who crucifies his selfish materialism, his libidinal fantasies, and his wrathful temper tantrums in order to care lovingly for a wife. We must also remind these young men that every idle word, and every hateful act, will be laid out in judgment before the eyes of the One to whom we must give an answer.

Note that Moore knows the men he is maligning are, as a group, the softest in our society.  It is truly baffling that Moore would on the one hand bemoan the fact that evangelical Christian husbands and fathers are wildly mis-characterized by secular academics, only to make it a practice to do the same.  My only guess is that he and the others doing the same are assuming they aren’t doing real damage.  It feels good, after all, and what can it hurt?  Given that the charge is being made against millions of conservative Christian husbands, certainly it is bound to be true for at least a few of them.  Perhaps a small percentage of this handful of men will become convicted after seeing all conservative Christian husbands painted in this way.

But this is profoundly destructive in multiple ways.  The first is the obvious problem Moore complains about in the link above;  he is reinforcing the same false stereotypes which are being used to sell feminist Christianity.  The next problem is the marital strife these wild accusations inflame.  Our feminist culture is telling Christian wives that they are being oppressed.  Having Christian leaders constantly reinforcing this message is a sure fire prescription for at the very least marital strife, and in many cases this constant provocation will lead to divorce.  Even if you don’t care about what you are doing to men and women, surely some thought should be given to the harm this is causing millions of children.

Lastly, there is the impact this constant maligning of married fathers has on young men.  The message is clear:  Married fathers are contemptible.  This is true even for the young men who know, like Moore does, that in reality evangelical husbands are the very softest in our society.  Young men don’t have to believe the outlandish charges to receive the very clear message that the married father is an object of deep contempt.  Since respect is a primary motivator for men, how long can conservative Christian leaders keep this up before we start seeing a real impact on how young men see marriage and fatherhood?  If good husbands and fathers aren’t respected, and if in fact marrying and becoming a father are reasons to lose respect for a man, why should a young Christian man want to pursue marriage and fatherhood?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Disrespecting Respectability, Dr. Russell Moore, Fatherhood, The only real man in the room, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, W. Bradford Wilcox, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

123 Responses to The cost of going with the crowd.

  1. Cane Caldo says:

    The secular academics would get the same impression from reading Dr. Moore as well.

    Haha! I was wondering where this would lead from yesterday. Own it, Moore.

  2. ys says:

    Also worth noting the double-standard. Moore says in one of the articles that women (presumably all) are to be cherished by men (presumably all). Yet, Piper, and Moore (I believe) have turned around and told women to “stop submitting to men who aren’t their husbands.” So, all men must lay down their lives (per Piper and his self-defense article you mentioned probably a year ago, and per Moore here); but women must only submit to their husbands.

  3. feministhater says:

    That’s some serious delusion there. Condemning Christian men as abusive assholes and then wondering why the secular world condemns Christian men as abusive assholes…

    I’m amazed!

  4. johnmcg says:

    That Ditch Your Delusions of Grandeur article made my skin crawl. He did actually wipe his child’s bottom, correct?

    The standard the author is holding himself to is one that Christ Himself wouldn’t meet. Didn’t Christ protest in the Garden for God to take the Cup away from Him? (and yes, I realize that crucifixion is more severe than wiping a child’s bottom — the point is the experience of wishing one didn’t have to go through with an unpleasant task).

    Yet the author wants to flagellate himself (and pretty much all other fathers by proxy) because he muttered a prayer of protest before doing an unpleasant job. I’m not sure he’s quite over his delusions of grandeur.

    I’m quite sure an article like this from a Mom wouldn’t have taken this turn, unless the mom had actually screamed at the child or let the child sit in his own filth for several minutes before she cleaned him up. The article would have been about how motherhood is hard, we hall have moments where it demands more of us than we want to give, and we need to forgive ourselves.

    But for dads? No mercy. If we pause for even a split second before pouncing on the task at hand, we’re proud, selfish, hard-hearted passive fools.

  5. feministhater says:

    So, all men must lay down their lives (per Piper and his self-defense article you mentioned probably a year ago, and per Moore here); but women must only submit to their husbands.

    And only if said husband is perfect in everyway. One misstep and she’s entitled to throw a Godly tantrum. Yet a woman can cheat on her husband, abuse him and deny him for years; and it’s ‘love her like Christ loves the Church’…

    It’s all the same nonsense, MGTOW is the best thing to ever happen. No one should be so duped into being a Conservative husband. lol!

  6. Pingback: The cost of going with the crowd. | @the_arv

  7. johnmcg says:

    This is true even for the young men who know, like Moore does, that in reality evangelical husbands are the very softest in our society.

    Actually, they probably don’t know that. If they’re like most young people, they’re probably convinced their parents are the worst tyrants that exist in history, and are having that (developmentally appropriate but incorrect) notion reinforced, at least as far as their father is concerned.

    Then we tell these men who have been so undermined to “step up,” and then they’re laughed off.

  8. feeriker says:

    Even if you don’t care about what you are doing to men and women, surely some thought should be given to the harm this is causing millions of children.

    HAH! Like feminist women, academics see children as mere abstractions, props to be used for selfish ends. As such, children are not human enough to merit caring about.

  9. getalonghome says:

    Spot on. Yep. (With a dot this time! Hit post too soon. But that was all I had to say anyway, once I decided not to say all the other stuff I thought I’d say before I hit “post”. You were spot on, so I don’t really need to add anything, right?)

  10. Mark says:

    Nice post Mr.”D”. These so-called “Christian Leaders” are nothing more that a bunch of traitors to the male sex of this world……””women are to be cherished, honored, and protected by men.”” Ya right! I have no reason to cherish or honor some harpie ball busting shrew who has complete legal power and control over my life.I cherish my freedom.Unless a woman is a family member I would never protect her.They are on their own.They can live and die on their own dime…not mine!

    @Femhater

    “”MGTOW is the best thing to ever happen””

    ^^^^^^^^THIS!

  11. Cane Caldo says:

    @JohnMcG

    But for dads? No mercy. If we pause for even a split second before pouncing on the task at hand, we’re proud, selfish, hard-hearted passive fools.

    In de Troyes’ “The Knight of the Cart” (Dalrock wrote about it a couple months back), Lancelot hesitated half a step before he got into the cart which would take him to the path to rescue Guinevere because the cart is a symbol of dishonor. Because of his hesitation, Guinevere punished him for years after he rescued her.

  12. ACThinker says:

    I’m sorry in context of this post I don’t understand what “soft” is supposed to mean? And is it contrasting with hard (soft= pillow, hard=frying pan) or rough(soft =velvet, rough=sandpaper?) Or perhaps some thing of both?

    Where hard is the controling man just for the sake of controling, or rough where it is using women for the sake of male pleasure, and soft being the protecting the women from other men (and from women themselves)?

  13. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    The answer is that all their beliefs are compartmentalized; they are said only in a specific context. Their worldview is wholly inconsistent and contradictory. When Moore bad mouths Christian fathers, he isn’t speaking to secular people, but to Christian women and wives and assumes no one else is listening. It’s the same with people who say gender is a social construct only to then argue people “are born that way” when it comes to feminine boys and masculine girls.

  14. Lost Patrol says:

    I also am a little confused about how ‘soft’ is apparently a positive here.

    “softest” in terms of familial harmony, relational happiness, and emotional health.

    Wouldn’t I want to be best, strongest, or most dedicated in these fields? Softest sounds like missing the boat on what seem like good things.

    Dr. Moore also might want to remind himself that “every idle word, and every hateful act, will be laid out in judgement” – when he’s holding forth about his perceptions of other men’s weaknesses and failings.

  15. The Question says:

    I made this comment in a previous blog post, but the Church is utterly clueless about how they make marriage look to young men. Either that, or they don’t care because they assume men will marry regardless, but believe the women need to be thoroughly convinced that marriage isn’t an evil, misogynistic, patriarchal institution of female oppression.

  16. Of course Dr. Moore attacks men. There’s lots of money to be made from their wives.

    He is taking the easy path by attacking evangelical men. But should he get out of line and say that most divorces are initiated by women and most done so for foolish reasons, he’ll be crucified.

  17. @The Question:

    They can’t think that far ahead. They really can’t. They’ve got no Wisdom, so they’re just worldly people trying to be nicer.

  18. Kevin says:

    Isn’t the simplest answer – that secular elites are bigots who never interact with normal religious people – the most likely answer. They don’t listen to evangelical leaders anymore than they do people who don’t live on the coast. They just continue with their bizarre assumptions about life.

  19. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Since respect is a primary motivator for men, how long can conservative Christian leaders keep this up before we start seeing a real impact on how young men see marriage and fatherhood? If good husbands and fathers aren’t respected, and if in fact marrying and becoming a father are reasons to lose respect for a man, why should a young Christian man want to pursue marriage and fatherhood?

    Ah, but now you’re looking at it from the perspective of the young Christian men, instead of from the perspective of “Christian leaders” like Russell Moore. You see, they want respect too — and in particular, they want respect from those in the highest levels of academia and mass media. So how does one go about getting that respect, especially considering that many who are currently at those high levels aren’t Christians themselves and don’t hold to their values?

    Well to start with, you can ingratiate yourselves with those in the the places you want to be by looking for some values you might have in common. For instance, they place an emphasis on the advancement of women and the protection of their rights, don’t they? In that case, you can emphasize that your religion also places value on women and their worth, and then demonstrate this by playing up scriptures that praise a woman, while simultaneously jettisoning all the verses that also call them to obedience and place responsibilities upon them. No one will miss those, will they? As Russell Moore himself demonstrates: “Women, stop submitting to men!”
    Link: http://www.russellmoore.com/2011/12/05/women-stop-submitting-to-men/

    Once you’ve succeeded in convincing your “friends in high places” that you are one of them by adapting your value system to reflect theirs, you can further distinguish yourself from the aspects of your old religion that are out of fashion by drawing a line between you and those who still practice some of the embarrassing beliefs that you’d left behind. For instance: You notice during election season that your new crowd is pushing to make the first female president a reality, and that they utterly despise the man who is running against her. Fortunately for you, that man is also the preferred candidate of those who adhere to your old beliefs. Why? Who cares? One must never let a crisis go to waste, so you gleefully accept invitations from prestigious news sources to say the worst things you can muster about your former group’s pick, while also pulling in some of the old fire-and-brimstone that you thought you’d forsaken by promising the judgement of God himself upon any who vote for the man your hip new friends hate: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/opinion/have-evangelicals-who-support-trump-lost-their-values.html

    Mission accomplished! Now with your regular appearances on television shows like Meet the Press and in news outlets like The Washington Post, you’ve established yourself as a leader in your religion while also maintaining the affection of high-society venues that have always hated its doctrines. You’re a Christian — but more importantly, you’re also “Not one of those Christians.” All it cost you was the possibility of bringing in strong new converts to your faith — but if it’s any comfort, the Mainline Protestants made that trade already, and just look at them now!

  20. Casey says:

    @ Dalrock

    “Since respect is a primary motivator for men, how long can conservative Christian leaders keep this up before we start seeing a real impact on how young men see marriage and fatherhood?”

    For 100 years and counting……with no end in sight.

    “If good husbands and fathers aren’t respected, and if in fact marrying and becoming a father are reasons to lose respect for a man, why should a young Christian man want to pursue marriage and fatherhood?”

    The obvious answer is ‘They should not pursue marriage and fatherhood’.

    However, until such time as a significant number of men forego the whole marriage trap…..this circus will continue.

    I am reminded of a quote that describes the mania of a stock market. “The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent”.

    Let’s juxtapose that against male/female relationships: “Feminist minded (read: ALL) women can remain irrational longer than you can remain sane”.

    Even now the cultural pressures and taboos re: unmarried women are being (have been) torn down. It’s just fine for a mid-30s or 40s woman to be frittering away her time on anything but marriage/family. It goes in the overall ‘MY (fill in blank), MY choice’ category of excuses.

    Nothing short of an economic or environmental catastrophe will stop feminism.

    But upon such catastrophe, feminism will be a deal cult.

    As the sinking of the Costa Concordia showed……….there are no feminists aboard a sinking ship.

  21. PokeSalad says:

    Of course Dr. Moore attacks men. There’s lots of money to be made from their wives.

    And men tolerate it. The worst that will happen is men will “check out”….which isn’t that harsh of a penalty from the cuckservative-pastor point of view.

  22. jorxster says:

    Dalrock, your posts are glimmers of truth in our dark world today, and I am very thankful for your blog.

  23. Dalrock says:

    @Kevin

    Isn’t the simplest answer – that secular elites are bigots who never interact with normal religious people – the most likely answer.

    This would explain why secular elites spread a false report about married Christian fathers. It does not explain why so many Christian authors join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.

  24. Frank K says:

    “You’re a Christian — but more importantly, you’re also “Not one of those Christians.” All it cost you was the possibility of bringing in strong new converts to your faith — but if it’s any comfort, the Mainline Protestants made that trade already, and just look at them now!”

    History repeats itself.

  25. SnapperTrx says:

    They know men will marry because they know they also teach that marriage is the only way a Christian man should be obtaining sex. Since having sex outside of marriage is pounded into them as a horrible, straight-to-hell sin, they know they have men, if you will, “by the balls”.

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    ACThinker
    I’m sorry in context of this post I don’t understand what “soft” is supposed to mean?

    Maybe I’m wrong, but “soft” in this context seems to be “weak, conflict averse, unwilling to stand up to women”. Feminists from the radical to the conservative have been throwing “abuse!” charges at men in churches for years. That includes feminist preachers, specifically. Yet there’s never any evidence to back up the claim. This leaves me suspecting that a hyper version of VAWA’s definitions is being used, where any resistance to female dominence is “abuse”.

    Moore is literally handing free ammunition to the people who hate him for his religion and philosophy. That’s monumentally stupid, so what’s his motive? Others have already explained it so I don’t have to. He’s selling out his church for personal gain.

  27. I think it unlikely that leftist academics are getting any ideas from the conservative Christian press. The leftists and Democrats I know are absolutely certain — to the point of laughing out loud if you disagree — that the conservative Christian press does nothing but encourage Christian men to beat their wives with sticks no thicker than their thumbs.

    If they did read the conservative Christian press, they’d have to switch to a more nuanced delusion. But there’s not much chance of that.

  28. Snowy says:

    These clowns are always reversing things, tipping them upside down: selfish materialism, libidinal fantasies, and wrathful temper tantrums are way more likely to come from wives, and women in general, actually. Most men just want to live in peace.

  29. Dalrock, have you made the point that these guys are cuckservatives in their own sphere, always tirelessly joining their enemies in attacking those they should defend?

  30. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @SnapperTrx
    Since having sex outside of marriage is pounded into them as a horrible, straight-to-hell sin, they know they have men, if you will, “by the balls”.

    A correction to that: Sex outside of marriage is “a horrible, straight-to-hell sin” only if you happen to be committing it while also being a man. But if you’re a woman who fornicates, well then, that only makes Christ want you that much more. Let Matt Chandler demonstrate how this works:

    You might find yourself wondering why it is that a pastor will routinely shred a man to pieces over committing a sin but only react with care and sympathy when the same sin is committed by a woman. But it’s easy if you remember one simple rule that always governs how pastors deal with females: Women do not commit sin, and if they do it is only the fault of evil men who led her into doing exactly what they did.

  31. Pingback: The cost of going with the crowd. | Reaction Times

  32. thedeti says:

    ACTHinker; AnonReader:

    I disagree that “softest” refers to the men. I think from context, softest means agreeable for women, easy for women, indicative of harmonious and beneficial relationships among men, women and children, free of significant conflict or friction.

  33. Snowy says:

    Darwinian Arminian says, “But it’s easy if you remember one simple rule that always governs how pastors deal with females: Women do not commit sin, and if they do it is only the fault of evil men who led her into doing exactly what they did.”

    Yeah, apparently women don’t need conviction of sin, because they never sinned, they’re sinless. Kind of sounds like a goddess cult, doesn’t it? And as you say, if the Chandler’s of this world do suggest the mere possibility of sin in women, well, it’s all the evil men’s fault. No personal accountability for the woman; anything goes.

    These idiots do women disservice. I can’t see how women can come to Christ and His Salvation without conviction of sin. If they’re sinless, they don’t need Him.

  34. Lost Patrol says:

    @Darwinian Arminian

    I read that piece from Russell Moore telling women to stop submitting to men. Quote:

    “Too often in our culture, women and girls are pressured to submit to men, as a category.”

    Too often? What year was the last time this happened, if it ever did. He’s just making up stuff.

  35. RICanuck says:

    @SnapperTrx 3:43

    “men will marry because they know they also teach that marriage is the only way a Christian man should be obtaining sex.”

    But preacher Moore says: “the model of a husband is a man who crucifies …his libidinal fantasies”

    So not much luck in marriage, either.

    Just for ‘research’ purposes, I cruised Back Pages (Escorts) about 5 years ago. Almost all of the service providers claimed to be 19 to 23 yo, and charged $80 to $100 for 1/2 hr. But, the 40, 50 somethings charged $250 for 1 hr. There must be at least a few men who are willing to pay a premium to spend an hour with someone who reminds them of their wives. Of course, not all of these men are Christian, but I bet some are.

    I was in a bad place back then. I have since taken to heart the words of the Our Father; “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

    This does NOT let my wife off the hook for her sin of abandonment, but by the power of the Holy Spirit has removed some of my anger and bitterness.

  36. SnapperTrx says:

    This dude is cringe inducing. Was he going to cry? Also, I seriously doubt that, if this happened at all, it happened quite the way he is describing it. It sounds far to well scripted.

  37. Iowa Slim says:

    “A correction to that: Sex outside of marriage is “a horrible, straight-to-hell sin” only if you happen to be committing it while also being a man. But if you’re a woman who fornicates, well then, that only makes Christ want you that much more. Let Matt Chandler demonstrate how this works:…”

    Even better than fornicating, according to the example that Chandler guy picked, is to be a 26-year-old solo babymama screwing another woman’s husband. Can’t have someone like that being made “uncomfortable” in church, can we?

  38. Sean says:

    Russell Moore wouldn’t know conservative if it punched him. Apart from being a NeverTrumper, he used to be a Democrat staffer. It’s rather like saying Ron Burns, er, Thabiti Anyabwile is after his pimping for Bernie and BLM.

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sean, that’s all well and good. A game of “No True Conservative” is always fun to play.

    But Russell Moore is ” president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the moral and public policy agency of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination”, not just some Joe Preacher at 2nd Baptist in Nowhere, USA.

    http://www.russellmoore.com/about/
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Russell_D._Moore

    His words and opinions help to shape the whole SBC. He is a big fish in the church world pond. He’s also a go-to source for a lot of the press, such as the Wall Street Journal (reputed to be a conservative, pro-Christian paper by some).

    Dalrock’s not just picking on some obscure tent preacher. He’s pointing out serious error by a major Protestant leader. I’m sure he doesn’t speak for you and the church you belong to, but he speaks for hundreds of other ones. That’s why his wrongheadedness matters so much.

  40. Anonymous Reader says:

    By the way, when Moore uses the word “gender” instead of “sex” he’s choosing a feminist vocabulary. The words we use shape our thinking. Feminists like “gender” because it’s a construct. “Sex” has to do with X and Y chromosomes, it’s just there – born that way, in fact.

    Using the opposition vocabulary is foolish. It’s like an economist choosing to describe the economy via the Marxist labor theory of value plus oppresor / oppressed terms, self defeating. The fact that Moore uses “gender” when the proper word is “sex” means at the very least he’s not a deep thinker, and quite possibly he’s appeasing.

  41. Gunner Q says:

    “Unlike many secular university researchers, Wilcox actually studies real live evangelicals”

    Something about this sentence makes me giggle.

    “One obvious answer is the secular academics are merely listening to what conservative Christian leaders have to say about Christian husbands.”

    Another answer is that this is a turf war between Churchians and feminists over dwindling male production. If men get taxed too heavily then they can’t pay for tithes and seminars. Meanwhile, antifa types look with envy on the Churchies lording like barons over their mule ranches.

    I’ve seen this in California politics, when opposing sides fight bitterly with identical arguments. The objective is grabbing loot, not proving a point.

  42. Anonymous Reader says:

    Forgot to mention this about Russell Moore:

    Prior to his election to this role in 2013, Moore served as provost and dean of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he also taught as professor of theology and ethics.

    So he was the head of a seminary, and also taught both theology and ethics to future Baptist ministers. His errors matter a lot.

  43. Pingback: The cost of going with the crowd. - Top

  44. Bee says:

    @Darwinian Arminian,

    “But if you’re a woman who fornicates, well then, that only makes Christ want you that much more. Let Matt Chandler demonstrate how this works:”

    Matt Chandler is an Evangelical leader. A big problem Evangelicals have is they use their church building and church services to reach unsaved people. This causes them to short change the existing Christians. The existing Christians don’t get taught the hard, politically incorrect things the Bible says because that would upset the visitors, the seekers. Also a one of several reasons most Evangelical Churches don’t excommunicate anyone.

  45. @ Dalrock

    “If good husbands and fathers aren’t respected, and if in fact marrying and becoming a father are reasons to lose respect for a man, why should a young Christian man want to pursue marriage and fatherhood?”

    Rhetorical questions like this are like fat, slow, blubber filled feminists tripping over their own corpulent rolls of gluttony, to a thin starving zombie. Blood flecked saliva coats the skeletal cheeks of the cut-tooth grin savoring the sluggishly satisfying meal to come. Thanks are in order.

    Cucktard pastards love to bloviate on this very question, their bloated cheeks burthing the words “man up”. Their wish will come true. There will be a “Manning up” but not the one they expect.

    Men who have spent years being deprived, shot at, and honing their combat skills, are coming for you cuck pastor, you and your harem of slutatistc sheep. You have sown a bountiful harvest of pain, which you and your flock of trollops are set to reap.

    When the lights go off, the god you pray to, your Shiva, your Moloch, your Ishtar, will laugh and the men you have rejected and dejected, no matter their former faults, will become the avatar of righteous vengeance.

    You deserve worse than what is coming.

  46. @ Dalrock

    I believe my former comment is lost in the purgatory of moderation.

  47. Jason says:

    The results? We’re seeing it, and living it NOW.

    You just gotta love men’s Bible studies, and accountability groups, or what they call it my denomination: “Man Up”

    Men who are whipped, beaten, broken talking how “bold” they are for the Gospel. Men who can’t even ask their wives for sex (which to me as a single man…..makes ME wonder……why get married when I cannot even enjoy sex with the person I am supposed to love as “Christ loved the church”?). Over and over again, telling us we have to “step up” and lead……yet when and if you do……..it upsets the women in the church. It upsets the pastor “We have a committee that runs that ministry” / who do you think you are / oh so you think you’re better than the rest of us.

    It goes on and on.

    The group is usually small. It’s boring. There is little or no socializing to “build up” men with confidence, work, experience, or life. Prayer is boring and dull. Most men are afraid to admit sin in their lives for the fact it will cause the other men to tell their wives and thus the whole church is “gonna” know what a “sinner” you are. Older guys shake their heads at the state of the world, and bemoan that this country needs God. I countered once with “the church needs God!”

    Between committees, attendance, paperwork, workbooks, and the leader reading out of a binder specifically prepared to (cough) “equip” men…the studies are boring. Oh, but we get to watch a video now and then and the same thing “You have to be a man” and no explanation of what that means in today’s churchian world.

    The results? Men don’t go where they are NOT needed. Even nominal Christian men who NEED the Gospel. Who wants to sit in another boring Bible study? All this talk of brotherhood, yet outside of church and the Bible studies, most men in church spend LITTLE if NO time together growing a friendship that Christ so much wants for His believers! Men don’t want to be told over, and over, and over, and over that “You just gotta trust Jesus!” They want ANSWERS!!

    Why did my marriage fail? Why do my kids hate me? How come I lost my job? How do I grow my faith when all I want to do is just watch TV? I have no one to talk to. Why am I single? What did I do wrong? Explain sin to me. Give me examples of people in His Word that were troubled? I have desire for my wife, but she doesn’t desire me at all! Can someone help me understand money better? I’ve been having trouble at work with a co-worker….what can you men do to give me some advice? I feel like a failure because of the divorce / my career / since my son died……..

    All we are getting today is “trust Jesus, he has this amazing plan for your life!”

    How can we Christian men, who are in church ATTRACT more men, and grow the faith when we are not even allowed to express our gifts? How are we to model a Christ filled life; when all you hear is “sex for women is about her feelings outside the bedroom.” (what normal man wants that for answer for his sexual longing for his wife?). How can we be bringing more people in and convincing them they need a Savior in Christ when all we can give is “God has an amazing plan for your life” and “trust Jesus” ?????

    So many men want NOTHING to do with this place called “church” today, and frankly in many cases….neither would Jesus…………why has there not been a REAL revival???????

    His bride is FILTHY…and dare you, as a man who “know who you hath believeth” mention this…..you are run down pretty quick, and shunned pretty fast…..because too many of us know. Church isn’t about Holiness and His worthiness, not His glory. It’s “the fellowship” and what the children are going to sing next week.

  48. Jason says:

    The results? We’re seeing it, and living it NOW.

    You just gotta love men’s Bible studies, and accountability groups, or what they call it my denomination: “Man Up”

    Men who are whipped, beaten, broken talking how “bold” they are for the Gospel. Men who can’t even ask their wives for sex (which to me as a single man…..makes ME wonder……why get married when I cannot even enjoy sex with the person I am supposed to love as “Christ loved the church”?). Over and over again, telling us we have to “step up” and lead……yet when and if you do……..it upsets the women in the church. It upsets the pastor “We have a committee that runs that ministry” / who do you think you are / oh so you think you’re better than the rest of us.

    It goes on and on.

    The group is usually small. It’s boring. There is little or no socializing to “build up” men with confidence, work, experience, or life. Prayer is boring and dull. Most men are afraid to admit sin in their lives for the fact it will cause the other men to tell their wives and thus the whole church is “gonna” know what a “sinner” you are. Older guys shake their heads at the state of the world, and bemoan that this country needs God. I countered once with “the church needs God!”

    Between committees, attendance, paperwork, workbooks, and the leader reading out of a binder specifically prepared to (cough) “equip” men…the studies are boring. Oh, but we get to watch a video now and then and the same thing “You have to be a man” and no explanation of what that means in today’s churchian world.

    The results? Men don’t go where they are NOT needed. Even nominal Christian men who NEED the Gospel. Who wants to sit in another boring Bible study? All this talk of brotherhood, yet outside of church and the Bible studies, most men in church spend LITTLE if NO time together growing a friendship that Christ so much wants for His believers! Men don’t want to be told over, and over, and over, and over that “You just gotta trust Jesus!” They want ANSWERS!!

    Why did my marriage fail? Why do my kids hate me? How come I lost my job? How do I grow my faith when all I want to do is just watch TV? I have no one to talk to. Why am I single? What did I do wrong? Explain sin to me. Give me examples of people in His Word that were troubled? I have desire for my wife, but she doesn’t desire me at all! Can someone help me understand money better? I’ve been having trouble at work with a co-worker….what can you men do to give me some advice? I feel like a failure because of the divorce / my career / since my son died……..

    All we are getting today is “trust Jesus, he has this amazing plan for your life!”

    How can we Christian men, who are in church ATTRACT more men, and grow the faith when we are not even allowed to express our gifts? How are we to model a Christ filled life; when all you hear is “sex for women is about her feelings outside the bedroom.” (what normal man wants that for answer for his sexual longing for his wife?). How can we be bringing more people in and convincing them they need a Savior in Christ when all we can give is “God has an amazing plan for your life” and “trust Jesus” ?????

    So many men want NOTHING to do with this place called “church” today, and frankly in many cases….neither would Jesus…………why has there not been a REAL revival???????

    His bride is FILTHY…and dare you, as a man who “know who you hath believeth” mention this…..you are run down pretty quick, and shunned pretty fast…..because too many of us know. Church isn’t about Holiness and His worthiness, not His glory. It’s “the fellowship” and what the children are going to sing next week.

  49. @jason

    ‘It’s “the fellowship” and what the children are going to sing next week.’

    I think you summed it up right here.

  50. Nida says:

    Seems then every evangelical man should drive to the closest Orthodox Church.

  51. Nida says:

    Jason…You should definitely check out Orthodox and Catholic sspx. You have 2000 years of traditional teaching plus no man bashing that I’ve heard of or seen.

  52. Frank K says:

    “Also a one of several reasons most Evangelical Churches don’t excommunicate anyone.”

    I think the word you are looking for is “disfellow”. “Excommunicate” simply means that you are not allowed to receive communion, but you’re still a member of the church.

  53. “The Question says:
    May 16, 2017 at 2:07 pm
    I made this comment in a previous blog post, but the Church is utterly clueless about how they make marriage look to young men. Either that, or they don’t care because they assume men will marry regardless…”

    Feminists and their Useful Idiots of the female population evidently assume that men will marry regardless, too: they spend the first twenty to thirty years of their lives running men down, degrading men, mocking men, and actively HATING men (that is, those men that aren’t the ‘romantic, exciting’ Bad Boys and thugs and handsome rogues who give them ‘da tingles’) — then they reach the time when they finally realize that they’re not going to be young and pretty and fertile forever, their precious “career” is on a dead-end to nowhere, and they’re being replaced socially by the next generation of up-and-coming ball-busters. That is usually the time when they ‘get religion’ and start playing the ‘reformed Bad Girl who’s found Jesus’.
    That is also the time when we hear their usual wail of, “Where Are All The Good Men?”
    A blogger called Zenpriest said it best (paraphrasing): “Women cannot understand it when I tell them, ‘You cannot hate men into loving you’.”

    MGTOW — “because it’s better to be single than to wish that you were”.

  54. Jason says:

    No man bashing in the Roman Catholic church????? Where???? Sure, maybe pre Vatican II in 1966.

  55. Christopher says:

    I notices the church is waiting for a great revival, yet ignores the plank in their eye.

  56. If good husbands and fathers aren’t respected, and if in fact marrying and becoming a father are reasons to lose respect for a man, why should a young Christian man want to pursue marriage and fatherhood?

    He shouldn’t.

  57. Frank K says:

    “No man bashing in the Roman Catholic church????? Where???? Sure, maybe pre Vatican II in 1966”

    Nida specified the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius the Tenth).

    FWIW, I have never experienced man bashing as described on this blog even in a post Vatican II parish. I’m sure it probably happens in some, but it doesn’t seem as rampant as in Churchian congregations. I’ve never heard a Priest say that young men should wife up baby mommas and on many occasions I have heard homilies about men being the head of the family. And the first place I ever heard about “Godly Tantrums” was on this blog.

  58. Frank K says:

    Anyway, I would add that I think Orhodoxy is a better refuge for Protestants, especially Evangelicals, than the RCC, or at least an easier one to accept.

  59. Sean says:

    Anon Reader:

    Thanks for the pedagogy but I’m well aware of who and what Russell Moore is but if seminary professorship is a measure of conservatism, what are you going to do with New Orleans Seminary and Southwestern?

    Again, Moore isn’t a conservative unless you’re also willing to call Pope Borgiagoglio one, too.

  60. Yoda says:

    Dalrock,

    Perhaps add Spawny’s Space to your blogroll you could

    https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com

  61. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sean
    Again, Moore isn’t a conservative

    So?

  62. anglosaxon says:

    So women are to be protected by men, but at the same time women are strong, independant and don’t need men? What utter garbage.

    I hate those stupid hand movements weak ‘church’ leaders do like Matt le cuck Chandler.

  63. Snowy says:

    We need more comments from Yoda. Come back Yoda. Sorely missed your wisdom is.

  64. Spike says:

    “This raises the question, why do secular academics believe that conservative Christian men are selfish monsters who are forever abusing their wives, when the truth is quite easily observed?”

    Secular academics believe and actively propagate the view that conservative Christians are selfish, abusive monsters who will beat, rape and abuse their wives and every other woman within range as soon as feminists nod off – because that’s what humanist, secular, academic women want to hear.

    I’ve spent most of my career around secular academics. I’m not impressed. Largely, they are bound to universities because while they are authorities in their respective fields, the business world doesn’t want them. They lack the discipline that requires them to produce “here and now” solutions business requires.
    Academic men have a higher rate of divorce, higher rates of alcohol and drug consumption, more affairs than average, and their children tend to hate them more.
    Secular, academic women fare little better. Apart from the same social messes that their male counterparts have, most have spent high times on the carousel. I mean high.They have a higher than average trail of human wreckage in their lives than the average middle-class woman.

    Both secular academic men and women hate conservative Christians because the light of Christ shines on their sin, so they run from it like cockroaches. They are never spiritually neutral. They are anti-Christian, because they sense the judgement of Christ and don’t want to repent.

    …And what better way is there t get sex off an intelligent, secular woman than to portray yourself as the only man in the room, beating up on the straw man of Christianity? It works for them as a sexual strategy. Pure and simple.

  65. Gary Eden says:

    “This raises the question, why do secular academics believe that conservative Christian men are selfish monsters who are forever abusing their wives, when the truth is quite easily observed?”

    Some of this is just anti-Christian garbage. They inherently know true Christianity is patriarchal and therefor dangerous.

    Its also a shit test, deep down in their soul they have a yearning need to be dominated by men.

    It also serves the victim game.

  66. Dave says:

    These preachers attack men, especially Christian husbands and fathers, because it is safe to do so, and the subset of those men who actually hear those verbal attacks, and return for more, are the self-selected ones. Thus, over time, it actually becomes safer for these preachers to attack the men in their congregations through their abusive preaching.

  67. Hmm says:

    “This raises the question, why do secular academics believe that conservative Christian men are selfish monsters who are forever abusing their wives, when the truth is quite easily observed?”

    Perhaps they have read the Bible and think we actually do what it says – punish adultery, rule our households and hold women responsible for their own sins.

  68. Bruce says:

    Shocked that Moore would bring up slavery and racism.

    “A man who hits you has surrendered his headship” – where in his Bible does it say that?

  69. Academics are SJWs, so they also project all of their worst fears onto others. Since Christian Men are the absolute least likely to hit back, it’s clear how they’ll approach the topic. And since “Christian Leaders” only will only back the academics up by their actions, no one is actually responding in the negative.

  70. feeriker says:

    Another answer is that this is a turf war between Churchians and feminists

    Since when has there been a difference?

    Pope Borgiagoglio

    I am soooooo stealing that …

  71. Lost Patrol says:

    @Frank K

    Dalrock shines a light on the most egregious offenders in Protestantism, not least because the ones he highlights have fairly large audiences so can cause a lot of damage, and are seldom if ever challenged on their obvious feminist messages.

    My career dictated a nomadic lifestyle and in the course of it I’ve been to a great many Protestant churches and chapels in many other countries and US states. These would be both mainline denominational and evangelical. Likewise I have never experienced man bashing as described on this blog. At most there has been occasional admonitions against pornography for the men. However, nor have I heard men particularly praised or built up as husbands and fathers that I can recall.

    Now there has definitely been praise of and deference to women out of proportion to any known reality as a kind of pervasive theme, but only at some of the churches not all.

    I have many Catholic friends and even relatives, so have spent a lot of time in their company both singly and as married couples; and have been to Mass on occasion with them. I haven’t been to any Catholic marriage encounters or things of that ilk though I know they exist, so I don’t have a good baseline to understand how relationships between men and women, husbands and wives are routinely treated. If I were to ask of these men they would not understand the questions in a way that a Dalrock reader would since they are the traditional “blue pill” men.

    I would be interested in your views on that particular subject area, because despite the theological differences, the Protestant and Catholic men have been indistinguishable from one another in the outward appearances at least of their relationships to their wives and women generally. Both groups use the same terminology such as, “happy wife, happy life”, answering their phones with “I better take that it’s the boss”, “let me check with my wife” to see if he will get too much resistance to something he wants to do, etc. I have witnessed this innumerable times. Both groups are prone to defer to the women in their lives in the interest of preserving some sort of harmony on the homefront. But you will have seen many more examples from Catholic believers than I. What have your observations been?

  72. PokeSalad says:

    These preachers attack men, especially Christian husbands and fathers, because it is safe to do so, and the subset of those men who actually hear those verbal attacks, and return for more, are the self-selected ones. Thus, over time, it actually becomes safer for these preachers to attack the men in their congregations through their abusive preaching.

    Well put. The pastors are domesticating them on behalf of the wives, for which they are rewarded.

  73. Morgan says:

    We see from the very first lesson of the bible, the role of the husband is not to crucify his selfish materialism, but to stand up to his wife’s selfish materialism. How can he be expected to stand up to her sinful nature when he is constantly told that she is a goddess that he should be worshipping and following her godly leadership? We have Eve leading Adam out of Eden all over again. And Adam is being told to man up and follow that slut.

  74. Frank K says:

    “Both groups use the same terminology such as, “happy wife, happy life”, answering their phones with “I better take that it’s the boss”, “let me check with my wife” to see if he will get too much resistance to something he wants to do, etc.”

    In my experience, this is an American thing, though to be honest I see this sort of behavior (calling the wife “boss”) more on TV shows than in real life. In the past American culture was driven by Protestantism, but these days I would say it’s driven by secularism.

  75. @Frank K @LostPatrol

    re: Man bashing in Protestant versus Roman Catholic churches

    I’m Catholic but have attended many Protestant services. Like @LostPatrol I have not encountered any of these disgusting Man-UP sermons nor have I heard a lot of man-bashing on events like Father’s Day, although I am sure it happens. Similarly, I have not heard man-bashing in Catholic Churches. In fact, in general fathers are usually praised and respected in the abstract, but male *headship* is almost never preached and female rebellion is never called out.

    The problem is as @Lost Patrol has stated and @Dalrock/@RolloTomassi et al. have stated many times: the Feminine Imperative utterly dominates these churches to the point that the infallible written word of God (Protestant) and the doctrine found in the deposit of faith (Catholic) is subsumed by feminism. Let me give you an insane example. I was attempting to get an annulment after my first wife frivorced me. I told the marriage “professionals” on the tribunal (the official court that handles your annulment case) that my wife had Narcissistic Personality Disorder based on many observations of her shameless behavior, and I wanted to use this as grounds for the annulment (mental impairment so a marriage didn’t really happen… yes I know, I know). In particular, she wanted to cuckold me — i.e., after the frivorce she expected me to live in the house with her and the kids while she pursued other relationships with bad boys, hunky millionaire handymen, etc. I exploded and told her she was crazy (which she was and is).

    When I told this to the Catholic marriage *professionals*, they were understanding of her behavior and said it wasn’t really crazy at all and was not grounds for an annulment. I never did get an annulment from the feminist tribunal because my ex-wife, in a fit of spite, fought the annulment and pretended she didn’t really want the divorce, all the while collecting alimony, child support, and having sex with men she brought home from biker bars with my children in the house (literally the whole Red Pill script, all of it). Not once did a single priest or Protestant pastor admonish her for her behavior in any way, and in fact the tribunal and court system backed her up every step of way. The utter domination by the FI of the courts and churches cannot be comprehended unless you are a direct victim of the process.

  76. Morgan says:

    The more these pastors insist the women can’t sin, the more they say sin is a male only space, the harder women try to be sinful and prove their superiority to men in all things.

  77. Dalrock says:

    @ACThinker

    I’m sorry in context of this post I don’t understand what “soft” is supposed to mean? And is it contrasting with hard (soft= pillow, hard=frying pan) or rough(soft =velvet, rough=sandpaper?) Or perhaps some thing of both?

    I’m using the term as Dr. Moore defines it in my quote from him towards the top of the post:

    [Wilcox] brings forth the demographic statistics and survey results on issues ranging from paternal hugging of children to paternal yelling, from female responses about marital happiness to the divisions of household labor. In virtually every category, the most conservative and evangelical households were also the “softest” in terms of familial harmony, relational happiness, and emotional health.

  78. Snowy says:

    Emperor Constantine says

    “The utter domination by the FI of the courts and churches cannot be comprehended unless you are a direct victim of the process.”

    THIS

  79. Frank K says:

    “but male *headship* is almost never preached and female rebellion is never called out.”

    In the US, these are as rare as a 4 leaf clover. I have heard them preached more often in other countries.

    In the US, when the Missal covers the passages on male headship, most Priests will cover it in the homily, some will also do homiletic gymnastics, telling the ladies that while their husbands are indeed the head of the household and that the wives should submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ. that they aren’t doormats either, blah, blah, blah. I think in the end, people end up confused. Of course, for the rebellious, the admonitions fall on deaf ears anyway.

  80. Dalrock says:

    @Sean

    Thanks for the pedagogy but I’m well aware of who and what Russell Moore is but if seminary professorship is a measure of conservatism, what are you going to do with New Orleans Seminary and Southwestern?

    Again, Moore isn’t a conservative unless you’re also willing to call Pope Borgiagoglio one, too.

    In the first piece I quote, Moore is identifying as a conservative Christian. He is also a former Chairman of the Board for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. This is a tedious game, where each example of self professed conservative/complementarian leaders is claimed to be an exception.

  81. Opus says:

    OffTopic, but I thought you would find this interesting:

    I was just scrolling through the Twitter for the Russian Embassy in London – it is often very funny and otherwise interesting with some great photos when I came across the following Tweet on May 15th. I quote, Today is International Day of Families. Support and protection for families as a basic element of society is embedded in Russian Constitution

    Beneath the Tweet is an image: Father and Mother and two children with linked hands. They could hardly make clearer what would be regarded as Homophobic and Sexist (never mind Racist as the family are clearly white – not Muslim) in Anglo-America.

  82. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    By the way, when Moore uses the word “gender” instead of “sex” he’s choosing a feminist vocabulary. The words we use shape our thinking. Feminists like “gender” because it’s a construct. “Sex” has to do with X and Y chromosomes, it’s just there – born that way, in fact.

    Using the opposition vocabulary is foolish. It’s like an economist choosing to describe the economy via the Marxist labor theory of value plus oppresor / oppressed terms, self defeating. The fact that Moore uses “gender” when the proper word is “sex” means at the very least he’s not a deep thinker, and quite possibly he’s appeasing.

    Indeed. He also uses the terms “social justice” and “rape culture” in the same piece. He also makes an obscure* defense of Duluth’s definition of abuse as stemming from male privilege:

    We should oppose a therapeutic redefinition of wife abuse as merely a psychological condition.

    This from a man who is a former Chairman of the Board of the CBMW, and current President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. This is in line with the convergence of the Acts 29 network and TGC.

    *The obscurity is what makes the comment so striking. Moore is carrying water only someone who knows the foundation of the Duluth model would even know about.

  83. PokeSalad says:

    This is a tedious game, where each example of self professed conservative/complementarian leaders is claimed to be an exception.

    NAPALT! (Guess.) 🙂

  84. Lost Patrol says:

    @Emperor Constantine

    The utter domination by the FI of the courts and churches cannot be comprehended unless you are a direct victim of the process.

    I am sorry to hear of the ordeal suffered by you and your children. It’s only since reading here that I’ve learned just how bad these situations can become.

    @Frank K

    telling the ladies that while their husbands are indeed the head of the household and that the wives should submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ. that they aren’t doormats either, blah, blah, blah.

    That seems to be about the multi-faith size of it, in the USA at least, where the FI has “utter domination” of the courts and churches.

  85. King Alfred says:

    Right on topic: https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/05/16/atheist-paints-bible-verse-about-women-on-his-truck-to-encourage/22094262/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058&

    It appears that most “Christians” are embarrassed by the Word of God. It is always educational to observe them tripping over themselves to explain to unbelievers that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it says.

  86. ACThinker says:

    Dalrock and others – I appreciate your replies on ‘soft’.

    “[Wilcox] brings forth the demographic statistics and survey results on issues ranging from paternal hugging of children to paternal yelling, from female responses about marital happiness to the divisions of household labor. In virtually every category, the most conservative and evangelical households were also the “softest” in terms of familial harmony, relational happiness, and emotional health.”

    But quoting Wilcox doesn’t help much, because it doesn’t really explain what soft means in this context. So there is more or less family harmony. When I think of soft in the context of his sentance I’m inclined to think that there is LESS of all those qualities because it is ‘soft.’ And depending on those terms, exact definitions, they seem like things we’d all like more.

    Perhaps being most likely to be inline with female responses to questionaires is what he means. ** Which someone else suggested was that soft in this case meant female, and that the Evangilical households were already along the lines woman were asking for.

    ** Note, people often say “I want X” on a quetionaire because that is what they are supposed to say. What they really want is Q and it is totally different if not opposite X. Ex. How many woman have said that they want a career, only to have a child and be all, “nope want kids more”? In surveys say X, but reality, want Q.

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    *The obscurity is what makes the comment so striking. Moore is carrying water only someone who knows the foundation of the Duluth model would even know about.

    Huh. That’s a completely unnecessary bit of signalling for a sincere man. It is a classic “dog whistle”, in fact, that signals “don’t pay any attention to that other stuff”. So was the CMBW suborned or converged from the start as controlled opposition, or did it get converged early on?

    Either way, the defense of Duluth is a big tell.

  88. Dalrock says:

    ACThinker

    But quoting Wilcox doesn’t help much, because it doesn’t really explain what soft means in this context.

    How can it not? I’m quoting Moore, who himself is quoting Wilcox. Moore is saying that conservative evangelical men are being accused of being “misogynist throwbacks” who are harsh and abusive with their families. He offers Wilcox’s studies as proof that this isn’t true. Such men are more likely to share the housework, hug their kids, make momma happy, etc. If Moore was being unkind he would have called them pushovers. But whatever term you use (since you don’t like Moore’s term), the point Moore is making in the first piece I quote is that evangelical Christian men are the opposite of harsh, selfish, abusive, hateful, misogynist, etc. They are in fact further from this than any other group. Moore is complaining that secular feminists are mis-characterizing evangelical men in a very specific way, and offers proof in the form of “softness”. Then Moore turns around and makes all of the same generalizations, even though he knows this isn’t the case.

    Don’t get hung up on Moore’s terms when I’m quoting them back. His meaning is obvious, whether you like his terminology or not.

  89. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Huh. That’s a completely unnecessary bit of signalling for a sincere man. It is a classic “dog whistle”, in fact, that signals “don’t pay any attention to that other stuff”. So was the CMBW suborned or converged from the start as controlled opposition, or did it get converged early on?

    Either way, the defense of Duluth is a big tell.

    Some of both I would say. Piper and Grudem and the rest of the original CBMW clearly wanted to push back on what they saw as the excesses of Christian feminism while ceding a great deal of ground to feminists that they felt was “reasonable”. The founding statement invents a new sin for Christian wives, the sin of servility*. The same founding statement speaks of a mysterious increase in men abusing women, in an obvious nod to Duluth. They also argued from the beginning (in their defining book) that women could preach, so long as they only preached to other women. Piper has since gone farther and argued that a woman can preach to a man, so long as the man doesn’t become dependent on her as his shepherd. Mary Kassian was there from the beginning, and she teaches that headship means a husband minding his own business and letting his wife decide what she needs to do, and that submission means a wife setting and enforcing boundaries on her husband.

    But they also set themselves up for convergence from the very beginning, since their goal is to be the Christian antifeminists that don’t offend feminists. Entryists know exactly how to work a system like this, and they are running rampant.

    All of this works to create a constant drift away from even the timid Scriptural views the CBMW started off holding.

    *Grudem also uses the term doormat to define this new sin for wives.

  90. Lost Patrol says:

    Secular Feminists: “Christian men are toxic masculinity personified.”

    Moore: “No they’re not! Why they’re so soft they’re practically women themselves!”

    Moore to those same men: “You men need to crucify your selfish materialism, libidinal fantasies, and your wrathful temper tantrums. You’re making me look bad.”

  91. Damn Crackers says:

    Serious question – if you are going to weasel out of what St. Paul has to say about slavery and same-sex relations, why can’t the Complimentarians say what they say about headship and submission in a feminized Western world?

  92. feeriker says:

    The pastors are domesticating them on behalf of the wives, for which they are rewarded.

    Pastors are under just as much threatpoint from their own wives as the men in their congregations are from theirs. It’s a “misery loves company” thing. If THEY have to live their lives as gelded slaves under constant threat of banishment, then dammit, so will every other man!

  93. Dalrock says:

    @Damn Crackers

    Serious question – if you are going to weasel out of what St. Paul has to say about slavery and same-sex relations, why can’t the Complimentarians say what they say about headship and submission in a feminized Western world?

    Are you asking why call out one group that rewrites the Bible in one specific area, because other groups do the same in other areas? Or are you asking why a wolf in sheep’s clothing is worse than an ordinary wolf?

  94. Damn Crackers says:

    @Dalrock – A little from column A and a little from column b, I guess. I don’t mean to sound flippant; and I appreciate you calling out the wanna-be holy rollers when they are far removed from piety. Still, I wonder where the line gets drawn when in other matters there were many who sounded like the CBMW (i.e., abolitionist movements, same-sex Christians, etc.)

  95. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    Got a possible new post idea for you.

    “Childish men are to blame for women having kids late in life.”

    https://t.co/rXOsLKIoMK

  96. Hose_B says:

    As Russell Moore himself demonstrates: “Women, stop submitting to men!”
    Link: http://www.russellmoore.com/2011/12/05/women-stop-submitting-to-men/

    The problem with this article isn’t the meat and potatoes of what it says……..that women should submit to their husbands and no one else……..the problem is that the headline, which is what sticks with most people, says something completely different. Women, stop submitting to men.
    The article then goes on to say that the submission is only wife to husband without regard to the fact that the wife is a woman and the husband is one of the men the headline told her to stop submitting to.
    But it is the headline that people remember and react to.

  97. Anonymous Reader says:

    Question, that bleat in the NY Post is chock full of feminist projection, hilariious quotes and some nifty facts, such as the “wage gap” for some urban areas is now 8% in favor of women. Why did you choose to use a tiny URL when the NY Post URL isn’t that big? Some people don’t click on a URL unless they know what’s on the other end of it.

  98. Hose_B says:

    A better headline would have been “Wives, stop submitting to anyone other than your husband.”

    But that would hardly have gone over as well…………………
    And once the headline is read, the damage is done, regardless of the next thousand words.

  99. The Question says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    I grabbed it from a tweet, so it kept the condensed url.

  100. BillyS says:

    As if we had a rampant epidemic of women submitting to men in our society….

  101. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Hose_B
    The problem with this article isn’t the meat and potatoes of what it says……..that women should submit to their husbands and no one else……..the problem is that the headline, which is what sticks with most people, says something completely different. Women, stop submitting to men.
    The article then goes on to say that the submission is only wife to husband without regard to the fact that the wife is a woman and the husband is one of the men the headline told her to stop submitting to.

    The headline is bad enough, but what’s inside the package is just as rotten as what you see on the label. A few readers here already commented on how Moore is perfectly willing to explain how the world works through a feminist frame of reference, and in the article Dalrock orginally cited he’s all too eager to throw the men of the church under the bus as “male oppressors” in a sacrifice to feminists who already hate the church. His “Women, Stop Submitting to Men!” piece only offers more of the same:

    Is this really a “pro-woman” culture when restaurant chains enable men to pay to ogle women in tight T-shirts while they gobble down chicken wings? How likely is it that a woman with the attractiveness of Henry Kissinger will obtain power or celebrity status in American culture? What about the girl in your community pressured to perform oral sex on a boyfriend, what is this but a patriarchy brutal enough for a Bronze Age warlord? In the church it is little better. Too many of our girls and young women are tyrannized by the expectation to look a certain way, to weigh a certain amount, in order to gain the attention of “guys.”

    We men of the church would like to thank you once again for always having our backs, preacher.

    But that argument you cited — that women should submit to their husbands and no one else — is just as deeply corrupted. Why? Because like Chandler, Driscoll, Mohler, and so many of the “conservative” pastors before him, Russ Moore is happy to switch out his interpretations of the Bible to the point where he’s selling two different gospels: One for the women (offering love, forgiveness, and a flourishing life) and another for the men (marked by responsibilities, penance and punishments). Where did that command for wives to submit come from? From the passage of Ephesians 5:22-28:

    Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

    From this passage Moore draws his conclusion that Biblically faithful women should submit to their husbands, but owe absolutely nothing to any other man — and even the submission to husbands comes with stipulations. All right. But now ask yourself: Do you think Moore looks at the second part of that scriptural passage and also deems that men owe protection, generosity and deference to their wives alone and nothing at all to any other woman? Or is he likely to be like a lot of other Southern preachers who insist that this passage establishes a Biblical mandate for men to behave in a chivalrous and sacrificial manner towards women as a class? Maybe a call from the pulpit demanding this kind of standard upon men might even sound like something his former boss Al Mohler once said:

    “Among God’s people we understand that a man is to protect a women; to protect a women’s honor; to protect a woman’s heart; to protect a woman’s reputation; sometimes even to protect a woman’s health, her safety. Guys, that’s our job, God gave it to us. Woe unto the man who fails in that responsibility.”

    That’s Moore’s mentor who said that. Do you think Moore disagrees with him? I don’t. I’ve never seen him disagree with him, he’s never repudiated him over any “misstatements” in the past, and he’s even insisted on such a standard for all men towards all women in his own writings. So also have thousands of other “conservative” preachers. So when I see a supposed gospel minister use the Bible to demand compliance and obligation from men, then to offer freedom and comfort to women, and to do this all under a banner of “equality” . . . . should I maybe start assuming that this minister has a less than stellar devotion to God’s Word, and will probably end up being only as good as his times and his culture will allow him to be?

    Link to the passage from Mohler (though not his whole speech) is here: http://therebelution.com/blog/2006/08/modern-day-gentleman/

  102. honeycomb says:

    They (th wimminz) respect their beta “soft” husband enough to take their last name ..

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/family-relationships/i-kept-my-maiden-name-and-it-was-a-huge-mistake/ar-BBAEwUU?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

    So much for becoming one.

    HUSBANDS have become an (in’co’ven’yunt) accessory.

  103. honeycomb says:

    oh .. except she didn’t think it was a huge mistake .. go figure.

  104. feministhater says:

    As if we had a rampant epidemic of women submitting to men in our society….

    Women should submit to their fathers, brothers and eventually, husbands. They should always be under a man for both their well being and protection.

  105. JDG says:

    Yoda says:
    May 17, 2017 at 1:20 am
    Dalrock,

    Perhaps add Spawny’s Space to your blogroll you could

    Seconded.

  106. Frank K says:

    Regarding Paul and slavery, his remarks about it sound to me more like “render unto Caesar” than being an endorsement of slavery.

  107. Just Saying says:

    feminist culture is telling Christian wives that they are being oppressed [snip] Married fathers are contemptible

    So? The enemy always maligns the adversary they are afraid of – the solution to the above is simple: Do not marry. Enjoy women, repeatedly, and keep as many as you are comfortable with. Personally I’ve never been able to deal with (tolerate) more than 3 – or need more for ongoing activities. Sure there is the weekly sweet-things, that come and go, but they are for a quick one, nothing more. You have much lower standards for them so they are much easier to get/find. Woman have made themselves worthless – so why would you marry something with no worth? Why grant something – that will give you nothing – value? That is what the young men should learn. Marriage is over. Let it go. Your only purpose is to be the ATM – while they are enjoying what they want on the side. You can be the schmuck left paying – or be the one enjoying. That is YOUR choice – and it’s a real one. You can choose to be maligned working yourself to death for nothing, or smile and enjoy while those around you deal with, what you are done with.

    Like the man above me says, “Render unto Caesar” – well they have destroyed or outlawed every shred of value for what is now called “marriage” in the US, why would you buy into it? Let them have it and walk away. Simple, easy – and really it’s for the best. If you actually do want that (an old style marriage) you can have it any time – when you are older and can’t enjoy the young things as much – you’ll just have to go to another country – and stay there. But then the US is pretty much doomed. I thought that Trump could prevent its destruction – they are doing everything they can to destroy their last chance… Just forget about what you wanted for this country – it’s gone. So look at what you can get, and where you can get it. I have to say that Asian women tend to be much better than Western women – but that’s my taste.

    Although, I’m not old enough to give up the sweet young things America has to offer just yet… As they are so quick and easy to give you just what you want… But at some point I would like to have children that some schmuck isn’t stuck thinking he’s the father of. So I’ll want children that are mine that I raise – verified by DNA of course. Remember – Trust…. But verify… I won’t marry the mothers- or have myself saddled with only one woman. One of the advantages of many of the various Asian countries is you can have a head-wife, and others – none of which are married to you unless you want to. Marrying the head one, and having her help pick the younger ones will ensure they are happy, and you get veto so only the “choicest” come in, and die with as much as any man can handle… With DNA verification, and you can use that as justification if you need it so they can prove an American was their father, so they can come to the US if they want – or not. That is up to them after you’re long gone… In those countries you will be honored…

    But really, I’ve never met an Asian woman that cares about anything other than feeling valued and loved… And they are willing to put up with a lot for that. Why would you choose to stay in the US, and saddle yourself with responsibility? Debt? Grief? And for what? To be maligned? Ridiculed? If that’s the case – you deserve everything you get, as you are a masochist…

  108. Gary Eden says:

    “But they also set themselves up for convergence from the very beginning, since their goal is to be the Christian antifeminists that don’t offend feminists.”

    If they taught from the beginning its sinful to be servile and women can teach then they didn’t set themselves up for convergence, they were the convergence.

    Servile, doormat, slave, etc etc. Are you a Christian or a feminist? Pick one. If you pick the former then Genesis is very clear: the woman was created in order to serve the man. NT is clear: she is to be in complete submission to her husband in ALL things. Submission, as in she submits her will and goals to his. This will make most uncomfortable but its the cold hard truth.

  109. feeriker says:

    Hose_B says:
    May 17, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    I’m sure that you’re aware that there’s nothing uintentional about this.

  110. Dalrock says:

    @Frank K

    Regarding Paul and slavery, his remarks about it sound to me more like “render unto Caesar” than being an endorsement of slavery.

    Without question.

  111. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    On the question of slavery, I recommend reading “Tools of Dominion” by Gary North. North does not cover the Pauline approach, but focuses the law codes of Deuteronomy. When properly understood and limited, Biblical slavery is a national blessing and nothing that a 21st Century Christian need to be ashamed. The Roman version of slavery is quite different from Mosaic law, confounding the two is injurious to the Word of God and people’s understanding of God, which is probably why it is done all the time.

  112. Bee says:

    @Just Saying,

    “But really, I’ve never met an Asian woman that cares about anything other than feeling valued and loved…”

    You are naive.

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    On the question of slavery, I recommend reading “Tools of Dominion” by Gary North.

    Perhaps Gary North is better at Bible scholarship than he was at analysis of computer systems. Because I will never forget his ridiculous Y2K! End of the world! nonsense from the late 1990’s.
    So far as I can tell he’s never come out and admitted he was wrong about that, either. Not the mark of an honest man, in my opinion.

    That’s leaving aside the whole issue of his enthusiasm for theocracy, which is a whole other big can of worms.

  114. @AR:

    Y2K was a legitimate issue, but it could also be dealt with. There was a huge market for Add-in cards that could avoid the issue in Mission Critical-type equipment. But it was also a situation where there was actual risks to the money-making ability of most industries. They were amazingly animated to address the problem.

  115. BillyS says:

    I am also convinced Y2K was far more dangerous than most people realize. Remember when several states lost electrical power because one point was destroyed?

    I saw enough problems get fixed quickly to know that no one would admit to a Y2K problem even if something came up.

    The Internet of Things (IoT) is an areas that has far more risk than most realize. We are blessed that it was not as widespread at the time of Y2K in my view.

    Sure, some went a bit deep, but the same could be said of the red pill movement, for example. Idiocy doesn’t make something totally invalid, it just means people are involved.

  116. Anonymous Reader says:

    Looking Glass, BillyS

    A friend of mine made pots and pots of money as a mainframe COBOL and FORTRAN programmer in the late 90’s doing Y2K remediation. I’m not discounting the issue. It was, although mostly in banking and other financial systems. I’m pointing out that there was a lot of hype surrounding it, “What about the embeddeds? Will my car start?”, etc. which was totally stupid (my 1990’s car with embedded chips running it still works, duh) and Gary North was one of the very hyped up, minimal fact / maximal fear participants. So much so that a parody site, “garysouth” was in existence for a while.

    With minimal search effort I found an interview:
    http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/y2k_gary.htm

    Just one excerpt – this is Gary North speaking about the imminent doom:
    First, there is no Y2K compliant power generation plant on earth. There is therefore no evidence that any plant can be made compliant. These plants are loaded with embedded systems, meaning pre-programmed chips. The power companies haven’t fixed their software yet, let alone located and replaced all their defective chips.

    Now, I also had a friend who was working as an engineering manager at a natural-gas fired baseload powerplant in 1999. It was his second major powerplant position. He’d worked his way up from very junior engineer. He knew his plant from top to bottom, they stored thousands and thousands of gallons of diesel onsite for backup just in case, and were ready to deal with any transients. But in his very informed opinon, Gary North was ignorant and full of BS. Actually he said quite a bit more than that, but there’s no need to repeat it here. North was not and is not an engineer.

    North got lots of attention and surely made money off of his doomer bit. But so far as I know he never ‘fessed up that he was wrong about it. That’s why I hope he’s better at Bible scholarship than he was at Y2K.

  117. BillyS says:

    North’s Biblical scholarship has issues too, though enjoyed reading what he wrote years ago. (I don’t buy Dominionism in the slightest, for example.)

    He was clearly wrong and refuses to mention that, though focusing on your own errors has minimal value today, so that is no worse a moral flaw than many other things.

    That said, I am not a “defender of North” by any means. I am just personally convinced Y2K was a far bigger risk than most realize. That is the point I see that I think most miss, since nothing bad happened. Kind of like how most who have good marriages think this whole red pill stuff is overblown because it hasn’t destroyed their life. At least that is what I see.

  118. @AR:

    I don’t know much about North. I’m just used to people saying, “oh, Y2K was just a hoax”. When Japan has a Nuclear Reactor go offline because of it. But, yeah, a whole lot of fearmongering was around.

    All good.

  119. BillyS says:

    I would agree LG.

  120. Jason says:

    I was at IBM when Y2K went down. In 1997, we started the whole process of updating everything within the company, and to all of our customers. It was more of a “better safe than sorry” precaution, and IBM had the most to lose as a company………..most of the platforms, technology and infrastructure was built on our platforms. IF anything did go wrong….it was going to be “IBM’s fault” In fact, a day or two before New Years Eve, our stock “tanked” while the rest of the tech sector was doing fine.

    Part of the fueling was the media, who NEVER lacks for a good human tragedy story……and guys like Art Bell (Coast To Coast AM ‘Conspiracy Radio Talk’). I remember being briefed in 1997 at a large meeting on our campus in San Jose……..there was concern. Not panic. A lot of people didn’t really know what would or would not happen. IBM took the forefront of “better to be safe than sorry” and today…everyone claims it was a full on hoax. I disagree. If nothing was done…..and something DID happen…….all the ‘wheelchair generals’ out there would be saying “Well, they should have at least tried or done something!”

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