Her soul essence is your master, and sets the terms for oneness.

As I explained in my last post, the book Every Man’s Marriage is founded in fear.  Fred Stoeker explains in Chapter 1 that when his wife Brenda announced she didn’t have feelings for him any more he went into a crippling panic that lasted for days.  Not only did it trigger unresolved feelings of childhood trauma from when his own parents had divorced, but he had built his wife up to absurd levels from the moment she first sat next to him in church:

Brenda Hulett stepped into our row, and I stood up to shake her hand.  As our eyes met, my heavenly Father seemed to lean down and whisper, This is the girl you’re going to marry.  I really felt that I would become her husband!  This thought, premonition–whatever you want to call it–struck me as funny, which caused me to giggle throughout the service whenever I glanced at her.

You can see the depth of this trauma from the organization of the book.  The first three chapters are under the heading When Love Grows Cold.  The next four chapters are under the heading Starting To Breathe Again.  Stoeker says he was in such a state of panic when his wife lost feelings for him that he vowed to do whatever it took to get them back.

What follows is Stoeker and Arterburn’s rationalization for a new religion, one which clearly is heavily influenced by the new age mysticism of the 1970s.  Stoeker tells us that before he became a Christian this is what he turned to in search of knowledge:

…I turned to Eastern religion, a fad that swept the Stanford campus in the late 1970s.  I even accepted a flower and an invitation from the Moonies, who “love bombed” me bu failed to convince me to join their ranks.  Meanwhile, I meandered up and down the West Coast, spending seminar weekends with enlightened gurus as they “merged” with the universe.

The new religion that Stoeker and Arterburn have created is a barely concealed vagina worship loosely wrapped in the trappings of Christianity.  In this new religion, the goal of marriage is to achieve marital oneness.  More accurately, it is the husband’s responsibility to achieve this marital oneness by obeying his wife’s soul essence, which sets the terms for marital oneness.  Closely tied up in all of this is the wife’s sexuality and sexual desire*.  In Chapter 3 they write about a wife who was repulsed by the idea of french kissing her husband, including during sex.  After explaining that french kissing isn’t a sin in itself, they explain that french kissing is a sin for this particular husband because he isn’t obeying her sexuality/soul essence (emphasis mine):

But for Richard, French kissing has become sin within the context of his relationship with Megan because it tramples her sexuality, a precious essence of her soul. Nothing breaks oneness like trampling your wife’s soul essence–the mysterious, God-created combination of her innermost qualities.

In Chapter 5 they explain that a wife’s feelings of sexual desire (or the lack thereof) are determined by the husband’s righteousness:

Oneness has terms.  Comply with the terms and emotional closeness follows.  If you don’t comply, the emotions will die.  We need to act right, or more precisely, act righteously.  If we do, the feelings will follow.

Brenda’s “feelings” for me had died.  The feelings she spoke about were not of oneness, but of the intimate feelings that flow from oneness.

They go on to explain that God sets the terms for our “oneness” in our relationship with Him:

Who sets the terms?  Christ.  More accurately, Christ’s essence.  What is Christ’s essence?  Holiness.

But while God sets the terms for oneness with Him, it is your wife’s essence that sets the terms for oneness in marriage:

Who sets the terms for oneness in marriage?  Your wife.  More accurately, your wife’s essence.

In Chapter 7 they explain that your wife is your “master”.  They say that master is in scare quotes because she isn’t really your master, but since God commands you to submit to her soul essence to achieve oneness with her, you should think of her as your master:

But Fred, my wife is not my master!  True, but becoming-one-with-her-essence is your master.  That’s your highest call, and that call owns you, my friend.  As leader of your home, you must submit your rights in whatever way necessary to attain oneness, not because she has authority over you…

In Chapter 8 they clarify further:

What I’m trying to say is that the “master” defines your rights (and remember again that though we refer to your wife as your “master,” it’s our shorthand for the fact that becoming one with her essence is actually your God-given master).  Why?  Because you’re called to oneness and her essence sets the terms.

The whole book is shot through with this kind of crackpot new age theology.  The truly disturbing part of this is not that two Christian men were so terrified of rejection from their wives that they created this new religion, but that this crackpot theology would be enthusiastically accepted by the Christian book buying public.

See also:  Is fear of women the beginning of wisdom?

*The original title of the book was Every Woman’s Desire.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Every Man's Marriage, Fred Stoeker, Servant Leader, Stephen Arterburn, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Wife worship, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

138 Responses to Her soul essence is your master, and sets the terms for oneness.

  1. Among the oddities of the book is that the original title, “Every Woman’s Desire”, is 100% wrong. Most women despite such snivelling worms.

    I recall an article I read long ago on Salon (feminist weirdness central) about a guy who for one year said “yes” to everything his wife wanted. At the end she was ready to divorce him. I can’t find it on Salon; it’s lost in Salon’s vortex of madness.

  2. This is the kind of guy described by the meme:

    “I voted for Hillary. My wife voted for Bernie. Her boyfriend voted for Trump.”

  3. Proudly Unaffiliated says:

    Well. This claptrap is from Californication so there is that.

  4. Pingback: Her soul essence is your master, and sets the terms for oneness. | @the_arv

  5. Wayne says:

    This is (partly) why St. Paul said pastors and teachers should be men with only one wife.

  6. princeasbel says:

    Thank you for taking on this series of books, Dalrock. These books avoid criticism precisely for the same reason men even buy them- the shame of the reader. If the men buying these books had the presence of mind to be skeptical of the contents of these books, they would never sell as well as they have over the years. But the men who buy these are already panicking like the author(s) did. They’re overwhelmed with guilt and shame, and they understand that the point in reading these books is to teach their sinful selves a harsh lesson. Their wife is unhappy? It’s your fault, and you better straighten out, buddy! You look at porn? Boy, you had better hope you don’t make your wife mad! If you would just stop being so sinful, you would realize that your wife’s threats are God’s threats to you if you don’t get your act together!

    I hate these books… I once believed what they said whole-heartedly. Why is nobody out there exposing them for what they are? Why was there nobody in my life who would check out these books before demanding that I accept what they taught?? Why does nobody care if men get led astray by this nonsense???

    For the same reason they avoid criticism, and for the same reason men buy them. Shame. Anyone who speaks out is obviously a sinner who needs to be denounced, but nobody does speak out, because they’re too scared their wife is going to detonate their marriage. With the approval of their friends and family and church, of course.

    Keep writing on these books, Dalrock. If you ever decide to launch a Patreon, please let me know. I will support you. I want you to write as many articles rebutting these books as you can. I’ve read a few, and you’ve only scratched the surface.

  7. TMAC says:

    Here’s a quote from a reader/fan of the book regarding how it changed her husband:

    “Thank you so much for writing the book Every Man’s Marriage ! After an intense weekend my husband, Brian, thought he’d lost my trust and love forever and was willing to look at books like this in the Family Christian Store where I work. He came to the counter and handed me this book saying he wanted to buy it. I didn’t ask why and started praying he’d actually take the time to read it. Things have certainly changed after that! He has made a point to pick up after himself, he brought me a cup of hot tea in bed first thing in the morning, he actually asked me what he could do to help…I could keep going for a while. I’ve already skimmed through most of it and can’t wait to talk with Brian about what he thinks about what he reads. You guys have done a fantastic job of explaining to our husbands what us wives have only dreamed they’d one day understand. I look forward to seeing your next project!” —Gloria

  8. Scott says:

    That story about meeting her in the church pew is pretty much the only thing you need to know here.

    When I was in 7th grade, I had a crush like that on one of the high school girls at my church. I got over it though.

  9. Anonymous Reader says:

    When the book starts off with the pretty lie of The One, the Soulmate myth, it’s a safe bet everything else will be down hill.

    What’s the definition of a cult? Asking because this sure looks like one.

    Some will ask how these books can sell so well to churchgoing people. The answer is obvious, women buy them and make their betaized husbands read them.

    This cult is part of the ongoing feminization of the churches.

  10. Those books are scamming you guys! You don’t need that crap to get you wife to love you. You gonna a couple things first though:

    1. A dead man’s left hand, severed from the corpse at precisely midnight.

    2. 1 pint fresh menstrual blood from a virgin

    3. 3 square yards of first quality orb weaver spiderwebs…

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    The original title of the book was Every Woman’s Desire, snort.
    Nancy Friday would likely disagree. Just saying.

  12. getalonghome says:

    Do men buy these books? Or do wives buy them and try to force men to read them? I’m trying to imagine a man picking up this book ON PURPOSE. Doesn’t compute. It’s “silly women” stuff.

  13. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    I think I just vomited in my mouth.

  14. earl says:

    1. A dead man’s left hand, severed from the corpse at precisely midnight.

    2. 1 pint fresh menstrual blood from a virgin

    3. 3 square yards of first quality orb weaver spiderwebs…

    Makes more sense than submitting to her essence, desire, or whatever other nonsense he comes up with.

  15. earl says:

    Not only did it trigger unresolved feelings of childhood trauma from when his own parents had divorced, but he had built his wife up to absurd levels from the moment she first sat next to him in church:

    I wonder if the divorce and subsequent worship of women was an extention of mommy issues. That type of trauma can either make a man hate women or worship them depending on how they viewed their mother in the divorce.

  16. okrahead says:

    When my (now ex) wife done went and runn oft, I received, in written form, the following instructions from the elders of the church I then attended:
    1) Quit my job and be a house husband. They explained my ex wanted to pursue her career and that she would be making plenty of money and that was how I could best support her. I was specifically admonished to make sure I always had a good home-cooked meal ready for her at the end of the day.
    2) Give up ownership of all firearms. No reason was given. My ex even testified during the divorce I never abused or threatened her. Most of the elders were gun owners themselves.
    3) Go to her and (literally) get down on my knees and beg her to come back; included with this was a written statement that they didn’t actually think it would work but that I should do it anyway.
    4) All kinds of warnings that I was going to lose my son and never see him again. Of course the ex pays me child support now, so who’s keeping track?
    After talking with them I finally made the statement that my wife had no legitimate reason to file for divorce (she never even alleged abuse or infidelity or drugs or alcohol abuse etc. She just wanted to have her second go around of wild college days). When I made the statement that my wife had no legitimate reason to leave and file for divorce the elders were aghast. Finally, the spokesman for the group asked if I was actually claiming that I had been perfectly sinless through my entire marriage. After reflecting on that I realized I was not in the right church.

  17. earl says:

    Well shoot if being sinless is the prerequisite to marriage…then nobody should be married.

  18. okrahead says:

    Evangelicals of all stripes tend to place GREAT emphasis on sola scriptura; yet these tumescent tomes are directly contrary to scripture. What the Bible teaches on marriage and family is not difficult to understand. Roman and Orthodox canon law and tradition are often derided by evangelicals, yet today’s evangelicals are setting up their own canon law as it were with this feminist folly. Canon law and Orthodox tradition can also reasonably claim to take the realities of human nature into consideration; this modern evangelical nonsense runs directly against nature as well as scripture.

  19. Jason says:

    Who the blazes are these people? Who the freak buys these books, reads them and follows them? I am now a *native* Californian (just crossed the mark, spent more my of life in this fine state than my native New York State) and I am assuming when you fine readers slam this beautiful state, you are referring to Bay Area nonsense and the Southland (which is a velor pussycat with a plastic hard-on).

    California gave this nation Reagan, Nixon, and Hoover. Riordan was mayor of LA for eight years in the nineties, and left office with a very high approval rating. It also still has one of the most *conservative* areas of the country (Orange County). Stanford still today has one of the most powerful think tanks that is to the right of most *republicans* in the whole state of Texas…which many forget was a Democratic stronghold a generation and a half ago. It’s a great state and a tarnished dream that I will admit is fading, but just electing a republican won’t fix it.

    Plenty of christian garbage is coming out of “the south” as well. I strive *HARD* to live as a Christian in this state, it’s not easy, but indeed there are some solid men out here who do live His way, it shows how strong we are. Perhaps we are being prepared. I know firsthand what it is like to spit on by a “tolerant” california liberal…..but I have history to fall on. Salvationists in the UK during the Victorian era had eggs, excrement and urine thrown on them. Bricks and bottles too…..ah, but wait…..everyone was “religious” and “holy” back then (sarcasm)

    The founder of Methodism, John Wesley had to stand on his fathers tomb to preach in the 1740’s in order to preserve his life.

    What I am trying to get at, there has always been tough situations for those who strove to keep His commandments. Hard lives and choices for those who not only “read the Word” or “studied the Word” but indeed obeyed it.

  20. okrahead says:

    Earl,
    Apparently what they meant was that if a husband sinned so much as once, then his wife was justified in getting rid of him. When you consider the modern evangelical notion that the husband must be as good as Christ (since he is to love his wife as Christ loved the church) it does actually follow a sort of twisted logic. If you are not as perfect as Christ, they reason, you cannot love your wife as Christ loves the church, which means she can divorce you. What it also means is that no man is ever actually worthy of his wife or her love, and that if she does deign to have anything to do with you it is an act of grace on her part. So I guess I know who they worship.

  21. Jason says:

    Nonsense. All these books are for is to “justify” divorce and a whole “misery loves company thing” cloaked in a few scriptures. I have never been taught that a “husband must be as good as Christ”

  22. okrahead says:

    Jason,
    I know it’s nonsense. But if you’ve followed here long enough, or ended up in the wrong place, you’ll find in a hurry that a husband’s failure to be “as good as Christ” is a regular excuse for churchian evangelicals to justify divorce.

  23. Anon says:

    Among the oddities of the book is that the original title, “Every Woman’s Desire”, is 100% wrong. Most women despite such snivelling worms.

    If you are familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect for intellectual matters, a similar concept extends to sexual matters.

    Many manginas and cuckservatives are utterly convinced that they are the epitome of masculinity, and that women find them irresistible. The utter lack of evidence to back up their beliefs is completely invisible to them, as they go around asserting what men should do. A similar example is Jim Gay-ratty going around saying that he is a stud and more men should be like him, even though he married a single mother who might be older than him.

    The Dunning-Kruger effect exist for male behavior regarding women too, and cuckservatives are examples of this.

  24. okrahead says:

    Anon,
    Following Adam and Eve being cast out of the garden, it really is every woman’s desire to rule over the man. She just ends up disgusted with the result once she achieves it. In a way the title is completely accurate, just not as the author supposedly intended it.

  25. Cane Caldo says:

    The Christian book buying public is overwhelmingly women. I would say at least treble men. I know this because I worked for awhile at a Baptist Book Store before they changed their name to Lifeway.

  26. earl says:

    She just ends up disgusted with the result once she achieves it.

    Yeah which is why I can say with pretty much certainty…when she conquers a man, she loses.

    So I guess I know who they worship.

    There’s no doubt. She might be doing the divorcing…but that means the man was doing all the sinning. Women apparently have no capablity to sin in their book.

    I’d straight up ask these guys if they think women are capable of sinning or have free will.

  27. Jason says:

    okrahead……..no, the problem “right now” in Evangelical Protestantism is the following:

    *The doctrine of happiness. If a woman isn’t *happy* in her marriage, divorce is justified. The whole “he isn’t loving me like Christ loved the church” is an excuse and “protestanese”

    *The LACK of marrige is more of a problem that is discussed from the pulpit, at Holiness meetings, and at “bold n biblical” men’s fellowships. The single men that are in church are not getting married. Shame is used instead of addressing the big pink elephant in the room. Few if any pastors want to discuss it because they know if they do…….that collection plate is going to flow to a trickle of pennies and dimes…..as it should

    *Attracting men. Convincing them they need a Savior is never discussed. Walking deeper with one man at a time is always “someone else’s job”

    *The fight is gone. Even in The Salvation Army….the traditional songs of warfare, marching, and standing alone on “foreign shores” is being replaced with “You are my God and I will worship you” (repeat that chorus oh….twenty times in a row…)

    *The prayer meeting. This cornerstone. This “living stone” that BUILT protestantism is pretty much dead in evangelical churches…..heck, just about all protestant churches today. Praying for two seconds at the end of the service and a minute before will not bring the flock to their feet, not will it convict in agony the calling to repent. No longer are we full of expectation. No longer can we pray in a designated prayer meeting building trust and community and a sending of the fire we all “claim” to want. Cultural protestants….even ones who attend every Sunday………are too biusy, and it’s someone elses job

    *Speaking of “someone else’s job” the calls for “help” and to “use your Gifts” are frequently expounded upon; but as a man in a protestant church….it is made pretty clear and quick…….there is only ONE big monkey allowed in the church, and that is the pastor. Don’t you forget it!!! Use your gifts only when thge big monkey deems it okay.

    *We don’t teach men to think. We teach them “verses”

    *Where is the joy? It’s like our worldy culture which is brought in, stamped with the word “jesus” and voila…it’s “christian” now. So many protestants have a fake joy, but so many have such deep hurt and unanswered questions but are afraid to speak up or out without being gossiped about.

    *If you are a man who is not making a lot of money or has some “professional” job, you are viwed as stupid, lazy, and anything you say or add isn’t of value…..while aty the same time “denouncing” prosperity gospel.

    *Teaching school age children, even teenagers…….baby songs will not convice them to defend, stand, pray or even intelligently defens their faith, their Holiness and their worldview while in school or with their peers.

    Want more?

    Look, Protestantism saved me. Sola Scriptura made me a man. I don’t have all the solutions….but I never have heard from a pulpit that “men have to be as good as Christ”

  28. earl says:

    but I never have heard from a pulpit that “men have to be as good as Christ”

    Besides if that was the case…why would we need a Savior in the first place.

    It’s an easy out…of course a man is going to sin in marriage…but they make it out like a woman never sins or that sin is the justification for divorce. It’s not.

  29. American says:

    I’m not surprised. Heretical nonsensical female/feeling worshiping “not really though wink wink because they all say worshiping females and their feelings is actually worshiping God wink wink is a new strain of Gnosticism.

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock’s blog has been educational to me in multiple ways, from the Kendrick’s films to books. I’ve never heard of these books until now, for example. The only “relationshipish” books that any churchgoing men in my social circle have ever mentioned is the “Love Languages”.

    But clearly they sell a lot. So how should a sane man wearing The Glasses who can see clearly push back against these books? Let’s say a co worker or someone in one’s social circle mention’s that he’s reading Every Man’s Marriage, what kind of a life-preserver should he be thrown?

    Two obvious approaches come to mind:
    First, a raional debunking starting with “Why would you want marriage advice from a guy whose first two wives divorced him? Third time’s a charm, or what?” (This applies to Dennis Prager, too). Next up, I’m betting that these books are pretty light on the Bible quotes, so there’s a good opening in the form of “Huh. How come these marriage books shy away from the Bible if they are for Christians?”.

    However, you can’t reason anyone out of a position they got into emotionally.

    So second, pure emotional argumentation; “Marriage advice from a man who lost two wives” serves double duty. Then take a few choice quotes starting with that Twu Wuv in the Pew quote and observe, “This is like something a teenaged girl would write. Would you take marriage advice from a 15 year old girl? Really?”

    It should not be difficult to push back against fluff like this, either rationally or emotionally, but having thought through the problem a few times can only make it easier when / if such a situation arises.

  31. Kevin says:

    Hard to improve on the first response.

    These books have a therapy view of marriage – your spouse will complete you. That’s divorce seed right there. Your spouse is hopefully someone you love and love spending time with. But they may not complete you in lots of ways. That’s ok. Working tirelessly for the oneness of your souls – blah.

    Also like most these books they hold as legitimate that all true relationships are from the woman’s point of view and all closeness is emotional. Is there a book for women on marriage which legitimizes the husbands view – “Make your marriage great with sex every single day!” That view is just as legitimate or as real for many men as all these attempts at feminine emotional support. Men should learn to connect emotionally with women and women should learn to please their husbands – that’s marriage. But I tire of the constant drum beat saying the relationship is only legitimate when it meets the emotional needs of the women and shame on the men that cheer this on.

  32. OKRickety says:

    okrahead said: “When I made the statement that my wife had no legitimate reason to leave and file for divorce the elders were aghast. Finally, the spokesman for the group asked if I was actually claiming that I had been perfectly sinless through my entire marriage. After reflecting on that I realized I was not in the right church.

    Churchians believe the man is always at fault. My experience was eerily similar. Thinking back, I should not have been surprised.

  33. Pingback: Her soul essence is your master, and sets the terms for oneness. | Reaction Times

  34. “Professing to be wise, they became fools” (‭Rom‬.‭1:22‬)

  35. feministhater says:

    What I’m trying to say is that the “master” defines your rights (and remember again that though we refer to your wife as your “master,” it’s our shorthand for the fact that becoming one with her essence is actually your God-given master). Why? Because you’re called to oneness and her essence sets the terms.

    These men are pure evil and filth. This is directly opposed to the Bible. They are not Christian. Any man who follows this is not a Christian but a vagina worshiping agnostic. This is straight from the devil.

  36. feministhater says:

    Well shoot if being sinless is the prerequisite to marriage…then nobody should be married.

    I know, right? Thank God though for I could never follow 'her essence' and never would. I would condemn myself by getting married if what these evil, sycophants said were true. The ladies can heave a sigh of relief… they can keep their essences to themselves. I was never good enough to begin with as I'm sinful; I would also demand submission from a wife and I would not serve her as my master.

    Marriage as it stands is not something I can get involved with. It's damaged goods.

  37. Jim says:

    It’s an easy out…of course a man is going to sin in marriage…but they make it out like a woman never sins or that sin is the justification for divorce. It’s not.

    Cunt worship is popular these days. It’s bringing down the west faster than anything else right now. These pussy boy “pastors” (i.e. Christian impersonators) have become so pathetic that they’ve now tossed out God and replaced Him with…a woman. smdh.

    What worthless lowlifes.

  38. Scott says:

    Finally, the spokesman for the group asked if I was actually claiming that I had been perfectly sinless through my entire marriage. After reflecting on that I realized I was not in the right church.

    Thats so cool! I got that T-shirt as well.

    When I was in seminary (American Baptist) and the discussion of divorce came up, we would always be taught the “reformed view.”

    That is, divorce is never required, but is allowed if one spouse cheats on the other. The position was that no church board should be encouraging divorce even in the case of infidelity. They should lean very hard on the one who cheated to plead with the victim to let them back–and that they faced a life of celibacy if they chose the path of “I cheat on you, then divorce you.” If they sometime way later down the line they decide it was a mistake, they should hope their ex never remarried, because if so, they are out of luck.

    Separation was recommended for extreme cases like debilitating mental illness that places you in harms way, violence, etc. But even these cases were not taught as divorce justifying.

    People will say things like “well you are using technicalities to force the other person to stay in a dead marriage” or whatever.

    Yes, I know. That is precisely what I am doing. But dead marriages come back to life all the time. In fact, every morning both of you have the opportunity to breath new life into your love for each other if you failed yesterday.

    The ideal picture was presented as the whole church doing its best to restore the one was leaving by pushing them back into the arms of the one being left. This, of course, did not happen your situation or mine. And I bet the clergy at your church had the same basic training as mine.

    Being armed with all that and then fading back to “were you a perfect husband?” is such horse shit that everyone who reads and comments here knows it.

    Of course I wasn’t a perfect husband. When was the last time you beat your wife and what the hell does that have to with doing your job as a church “leader” to help us fix our marriage?

  39. Luke says:

    Re Okrahead’s March 4 8:39 PM post:

    I would have liked to have seen him do this to those churchian heretics… Ask them if any books are missing from their Bibles, specifically Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Colossians, Malachi, Isaiah, Ephesians, Corinthians, Hebrews, Timothy, Titus, Proverbs, Mark, Peter & Revelation. When they predictably respond with “No, but…”, cut them off.
    Then, provide them with antifeminist/anti-divorce quotes each of those contains.

    When they predictably respond with protests indicating nonbelief in those parts of the Bible, say that you thought you were talking to Christians, who are all governed by what God said in the Bible, that since they’re not Christians, that they have exactly nothing to tell you on theology. Then, walk away from them with your head held high.

    Oh, and the disloyal, nonChristian b*tch you were married to? If no children together, ditch her ASAP. If you have children together, God help you. (I just hope she croaks soon.)

  40. Scott says:

    To expand a little on my previous comment. What they don’t do, what they can never do is this part of scripture:

    15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

    16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

    17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

    The idea here, which follows from other, OT verses is one of presumed reconciliation from the start–and that it was probably a big misunderstanding.

    Even more so with a marriage, for obvious reasons.

    They never hear the husbands side of the story about what is going in the home. They are primed to go into this as white knights saving the wives in the pews from obnoxious husbands. Every nit pick is validated with extreme prejudice, so by the time it gets to you you are toast.

    “On top of everything else, we heard you even squeeze the toothpaste tube from the middle! Whats the matter with you brother? You are driving your wife crazy!”

  41. After reading the post, my first thought is, “we need to bring back burning heretics”. This is pure heresy and the writers have made the statement they are not Christians, and thus should be rejected completely.

    It’s no wonder the churches are a disaster. Popular, important people aren’t Christian, though it’s been this way for a rather long time at this point.

  42. bdash 77 says:

    ugh
    had an argument with my bible study yesterday

    all the young people said men should be happy to be a house husband and support a wife’s career
    who is working and who is helping at home does not matter…
    ( only men cooked the dinner and cleaned and served dessert)
    women did nothing

    I got attacked for calling it a sin
    apparently we can ignore all the verses that ask women to submit and women to be workers focuses on the home or women to be helpmeets
    but we are not allowed to ignore the verses condemning gay sex…
    I asked them to find me a verse in the bible that says only some teachings are for previous cultures and are not timeless.
    They just got angry
    The odd things was I faced more opposition from the young men ( their girlfriends were at the study)
    ( 2 girls actually supported me but because the men were talking they just expressed it quietly))

    frankly I think Christian men deserve this
    Christian men want to be weak
    they want to submit
    they could literally stop this nonsense tomorrow- if all Christian men banded together and chose to follow God

  43. Opus says:

    This type of book being far outside my thought processes I had a look at Every Man’s Battle on Amazon.Com and specifically the One Star reviews which I always find more revealing that the Five Star. I noted a review of 11th July 2011 from one LauraD who described the book as “very degrading to women” but in a comment from five years ago on Laura D’s comment SW opined that he was surprised that a woman would be offended ” by the authors telling how it really is”. It seems this is a book that can offend everyone.

    The advice (which I understand the book gives) is however the sort of advice one hears all the time for it is in the nature of men to keep trying, but abasing oneself can only lead to contempt. Stoecker has this on common with certain PUA gurus, namely the belief that with a little bit more skill and practice women can like broncos be brought to heel. Of this I remain sceptical.

    The Mayor of London – a Muslim – yesterday on International Vagina Day outed himself as a Feminist and asserted that all real men should likewise ascribe to Feminism. I don’t think in his case it is that he a creeping Mangina for he is clearly highly ambitious and appears to be AMOGing. I would guess that he has a casting couch in the Mayoral Office – may a plague of locusts descend upon it.

  44. Jack Morrow says:

    Stephen Arterburn co-wrote the book Toxic Faith in 1991, which I didn’t like, and in which fathers got bashed a lot. I’ve never read Every Man’s Battle or Every Young Man’s Battle because the titles are unbiblical. When it comes to sexual temptation, we’re not told to fight, but to flee fornication (I Corinthians 6:18) and youthful lusts (II Timothy 2:22).

  45. Hose_B says:

    @getalonghome

    Do men buy these books? Or do wives buy them and try to force men to read them?

    Churches buy these books and GIVE them to men. Wholeheartedly endorsed…………..
    Talk with them, pastor them, build them up? No. Push books and conferences and “Man up” sermons? Absolutely.
    Well, at least mainstream Baptist churches do……dunno about the rest.

  46. JB Harshaw says:

    Dalrock… you’ve barely scratched the surface in your research on Stephen Arterburn… go do a search on his name and the word “abortion” & “lawsuit.”

    The sickness and sheer EVIL within this person… decade after decade of it; there isn’t a single commandment he hasn’t flagrantly violated, repeatedly — he knows nothing of Christ, and Christ does not know him — he’s a false-teacher con-artist leading the “churchians” into damnation, and parasitically sucking the blood from it for personal wealth along the way.

  47. http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/m&m/general.htm

    The original link is down, but a quote from the source that linked to the source.

    “Minirth responded to the effect that Arterburn’s judgment and actions were being affected by his previous actions, by his own admission in nationwide print, in getting a woman pregnant out of wedlock and then being responsible for her having an abortion. “

  48. Swanny River says:

    I haven’t read the books but have heard of them and hear Arterburn on the Family Life radio. Before the red pill, I used to listen to some of it, but now I see it’s mainly just women calling in and griping. I am glad for the post and second the comment that said someone needs to shine a biblical light on material being consumed by believers.

    Bdash77- I had a similar experience recently. The rebuttal, at least to whom I was speaking, was a true difference of opinion about the biblical instruction for women. I am with you and think it a sound principle to have women raising kids and making money only as a Pr 31 helpmeet.
    The counter view is that there is no specific teaching for women not to work. I agree that there isn’t such a verse, but the problem is that once you say the bible is silent about working women, then it is impossible to say no to second-wave (and first) feminism. If I use the premise the bible is silent, then I still have a strong tool though- greed. Most women working are doing so out of greed and pride. Pride because they don’t want to rely on their husband’s retirement or greed because they are sure more money is needed to send their princess off to get her PhD.

  49. BillyS says:

    Okrahead,

    Some of us maintain Sola Scriptura and strongly oppose the idiocy preached today for that very reason.

    Too many leaders have unfortunately drunk the Koolaid and are helping kill families because of it.

  50. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    You would still be a native NYer, no matter how much time you spend in California. I will never be a native Texan, no matter how long I live here! (Though California is more embracing of immigrants I suppose….)

    Hard lives and choices for those who not only “read the Word” or “studied the Word” but indeed obeyed it.

    That is definitely true. I do personally wonder about many Christians who plod away in California (not thinking of you specifically at all), in spite of its descent into really bad stuff, but your point remains. We will face struggles wherever we go. We must use and rely on His power to overcome, not our own.

  51. BillyS says:

    Scott,

    “On top of everything else, we heard you even squeeze the toothpaste tube from the middle! Whats the matter with you brother? You are driving your wife crazy!”

    Is this still a thing? I realized recently that I have not seen a tube recently that got as deformed as they used to get. Has technology solved one of the key marriage breakers?

    (Not relevant to the marriage conversation, but I have been wondering this recently.)

  52. BillyS says:

    Opus,

    Some woman are offended that men are compelled by sight more than other factors. Just noting that means you are evil in their eyes, whatever message you are pushing.

    bdash77,

    I have found speaking up in most study groups is fruitless. I will do so as appropriate, but those present tend to attack the messenger rather than what is being said.

    Most people are not just idiots, they want to remain so.

  53. Jason says:

    My mother once said “I would have laughed if someone told me in 1964 I would be working at job full time my whole adult life”

    She figured she would work, get married……raise children….maybe work part-time or temp here and there in a marriage to supplement the family income. By the mid 1990’s she was making more than my father (she was head RN of operatinmg room nurses at the local VA by the time she retired and succumbed to cancer)

    I don’t believe that many women “eneterd the workforce” in order to ‘one up’ men back in the 1970’s / early 1980’s……many did it frankly out of necessity. Add in delaying marriage, birth control options, legalized abortion, affirmative action, Oprah Winfrey, a rising cost of living, no fault-divorce, affirmative action (which benefited white women a billion to one of the minority populations it was supposed to help) latch-key kids (which I was one), the general acceptance of a culture (church) that didn’t ask questions about the rising cost of living and the culture in general.

  54. bdash 77 says:

    @swanny
    exactly
    it is the heart that matter
    I know a wife who is a surgeon
    moved country because her husband wanted to
    submits to her husband in everything
    runs the home for him
    everything
    purposely works fewer hours than him out of respect….

    most Christians won’t even think of doing that

  55. Swanny River says:

    Bdash,
    Christian working women do something worse, they increase their emasculation of their husbands by putting on cartoonish displays of support. Such statements almost always come out as condescending., but they are women, so we over look it. I can’t think of some of the specific ways wives demean their husbands, but they do. “I was thinking of getting a Dyson vacuum for you since it is the best on the market.” Maybe in a group it would be, “it is so great my husband does the ironing, it is too dreary for me.”

  56. Boxer says:

    This is an excellent article. What modern people (not only Christians, but also many Catholics and Jews) are doing is reverting back to a prehistoric, matriarchal mode-of-being. The fact that they wrap it up in the language of patriarchal texts doesn’t change anything. Their adherence to their prophets and scriptures are selective, cosmetic, and ultimately designed to sucker new converts.

  57. Swanny River says:

    “Selective, cosmetic, and” deceptive. That is right out of Jesus’s mouth when he tells the Pharisees of their efforts to make disciples. It has the air of godliness with its self-imposed discipline (ie, hair-shorts as Dalrock has described it) but they don’t lift a finger to help with the burdens they put upon men (Dalrocks posts about the glee of cross-dressing).
    My pastor will skip all this and say many true and right words, thereby missing a real opportunity to guide the flock and make us salt and light. Would anyone call the Arterburn books Salt and Light? Or like the comments here say- false worship!
    Where are the pastors on this? I forgot, they are on The Gospel Coalition.

  58. BillyS says:

    Swanny River,

    Having your wife work is one way to make yourself safer from alimony. Another way the State undermines marriage.

  59. Dalrock says:

    @Scott

    Every nit pick is validated with extreme prejudice, so by the time it gets to you you are toast.

    “On top of everything else, we heard you even squeeze the toothpaste tube from the middle! Whats the matter with you brother? You are driving your wife crazy!”

    At one point in the book Stoeker proudly explains that his wife gives him permission to splash water on his face, so long as he cleans up afterward. The point is not that he has to clean up afterward, but that everything, even the smallest things like washing his face, must be approved by his “master”. If she said he couldn’t do it even if he never left a mess then the master would have spoken and that would be it.

    Incidentally, as bad as Stephen Arterburn and Fred Stoeker come off in the book, it is arguably Brenda Stoeker that looks the worst. She comes off as the most manipulative woman I have ever heard of. Fred explains that she has a “gift of discernment” in knowing whom they should associate with and whom they shouldn’t, and as far as I can tell his entire family is on the don’t associate list and has been from very early on. He explains that the reason he knew male submission was part of God’s design was that his wife was unnaturally pleased when he said he would do what she wanted him to, far beyond what you would expect for someone merely getting their way. I’ll take him at his word for that. Another anecdote he shares is his wife telling him he needed to find a hobby. When he eventually found one that he absolutely loved (upland bird hunting), she informed him that she was delighted, and that he could go hunting two days per year. He asked for a third, and she shut him down. I should find the exchange; it is downright creepy.

  60. Swanny River says:

    After reading Dalrock’s comment, I have to ask myself, who is the bigger dummy, me or the authors. It sounds like I have enough experience to write what they wrote, but at least they have the dollars and accolades.

  61. I think men like these are gay “bottoms”, only some woman accidentally married him.

  62. feministhater says:

    When he eventually found one that he absolutely loved (upland bird hunting), she informed him that she was delighted, and that he could go hunting two days per year. He asked for a third, and she shut him down. I should find the exchange; it is downright creepy.

    It’s also abuse per the feminists.

    A whole two days! I bet he was delighted that his master gave him two days off from service!

  63. Opus says:

    I am having difficulty here distinguishing Christianity from BDSM. Is he caged? Does she have a bull? We need to be told.

  64. princeasbel says:

    It’s chapter 8, and it begins on page 103. Goes to page 108 and ends there, I think. I just did a quick search on Amazon’s Search Inside feature. I would LOVE to read your commentary on that.

  65. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: I am having difficulty here distinguishing Christianity from BDSM.

    It does sound like it.

    When a husband must ask his wife for permission to wash his face — and both of them are thrilled with that power imbalance — that’s not normal. It sounds like there’s some sexual excitement going on. Like he’s looking for opportunities to submit and beg for permission.

  66. ray says:

    When in America over the past three decades, the married men I encounter all fit this pattern, including ‘conservatives’ and Christians. The males/husbands are tremendously dependent upon their wives, and literally fall apart if the female threatens to leave, or divorce, or whatever. That’s because most of them never learned to live on their own, never leaned how to disengage from mammy’s apron. All of the American male’s ‘eggs’ — spiritual, psychological, material — are placed in the Female Basket, and if this idealized figure threatens to depart or contact the State, the men simply cave and crumple. They don’t know what to do, any more than a two-year-old. And that’s how America likes it, obviously.

    In the Fifties and Sixties I saw the beginnings of this, when boys and men were encouraged to ‘build their worlds’ around females and female-approval. Thus, in every aspect of the culture, dependence of God (Father) was replaced by dependence upon females, particularly under romanticized and false-chivalrous terms.

    Now, everywhere in America is found this barely-concealed Goddess Cult of female supremacy, which is encouraged and financed by both the State and the various ‘Christian’ denominations. Father and Christ are only the paint on the outside; inside their churches and culture, the males essentially worship the feminine, while women and girls receive this male-subjugation, and magnify it by worshipping themselves. The pressure on males in America to submit to this is constant and intense. Your life will be made more difficult if you don’t, and men know it.

    Ahab was titular king, but Jezebel ran the nation. Nothing has changed, they’ve just become more clever at concealing it.

  67. thedeti says:

    I hate these books… I once believed what they said whole-heartedly. Why is nobody out there exposing them for what they are? Why was there nobody in my life who would check out these books before demanding that I accept what they taught?? Why does nobody care if men get led astray by this nonsense???

    Because most people, including most in Christian “ministry”, don’t know the Word well enough to question what is contained in these books. It’s “well, they’re in ministry, and this sounds good (i.e. female-centric), so it must be correct.” It’s also because most in Christian ministry are deathly afraid of offending women or casting women’s human and sexual nature in an unflattering light. Dalrock has posted a lot about this.

  68. anonymous_ng says:

    These books are like HuffPo. I’m glad someone else reads them and gives me the Cliff Notes version, but I won’t buy them and give the authors a dime of my money.

  69. Dalrock says:

    @Princeasbel

    These books avoid criticism precisely for the same reason men even buy them- the shame of the reader. If the men buying these books had the presence of mind to be skeptical of the contents of these books, they would never sell as well as they have over the years. But the men who buy these are already panicking like the author(s) did. They’re overwhelmed with guilt and shame, and they understand that the point in reading these books is to teach their sinful selves a harsh lesson.

    This is good insight. Fundamentally, it comes down to the fact that they like and agree with the message. But the mechanism of shame you describe strikes me as one of the more important aspects of why they like it. It is an easy out that seems like it will make the pain (including the shame) go away the fastest. They are too terrified to approach it from a Christian perspective.

    @Anon Reader

    But clearly they sell a lot. So how should a sane man wearing The Glasses who can see clearly push back against these books? Let’s say a co worker or someone in one’s social circle mention’s that he’s reading Every Man’s Marriage, what kind of a life-preserver should he be thrown?

    I would focus on the anti Christian message, specifically the new age mysticism. “I think I’ve heard about that book. Is that the one that teaches that your wife is your master and you need to submit to her in everything to achieve oneness with her soul-essence? If that is the book I heard about, it is some pretty kooky new age mysticism stuff!”

    If they lie and say it isn’t, you can either write off the conversation or ask if you can see the copy and read them some quotes out loud. It won’t take long, as nearly every page has quotes like the ones I used in the post (although not all are quite as jaw dropping stupid).

    If they say “Yeah, this book is new age nonsense, but the basic message is still biblical”, I would ask why they bother with a book of new age nonsense if there are legitimate biblical arguments for this perspective.

    For reasons that Princeasbel explains up thread, they will try to steer the subject to men’s sins and shame. If you take the bait and follow them into the quagmire you are pretty much toast. The problem with these books is not that they teach men to love their wives or that they condemn men’s sexual sin, etc. The problem is they are using real sins to create a false religion.

  70. dpmonahan says:

    The stuff on “essence” is fishy, looks like underneath the weird marriage advice is some straight-up Christological heresy. Christ has two essences, human and divine, united in the divine person. This means Jesus was really human – the real historical founder of the Church – and really divine, which makes him by nature the rightful high priest and leader of the human race.
    Your wife’s essence is only human, and a fallen humanity at that. You already have a fallen human essence of your own to worry about so why hers is so much better does not make sense.
    60 years they have been telling us dogmatic theology isn’t important and now look at the hot garbage we get.

  71. Dalrock says:

    @dpmonahan

    The stuff on “essence” is fishy, looks like underneath the weird marriage advice is some straight-up Christological heresy.

    Right. The author went from:

    …spending seminar weekends with enlightened gurus as they “merged” with the universe.

    To teaching Christians that they need to merge attain oneness with their wife’s soul essence.

  72. anonymous_ng says:

    @Princeasbel

    These books avoid criticism precisely for the same reason men even buy them- the shame of the reader. If the men buying these books had the presence of mind to be skeptical of the contents of these books, they would never sell as well as they have over the years. But the men who buy these are already panicking like the author(s) did. They’re overwhelmed with guilt and shame, and they understand that the point in reading these books is to teach their sinful selves a harsh lesson.

    You’re not wrong, but another point is that it preserves the illusion of control. We all know that statistically, the drive to the airport is far more dangerous than flying commercially, but as a passenger on a commercial airliner, you cannot pretend to have any control over what happens.

    In the same way, if his failing marriage is because he hasn’t loved his wife enough via doing enough housework, or because he hasn’t supported her in her rebellion, then he still has the ability to control things. If instead, his marriage is failing through no fault of his own, then, he has to learn to deal with uncertainty, something that is frankly, in short supply in the modern world.

  73. Oscar says:

    So, if a wife is repulsed by the thought of French kissing her husband, it’s the husband’s fault. Whose fault is it when a husband is repulsed by the sight of his obese wife?

  74. Cane Caldo says:

    @Captain Blood & Opus

    Either way it’s a safe bet these men had much stronger emotional bonds with their mothers than with their fathers. Past age, say, nine that is weird, and–if it continues into the teenage years–effeminate. That would explain both your wonders.

  75. anonymous_ng says:

    @Oscar, it’s because he has internalized the casual misogyny of the patriarchy.

  76. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    So, if a wife is repulsed by the thought of French kissing her husband, it’s the husband’s fault. Whose fault is it when a husband is repulsed by the sight of his obese wife?

    It isn’t that he has done anything wrong to cause this. That’s just her soul essence. And her soul essence is the boss, it sets the terms for oneness. His sin was still wanting to kiss her during sex, thus disobeying her soul essence once it had already spoken and destroying oneness.

    Makes sense. Right?

  77. earl says:

    Whose fault is it when a husband is repulsed by the sight of his obese wife?

    It’s simple how it works in Churchianity (TM) a sect of the larger branch of Feminism.

    Everything, no matter whose fault it is…is always the husband’s fault.

  78. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock & anonymous_ng

    Clearly I’m thinking too logically, and logic is a form of patriarchal oppression. I’ll report to the nearest feminist reeducation camp immediately.

  79. feministhater says:

    So, if a wife is repulsed by the thought of French kissing her husband, it’s the husband’s fault. Whose fault is it when a husband is repulsed by the sight of his obese wife?

    Doesn’t matter. Her essence is to be a fat slob so he must find oneness with it. Don’t you get it yet?! It’s her essence that matters, not the man’s. Her essence is godly and his is earthly and an abomination and can only be made righteous by bending it to her essence.

    By paying attention, you quickly find they are replacing Christ’s holiness with that of the vagina. Even God’s will must be bent to follow hers.

  80. Tiny Tim says:

    This came out of a sermon I just heard recently. What is your opinion. “Women are equal to men in personhood, in value, in intelligence, in ability, in potential, and in salvation…but they are different in ROLE.” This was a sermon explaining why women cannot be teachers, preachers, or elders in a church using 1Timothy 2:8-15 as the reference. The pastor clearly stated men and women in the church and in the family have different roles and that since Eden the roles have gone wrong. And the conclusion is the family reflects the Church and Christ, the man is the head Christ is the head.

  81. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Either way it’s a safe bet these men had much stronger emotional bonds with their mothers than with their fathers. Past age, say, nine that is weird, and–if it continues into the teenage years–effeminate. That would explain both your wonders.

    Exhibit A:  Seeking A Mother’s Blessing in Chapter 1.

  82. earl says:

    While Dalrock pointed out the Eastern religion nonsense…I found this out too. The stuff he looked at before the New Age stuff.

    First I dallied in the writings of Marx and Engels.

    Those guys were as anti-Christian as you can get.

  83. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Exhibit A:

    Knew it. Watch me dab!

  84. stickdude90 says:

    From that little excerpt, it’s pretty clear why his first marriage failed:

    Did Brenda agree? Not on your life! She felt that I loved my family and relatives more than I loved her. “After all”, she said, “I don’t hear you calling them nasty names.” She felt that I should defend her and halt their demeaning tirades…

    He flat out forgot (or ignored) Genesis 2:24 – “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

  85. Spike says:

    ”Who sets the terms for oneness in marriage? Your wife. More accurately, your wife’s essence…”

    New Age-y, for sure. But in this statement, the author has failed to understand the Old Testament teaching of Genesis 2:24:
    ”That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”
    Ratified in the New Testament by Jesus Himself:
    ”…and the two will become one flesh.’[a] So they are no longer two, but one flesh” ( Mark 10:8)

    It is marriage that makes for oneness. Anything else is contempt for marriage – the institution God wants for an ordered humanity, and thus contempt for God Himself.

    Essence? I think my wife cooks with it. Or uses it in her bath. Or whatever.

  86. BillyS says:

    He is right that the wife can play a major role in oneness within marriage, unfortunately he fails to realize it is usually a lack of submission that causes the problems.

  87. PokeSalad says:

    Those guys were as anti-Christian as you can get.

    Opiate of the masses!

  88. Don Quixote says:

    Great discussion and excellent critique.
    I had a look at the reviews on Amazon [Every Man’s Marriage] and I was amazed to see 160 reviews @ 4.5 stars! My immediate thought was that women are writing these reviews, so I looked through the reviews, and as far as I can tell it is loved by both men and women, and from different denominations. Is there no escaping this new age churchianity?

  89. Anonymous Reader says:

    Looking Glass
    After reading the post, my first thought is, “we need to bring back burning heretics”.

    What was your second thought? Hopefully not something else having to do with murder…

    This is pure heresy and the writers have made the statement they are not Christians, and thus should be rejected completely.

    “Should be” and “is”, still not synonyms for some reason.
    We’re all criticizing the book, some of us are discussing ways to persuade men to avoid it. Only you have suggested murder as a “cure”, though.

    It’s no wonder the churches are a disaster. Popular, important people aren’t Christian, though it’s been this way for a rather long time at this point.

    I’m not a scholar of the Bible. Could you please point out the parts of the New Testament that mention popular, important people? Thanks.

  90. James K says:

    @Larry Kummer, Editor

    I recall an article I read long ago on Salon (feminist weirdness central) about a guy who for one year said “yes” to everything his wife wanted. At the end she was ready to divorce him. I can’t find it on Salon; it’s lost in Salon’s vortex of madness.

    I remember a slightly different version of this. A well-meaning (and probably unethical) sociological experiment tried to discover how satisfied a woman would become if her husband agreed with everything she said. The experiment was supposed to run for a month. After one week, the woman was so enraged that the husband had to abandon the experiment and explain to his wife what had been going on.

  91. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    ” What modern people (not only Christians, but also many Catholics and Jews) are doing is reverting back to a prehistoric, matriarchal mode-of-being. ”

    What’s your reading list for this information? The details of the pre-historic matriarchal society is scarce as far as I can find.

  92. infowarrior1 says:

    @Don Quixote
    ” Is there no escaping this new age churchianity?” Without the holy spirit. They will remain deceived and would not receive correction.

    Broad is the way to the Hell.

  93. Matt says:

    What was your second thought? Hopefully not something else having to do with murder…
    By definition, judicial execution after conviction of an appropriately serious crime is not murder. While the specific legal code outlined in the Old Testament is not and has never been binding on Christians, it certainly considers false prophecy a capital crime.

    This is a bit of a derail anyway given that these are not crimes in our legal system, but it’s a little ridiculous to harrumph over an unkind statements about false prophets when their prophecy is poisoning the church.

  94. Frank K says:

    As someone who dwells on the other side of the aisle I need to ask: what percentage of Evangelical churches are “churchian”?

  95. freebird says:

    2. 1 pint fresh menstrual blood from a virgin
    Impossible, by the time she’s leaked a pint she’s no longer a virgin.

    The wife’s real husband in this equation is her Career. This Provides the security she craves.
    It would be impossible now to latch her security upon her husband,she knows she is fickle,it is actually more honest of her to act for herself.

    When she marry it is for a house pet,and he had better be trained to sit quiet and tend house while she finds excitement in young Thor next door,forever young!

    I will say cudos to Dalrock for exceeding my wildest expectations on material to be read in the last decade,it just keeps coming and I read all of it.

  96. Jack Russell says:

    Don Quixote says:
    March 5, 2018 at 7:44 pm

    Great discussion and excellent critique.
    I had a look at the reviews on Amazon [Every Man’s Marriage] and I was amazed to see 160 reviews @ 4.5 stars! My immediate thought was that women are writing these reviews, so I looked through the reviews, and as far as I can tell it is loved by both men and women, and from different denominations. Is there no escaping this new age churchianity?

    I know Amazon would remove 1 and 2 star reviews of Hillary’s book. I doubt they are doing it for this book, unless the author is asking Amazon to do so. The modern church will have it harder on judgement day than Hugh Hefner,

  97. Don Quixote says:

    infowarrior1 says:
    March 5, 2018 at 10:33 pm

    Without the holy spirit. They will remain deceived and would not receive correction.
    Broad is the way to the Hell.

    I think it’s going too far to condemn all those that enjoyed that book [Every Man’s Marriage]. I would have been among their ranks years ago, but by God’s grace [and the divorce process] I have realised the folly of my ways.
    I know that most [possibly all?] churches are drowning in feminism these days, but I see that as an opportunity. The truth [re: feminism] is always a good metric to test the mettle of any christian, not to condemn but for enlightenment or correction. If they conclude you are crazy, then rejoice because they called Jesus crazy for telling the truth. If they see their error, then you have opened their eyes, and we cannot un-see the truth.

  98. Don Quixote says:

    Jack Russell says:
    March 5, 2018 at 11:51 pm

    I know Amazon would remove 1 and 2 star reviews of Hillary’s book. I doubt they are doing it for this book, unless the author is asking Amazon to do so. The modern church will have it harder on judgement day than Hugh Hefner,

    I *assume* the reviews on Amazon are genuine, because the same sentiments are common in all the churches. I see the problem is at the top, not necessarily with the average church-goer. It is the average Joe that pays the price when his marriage fails and he was only following the bad advice he got from the church seminar. By the time he stumbles into the truth, the damage is done.

  99. Spike says:

    infowarrior1 says:
    March 5, 2018 at 10:32 pm
    @Boxer
    ” What modern people (not only Christians, but also many Catholics and Jews) are doing is reverting back to a prehistoric, matriarchal mode-of-being. ”

    What’s your reading list for this information? The details of the pre-historic matriarchal society is scarce as far as I can find.

    Infowarrior: Daniel Amneus’ books, available free on the Internet: ”The Garbage Generation” and ”The Case For Father Custody” are thoroughly referenced studies of reversion to matriarchy. They are a bit dated, but a good place to start.

  100. @Anonymous Reader:

    Murder is killing without authority. Executing heretics is a necessary function of any Christian society. The method by which execution is done can be any of the softer methods (direct expulsion from a community normally meant eventual death) or direct. The purpose of such actions is the defense of the community and the Salvation of the heretic.

    There is a split on this topic between the Church and the border community, but in a Christian society, that gets muddled quite a bit. Regardless, heretics have thrown away their own Salvation and will seek to steal Salvation from others, which is why it is always necessary to remove them from the Church. As the second death is far more consequential than the first, it will always be necessary to remove those that wish to “murder” souls.

    Which is to say, “burn your witches”. What “burn” looks like will depend upon your local situation.

    Also, heretics & burning at the stake are strong contrasts of a rhetorical nature, which will normally work better than theological arguments on most people. “He’s a heretic and you’re taking his advice?”.

  101. @thedeti:

    “[A]nd you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” Matthew 10:22 ESV

    One could construct the entire Christian history of the last few hundred years as a massive effort to claim that passage isn’t true.

    As you mentioned, not offending Women is taken as being of higher importance, which compounds all theological errors until you reach insanity.

    @Tiny Tim:

    I can see what the preacher of that sermon was trying to do, but he actually had to reject a chunk of the Bible to try to shore up, from a worldly perspective, another part of the Bible. His intentions are in the right place, but he’s run into the problem that he isn’t willing to go against the World and the prevailing perspectives. Or, at this point, is unable to see that he has the wrong perspective upon which he’s approaching the entire situation.

    He can’t bridge the gap that God made us all wildly different and there was deep intention behind it. The preacher couldn’t get past the world’s indoctrination of the “we’re all equal (but some are more equal than others)”. Credit for attempting to defend the Word, but he needs to understand there is a lot of work to do within himself if he’s going to continue to preach.

  102. infowarrior1 says:

    @Don Quixote

    ”I think it’s going too far to condemn all those that enjoyed that book [Every Man’s Marriage]. I would have been among their ranks years ago, but by God’s grace [and the divorce process] I have realised the folly of my ways.”

    That’s why I added the statement “refuse correction”. People who are lost would not listen and would seem hopelessly blind.

    I see where you are getting at. I used to be like that too. Until my contact with the manosphere through the spear-head,heartiste,dalrock and rooshv.

    I went through MRA phase for some years.

    And my opinion changed from “these verses are sexist” or that I would explain away what is apparent in from of me. Leading to 180 degree turn around

  103. Scott says:

    Frank K–

    Having spent the first 43 years of my life in mainstream, but still a little cooky evangelical church, I think it makes sense to try to define “churchian” first. Its actually not that easy, but there are some common factors.

    1. Churchian refers, in a general sense, to the phenomenon of letting the norms of the surrounding culture influence the doctrines, the activities, the believes and even the life of the church itself. Immediately you can see that there is a sense in which all churches have a churchian component to them. For example, all “legitimate” churches in America are 501c3 corporations and are required to have yearly meetings with the corporate officers, and are tax free entities. When this first started, not many people were predicting that this would (eventually) mean that the state could dictate pretty much anything they want (think same sex marriages as the most striking example) while dangling the tax free carrot in front of them.

    2. Churchains, then are those whose worldview is more influenced by their immediate cultural surroundings then the clear teachings of the Bible (and for us, church tradition and authority). They come across, at least to me, as embarrassed about what Christ and the early church taught, so they force it to fit into their American sensibilities or disregard it altogether. Of course! They want to have friends and not offend them. Again, even Orthodox and Catholics have this feature. We tend to be only slightly more aloof to the culture because the apparatus of unchangeable canon law is in place, and so on. But how many RC/Orthodox do you know in even the most “traditionalist” circles who consider themselves excommunicated if they miss 3 Sundays and feel that they need to confess this sin the next time go back? That is after all what the church fathers taught.

    3. The clergy definitely don’t help. To put it into a confessional context (and using the same example). Miss three Sundays, then go back to church and confess “Fr. I have excommunicated myself by being gone for three Sundays. Please forgive me.” Most priests will balk at this. They SHOULD say, “yes, this is a grievous sin. Your soul is in danger, and you are depraving your children of the real presence. You are right to feel shamed.” And then proceed with the remedy. On the protestant side, it looks different, but it is in essence the same problem. In social psychology, we have a concept called “behavioral drift.” It is the idea that in a group, if just one person behaves in a way that is outside the standard of practice and no one stands up and corrects them, that new (and substandard) behavior BECOMES the new standard by default. It becomes the new way of doing things. This is how churches go from Christian to churchian over time.

    There is more, obviously. But applying just those three broad concepts, it should be obvious that outside of a very narrow window of cooky, outside the mainstream Christians who live in communes, all of us are “churchian” to some extent.

  104. Boxer says:

    What’s your reading list for this information? The details of the pre-historic matriarchal society is scarce as far as I can find.

    Freud wrote all about this. Moses and Monotheism and Civilization and its Discontents talk directly about patriarchy as a well-ordering mechanism. Stanislaw Malinowski’s Sex, Culture, Myth is good, but sorta dry, talks about kinship structures and provides a comparative analysis. On that note, Claude Levi-Strauss’ Models of Kinship is also worthwhile – Malinowski’s book is sociology, and Levi-Strauss is anthropology, but they’re similar in many respects.

    If you’re into light reading, pretty much every novel and story by Jack London talks about fatherhood (or the lack thereof) and its consequences, also.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  105. Opus says:

    I have perused on Amazon Arterburn’s easily-written introduction to Everyman’s Marriage and it is not hard to empathise with his predicament first as a singleton and then as a divorcee. Whether his assessment of his situation and proposed remedies for that are wise is however a different matter. There are one or two clues in the intro to suggest that Arterburn is of the overbearing forceful and dogmatic type yet that is not always a turn-off for women – at least two women have so far decided that they would marry him one of them ditching their then boyfriend to get with Arterburn. These women may not have realised however – as appears to be the case – that frankly, Arterburn is a natural slob. I also notice that it is only when the second wife produces a child that things improve; women seem to need children for marriage to be meaningful which thus damps their hypergamy and suffragette tendencies and prevents them ruminating on their unhappiness.

    Interesting the way Arterburn relegates Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 to deleted-scenes. Don’t see how you can do that and still claim to be a Christian.

  106. Boxer says:

    If they conclude you are crazy, then rejoice because they called Jesus crazy for telling the truth. If they see their error, then you have opened their eyes, and we cannot un-see the truth.

    That’s correct. When your feminist priest gets up and distorts the words of your prophets and heroes, they are spitting on Christ. Don’t you ever forget this, either.

  107. BillyS says:

    Opus,

    I would definitely be called overbearing and I do tend toward the slob end at times. I am not sure those things are unique at all to the author. The proclaimed solution he makes is the problem, especially since it goes against the very word he claims to support.

    Scott,

    I your example of missing church would be a hard one for many of us to accept since it has no Scriptural basis. I don’t believe missing a man-made service violates any Biblical standard. It may well be a sin for you, since you believe it is a sin, but using it as an example of the lack of piety would be rough if applied beyond the Orthodox or those in the RCC.

    I don’t think you are really attempting to apply that to those not in the Orthodox Church, but I note it because it shows the radically different mindset of the range of those who follow Christ.

    I would argue that it is more an inward belief system than an outward set of acts however. The flaw with the feminists in churches is not the outward actions, but the core inward beliefs. It is those who are willing to oppose God’s word when their feels counteract its clear guidance.

    Being willing to accept a woman divorcing from a husband completely violates

    [1Co 7:10 NKJV] 10 Now to the married I command, [yet] not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from [her] husband.

    They have already abandoned a core principle of their faith and a key Biblical point. I could go on and look at the following verses for the excuses some use, but even those don’t negate the point that a wife should not depart for all the reasons given by many today.

    They do not hold to the Word they claim to follow. They are no longer Sola Scriptura, but Sola Feelz.

  108. Scott says:

    Right. I believe Frank K is RC, so I was trying to provide a description of what the analog to “churchian” might look like for confessional faiths, lest we be tempted to believe it is exclusively a Protestant problem.

  109. Scott says:

    Also It’s been a bit since I heard a Protestant sermon in the topic but I do recall that the basic consensus of reformed theology is that, (using Bible verses!) “forsaking the assembly” means “missing church at the time appointed by the church leadership”

  110. Scott says:

    And so for red-pill Christians the salient point is, since I HAVE to go to church, and all the churches are luke warm watered down versions of it, how do I obey this clear requirement without going to a “churchian” church?

    And this is true no matter what faith tradition you are from?

  111. OKRickety says:

    Scott,

    You said: “I believe Frank K is RC, so I was trying to provide a description of what the analog to “churchian” might look like for confessional faiths, lest we be tempted to believe it is exclusively a Protestant problem.

    Thank you for recognizing and pointing out that concept, that is, believing something is “exclusively a Protestant problem”. It seems to rear its head here regularly.

  112. OKRickety says:

    “… not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” [Heb. 10:25 NASB]

    While I think it is a stretch to say missing a worship service is a sin, the above scripture certainly considers assembling together to be beneficial to the body.

  113. Joe says:

    OK. So we’ve heard about many Christian books that are not good.
    Can anyone recommend a book that IS good? There must be some.

  114. Bee says:

    Tiny Tim,

    ““Women are equal to men in personhood, in value, in intelligence, in ability, in potential, and in salvation…but they are different in ROLE.””

    Based on 1 Corinthians 11:7 – 9; I disagree that women are equal in personhood. Women are not the glory of God but men are the glory of God!!

  115. Oscar says:

    @ Joe

    The Bible has a whole bunch of them.

  116. Pingback: That the word of God be not blasphemed | Dalrock

  117. feeriker says:

    It’s also abuse per the feminists.

    No, it’s only “abuse” when men do it to women. Nothing that women do to men is everabusive.

  118. feeriker says:

    @ Joe

    The Bible has a whole bunch of them.

    Heartily seconded. In fact, the root of the problem is that that no one ever bothers to read these original books anymore. They prefer instead to read shallow, errant, ego-inflating garbage like this spew from Arterburn and Stoeker. Anyone who has ever participated in even one single Protestant church “Bible study” can confirm this to be true.

  119. JB Harshaw says:

    @Scott

    The language you use here is VERY revealing of a whole host of fundamental misunderstandings of scripture, and even of what the “church” is, to wit, you stated:

    >And so for red-pill Christians the salient point is, since I HAVE to go to church, and all the churches are luke warm watered down versions of it, how do I obey this clear requirement without going to a “churchian” church? <

    HAVE "to go to" church??? The church (ekklesia) is NOT a building, it is NOT an "event" (so called "service") the "church" is the body of (true) believers, actual followers of Christ. How do you "go to" something you are supposed to be an integral part of?

    Alas, you've been fed a whole host of false teachings, so many and for so long that — like most "churchians" ("go to building" and passively "attend event/service" creatures, overseen not by a true "shepherd" despite the name but by a "hired hand" who — rather than caring for the sheep, MILKS them of filthy lucre) you have no concept of what the TRUE teaching of Christ was about.

    Not the LEAST of the false teachings is the complete (and total) MISinterpretation — nay GROSS perversion — of the "assembling together" verses.

  120. BillyS says:

    Scott,

    Also It’s been a bit since I heard a Protestant sermon in the topic but I do recall that the basic consensus of reformed theology is that, (using Bible verses!) “forsaking the assembly” means “missing church at the time appointed by the church leadership”

    It is certainly widely taught that way, by many who are in error. Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians who were shrinking back from Christian connections due to Jewish pressure. The entire point of the epistle was that they should not do that. It was not that they must make a key church meeting time, however much some twist it to cover that fact.

    Preaching that also fails the principle of needing 2 or 3 witnesses (in the Scriptures) for all doctrine. That is the only verse I have heard in that context, and it has been pulled out of its context as I noted above.

  121. OKRickety says:

    BillyS,

    You said: “Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians who were shrinking back from Christian connections due to Jewish pressure.”

    If they were “forsaking the assembly” because of Jewish pressure, I would think the same principle, regardless of the source of the “pressure”, would apply to Christians today.

    You said: “Preaching that also fails the principle of needing 2 or 3 witnesses (in the Scriptures) for all doctrine.”

    Are you saying that a given point in a sermon is only valid if there at least 2 supporting scripture references?

  122. Joe says:

    You guys are right in your repose to “are there any good books” that “the Bible is full of them”.
    100% correct. Last time I read a book on Marriage was before I got married. It was “The Romance Factor”. I recall nothing about the book, but I’m willing to bet it’s full of women pleasing tips and keeping her feelz all feel’n.
    Now I need to check…

  123. Joe says:

    OK… here’s a topic for a post…
    I hear all the time how the Bible says that we are to submit to our wives. This in reference to Ephesians 21 “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God”.

    What is the best way to counter that argument? It’s clear to me that this was not in reference to the husband and wife relationship, since the next verse is:

    22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
    23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
    24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

  124. Scott says:

    Well of course, again, the context of my comment was Frank Ks question about the term “churchian.”

    Churchian is shorthand for [ambient culture > Christian faith and life].

    And it can come in many forms.

    The current culture is permissive, subjective, feminist. Guarding any one particular faith tradition from its excesses takes vigilance and understanding the weaknesses of your own particular practice.

  125. Scott says:

    Joe you answered your own question.

    The Eph 5 “mutual submission” argument is caused by an easily refutable contextual error.

    Namely, that 21 is not a pre-refutation if everything that follows (that would be stupid) but is the end of the previous segment.

  126. Gary Eden says:

    “Churchian is shorthand for [ambient culture > Christian faith and life].”

    This is good and in truth affects all Christian sects. But it goes deeper than that. Churchianity puts emphasis on the church and tradition over Christ and the scriptures; even to the point of replacement.

    Commonly you’ll see membership in a human organization (sect) conflated with salvation. Some even have gone as far as requiring blasphemy of Christ to stay a member. Human organizations and kingdoms over Holy Spirit raised and led lay workers. Emphasis on church planting over soul winning. These are some common outgrowths of this emphasis.

    On the scripture side, you’ll commonly see human tradition used to contradict clear scripture. Or church leadership being the final arbiter of what scripture means. Or people defining their righteousness and/or salvation via assent to church tradition.

    Some have even one as far as claiming the Holy Spirit no longer works on us but that role has been replaced by the text of scripture. All the worse in truth they only hold to their unwritten traditional understanding of the scriptures; heavily influenced by the world’s deadly philosophies. Ever always the role of the Holy Spirit in individual lives and the church is held in subjugation to human tradition and church hierarchy; with the sole example of a few sects completely unhinged from scripture and pulled to and fro by demons.

  127. BillyS says:

    OKR,

    If they were “forsaking the assembly” because of Jewish pressure, I would think the same principle, regardless of the source of the “pressure”, would apply to Christians today.

    They were avoiding any contact, not specific services. That is very different. The “Sunday morning Sabbath service” (not accurate, but many fell for that) came much letter. I see nothing in Hebrews indicating a specific service time that must not be avoided, especially when the command is taken in the context of the rest of what Hebrews covers. (That the NT is superior to the OT, though they weren’t called that at the time.)

    Are you saying that a given point in a sermon is only valid if there at least 2 supporting scripture references?

    Yes, 2 or 3 Scriptures are required to build a doctrine. It is fine to pull a principle from any single Scripture, but it cannot rise to the level of commandment/doctrine with less.

    Otherwise I could invent a doctrine on “Judas went and hanged himself” along with “go though and do likewise” that would put people in a false bondage, to take it to the extreme.

    Joe,

    What is the best way to counter that argument? It’s clear to me that this was not in reference to the husband and wife relationship, since the next verse is:

    Exactly. The mutual submission verse is in the context of the church, clearly seen if you read a few verses before instead of just trying to negate a command for wives to submit. Of course they never talk about a wife submitting, even with their claim of mutual submission. That shows they do not believe in mutual submission at all, they just use it to undermine a clear Biblical command.

    Gary,

    Some have even one as far as claiming the Holy Spirit no longer works on us but that role has been replaced by the text of scripture.

    True, but you will (unfortunately) find those on both sides of that issue that fall for modern feminist claptrap like that noted in the OP.

  128. Gunner Q says:

    Joe @ 12:52 pm:
    “What is the best way to counter that argument? It’s clear to me that this was not in reference to the husband and wife relationship, since the next verse is:”

    Quoting the context is as solid a tactic as you can get, doctrinally. Most Scriptural heresies are based upon ignoring context. The only way to go better is ad hominem. “Pastor, I want to teach from the pulpit one Sunday a month instead of you. You will submit to my request. Didn’t you just say we should submit to each other? Oh, so not everybody is supposed to submit the same way.”

    If you don’t make it personal then the feminized will lie to themselves as eagerly as you. Their reasoning is subordinate to their emotional state.

  129. Pingback: The thought of holding hands with him made her sick, but fortunately he convinced her to marry him. | Dalrock

  130. Nitpic says:

    “Brenda Hulett stepped into our row, and I stood up to shake her hand. As our eyes met, my heavenly Father seemed to lean down and whisper, This is the girl you’re going to marry. ”
    Isn´t this why they call the devil the deciever? Voice imitation at its best.

  131. Luke says:

    I am much reminded of this classic quote:

    The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried. — G. K. Chesterton

  132. Pingback: Some Christian conservatives bow down for feminists

  133. Joseph V. Barruso says:

    “The truly disturbing part of this is not that two Christian men were so terrified of rejection from their wives that they created this new religion, but that this crackpot theology would be enthusiastically accepted by the Christian book buying public.” – AMEN! If we understand women are symbolic of our lust for the flesh this all makes perfect sense. Progressively humanity moves deeper into it’s flesh and away from it’s spiritual half. And men take the lead in this as they fail to obey Jesus by speaking truth to women and women refuse to submit as obedience. So together man and woman continue to follow Adam and Eve as they fall deeper into sin. BTW – great and important blog!

  134. Anonymous Reader says:

    Having a little free time on a Saturday I choose to return to this little mouse tunnel: the notion of murdering people over theological differences. Now, you two could be trolling for flames and I’ve just bit hard on the bait. But it could be that you’re serious.

    Let’s be serious, then.

    First up:
    Matt
    By definition, judicial execution after conviction of an appropriately serious crime is not murder.

    Looking Glass
    @Anonymous Reader:

    Murder is killing without authority.

    Revolutionaries and tyrants have often insisted on their authority, their “trial”, etc. as legitimate. From the French Directory to the murderous Leninist / Stalinists to Pol Pot in Cambodia to the Islamic Republic of Iran to Daesh/Isis burning men alive in cages, all these and more insisted they had legitimate authority. You choose to join that company of your own free will?

    Executing heretics is a necessary function of any Christian society.

    Your ignorance of centuries of history is astounding.

    The method by which execution is done can be any of the softer methods (direct expulsion from a community normally meant eventual death) or direct. The purpose of such actions is the defense of the community and the Salvation of the heretic.

    Lenin would largely agree. So would Pol Pot and the mullahs in Tehran. Some of their “courts” and “judges” obtained 99% conviction rates, such that accusation == conviction == death.

    There is a split on this topic between the Church and the border community,

    What do you mean by “border community”?

    but in a Christian society, that gets muddled quite a bit. Regardless, heretics have thrown away their own Salvation and will seek to steal Salvation from others, which is why it is always necessary to remove them from the Church. As the second death is far more consequential than the first, it will always be necessary to remove those that wish to “murder” souls.

    How does this work, then? Let’s say that we’re in an average church where the sermon, or the homily, is the usual “One X Chromosome Bad, Two X Chromosomses Good” and at the conclusion there is feverish applause that goes on and on. Old man Smith gets tired and is the first to stop clapping. Well, right there we have disrespect for your god’s appointed representative, so that’s clearly an attempt to “murder” the souls of everyone around him. You two will then take him out into the foyer for a quick “trial” with a buddy or two, then out to the parking lot to be tied to a pole, doused with gasoline and set on fire, right?

    Or maybe one of the children comes to you and says “Daddy’s been talking in his sleep! He says things like ‘Down with Jesus!”, naturally you’ll take that father and imprison him while investigating the no-doubt true story told by his child, before burning the father in the parking lot, right?

    Or will you content yourselves on a first offense with making these men wear pointed hats with an iron collar round their necks while they bend over in the sun for a few hours, allowing all the youth to denounce them in a ritualistic fashion, before sending said men off to work for a few years on a pig farm in the Utah desert or lower Alaska?

    Which is to say, “burn your witches”. What “burn” looks like will depend upon your local situation.

    In my local situation, we would call that “attempting to cause grave bodily harm or death”, and it can be met with any amount of force up to and including lethal force. Not just by the target of your lynching, but by anyone in the vicinity.

    You two might look up Barna’s polling data on US religion before deciding to start your little jihad. Just to see how big your army is likely to be. The communists in the SDS wanted to kill between 10 million and 20 million Americans in order to impose their rule, but that’s so 60’s. You two want to murder what, at least 40% of the population as “heretics”? Maybe more? Maybe everyone except for your own, badass, selves?

    Which one of you is Sancho?

    Also, heretics & burning at the stake are strong contrasts of a rhetorical nature, which will normally work better than theological arguments on most people. “He’s a heretic and you’re taking his advice?”.

    The name for that is “terrorism”. Tyrants across time have used it.

    Again, you two may be trolling, and if so then congrats on getting me to bite. If you are serious then you’re a couple of cranks along the lines of Gary North’s little cult who were all ready to impose their theocracy on the post-Y2K ruins of civilization. My suggestion to you is the same as it was to them: If your fantasy ever comes true and you wind up in a culture where burning people alive is accepted as a way to settle theological disputes, you better invest in a full set of Nomex including undergarments.

    Because everyone’s a heretic to someone.

    Now, to return specifically to
    Looking Glass who wrote:
    It’s no wonder the churches are a disaster. Popular, important people aren’t Christian, though it’s been this way for a rather long time at this point.

    Previously I asked a question that you seem to have not gotten around to answering. Could you do so now?

    Here is it:
    I’m not a scholar of the Bible. Could you please point out the parts of the New Testament that mention popular, important people? Thanks.

    Well?

  135. Matt says:

    As a child of divorce I know that terror of female rejection well. I’m glad I did not marry earlier in life because I would have dealt with the same fears. When I did date I was often in that exact kind of panic when females would take to manipulation or resistance or shaming. It took me a long while in a lot of study to overcome these fears with women. The solution is to know who you are as a son of God.

  136. Pingback: Blinded by chivalry. | Dalrock

  137. Pingback: Do you smell that? | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.