The wages of miserliness.

Ross Douthat wrote an opinion piece for Easter in the New York Times titled: God and Men and Jordan Peterson.  Douthat is concerned that young men are turning away from Christianity, and that men like Jordan Peterson are filling the void.  Douthat wonders why this could be the case, even though he inadvertently answers this question in the opening of his piece:

The men fled; the women stayed.

That’s the story of Easter weekend in the New Testament. Most of Jesus’ male disciples vanished when the trouble started, leaving his mother and Mary Magdalene and other women to watch by the cross, prepare his body for his burial, and then (with the men still basically in hiding) find the empty tomb.

Male absence and female energy has also been the story, albeit less starkly and dramatically, of Christian practice in many times and places since.

There are two glaring problems with this opening.  The first and most serious is Douthat succumbing to the temptation of our age, and trying to find a way to make Christ’s death and resurrection a story of female supremacy, if not feminist triumph.  The second problem is that his characterization contradicts the Gospels.  In John 19:38-42 we learn that it was two men who took Christ’s body off the cross, prepared it for burial, and placed it in the tomb (NIV):

38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[e] 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

In Mark 15:43 we learn that Joseph of Arimathea boldly asked for Jesus’ body (NIV):

43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.

In two of the accounts of Christ’s burial (Mat 27:61 & Mark 15:47) we learn that two women witnessed Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus burying Christ’s body.  But this isn’t what Douthat claims.  Douthat claims that the men disappeared, leaving the work of the burial to women.

But perhaps Douthat is referring to the third day, when Jesus was resurrected.  Luke 24:1-8 tells us that on the third day a group of women brought more spices to prepare Christ’s body, but when they arrived His body was gone (NIV):

24 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words.

I want to reiterate that our posture here shouldn’t be to see which sex was the “winner” with respect to caring for Christ’s body.  This is Douthat’s gravest error.  But since in the process he contradicted the Gospel accounts, it is important to correct the record.  It isn’t clear why the women were bringing yet more spices on the third day.  Perhaps in the confusion they weren’t aware of all that the men had already done.  Perhaps they simply wanted to honor their Lord by bringing more.  But either way, note that they are given a mild rebuke from the angels for seeking Christ’s body in the tomb on the third day.  Showing up on the third day expecting to see Jesus’ body wasn’t an act of superior faith.  It was a demonstration of the very lack of faith all of Christ’s disciples appear to have demonstrated at that moment.

But to Douthat this is a moment to spike the feminist football, and by implication ask why other men are so inferior to him.  More importantly, Douthat isn’t alone in this regard.  Nearly all Christian leaders follow this same pattern.  It is this miserliness of respect for other men that has created the void that Peterson is filling.  Note that Peterson isn’t telling young men they are great as they are, just let it all hang out.  Peterson is telling young men they need to man up.  But Peterson’s man up message is fundamentally different than the modern Christian man up message.  Peterson’s message doesn’t celebrate the feminist triumph that is afflicting young men.  Peterson offers both love and the possibility of respect for men who work to improve themselves.  This is profoundly different than the modern Christian message, the very message that Douthat chose to stress as the message of Christ’s resurrection.  If Douthat can’t bring himself to respect the legendary boldness of Joseph of Arimathea and the generosity of Nicodemus, he surely can’t be bothered to acknowledge when a young man starts Peterson’s process by cleaning his room, or even respect a young man who mans up and marries despite a legal system and culture fully hostile to married fathers.

H/T natewinchester

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Disrespecting Respectability, Jordan Peterson, Miserliness, New York Times, Ross Douthat, The only real man in the room. Bookmark the permalink.

123 Responses to The wages of miserliness.

  1. Emperor Constantine says:

    My response on Twitter several days ago:

    That quote is incorrect, but in a highly revealing way. Men who stayed included, fittingly, the disciple whom Jesus loved (so Dalrock it’s important to remember men *were* at the foot of the cross as Christ endured His agony); Simon (who carried Christ’s cross); and Joseph (who claimed Christ’s body). Western Christianity is now mostly heretical, subsumed to a feminism that demands Eve be worshiped as a kind of faultless Goddess, precisely the message of your inaccurate quote. Any mistakes she makes are men’s fault. Her feelings/emotions/demands are always good; Scripture, Catholic Church teaching, and common sense irrelevant. Heresy.

  2. Pingback: The wages of miserliness. | @the_arv

  3. seventiesjason says:

    Peterson has helped me deal with a few things. He can speak to men like me who were not endowed with 150 IQ or whatever…..and at the same time gives concrete applications of what you can do. It doesn’t involve learning to speak Hebrew or Greek. It doesn’t involve using big and fancy words and impossible “educationalese” concepts.

    He doesn’t say “there there, you poor men” he actually talks in way that he would like to be treated and has sparked again in me a classic “liberal arts education” that is learning for learnings sake. Something I had grown cycnical of despite myself having one.

    He just knows how to inspire

  4. Scott says:

    I am not famous psychologist. But I would like to echo Jordan Petersons basic message.

    Men, you can do this. The entire society including the culture, the media, the pundits and most sadly the clergy will not stop calling you immature man-boys abandoning your children and playing video games in your parents basement. Get used to that part. The more you fight, the louder they will get.

    You can restore a rational and functioning civilization because you have the power within yourselves to do it, one family at a time.

  5. White Guy says:

    Preach it Scott!

  6. moscanarius says:

    TLDR:

    Peterson: “I find you lacking, but I know you can improve; start here and here, for the reasons I will state. Your life will be better.”

    Preacher: “I find you lacking, sinner, and always will so, because yes. Your life should be only about working for others with no guarantee of reward or sympathy; I am here to pressure you to comply to your thankless duty.”

    Also Preacher: “What do the younglings see in this Peterson guy?”

  7. Cane Caldo says:

    The first and most serious is Douthat succumbing to the temptation of our age, and trying to find a way to make Christ’s death and resurrection a story of female supremacy, if not feminist triumph. The second problem is that his characterization contradicts the Gospels.

    Douthat’s expression is utterly common. I heard all my life that the men fled Jesus at His time of suffering, while the women gathered around and tried to be useful. Their main source is, as best I can tell, this passage from John 19:

    25 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

    The fact that John reports Jesus’s mother, His aunt, and Mary Magdalene are with John close to the cross is supposed to be evidence that women are naturally courageous Christians and men are naturally cowardly Christians; John being there only to witness the women’s greatness.

    Douthat is a Roman Catholic, and I have found that a lot of RCs like to emphasize this moment as seminal to the foundation of the Church. I don’t know what the dogma says.

  8. Bee says:

    I appreciate that Peterson values and honors the key place the Bible has in creating and supporting Western Civilization. I am partly done going through his 15 part series on the importance of early Bible stories in Genesis. Although he is not a Christian, I have learned a lot from his lectures.

    He is a good resource as an educator, instructor.

  9. Gordo says:

    Peterson is a small antidote to a big dose of poison. He does more good than harm. That is why the establishment attack him.

  10. thedeti says:

    One of the things modern Christians especially pastors offer to show the supposed “greater faith” the women at the Tomb had was that it was preordained the women would be the first to find Jesus was gone. And that the women were the first to discover that He had been risen as the angels said. But the Gospel of John shows the women’s lack of faith as well as Luke did.

    When Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna found the empty tomb, they “wondered” about what had happened:

    2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.

    The women didn’t have any more faith than any of the men did. The women were just as befuddled about why Jesus’ body wasn’t where it was three days prior, despite the fact that Jesus
    Himself told them what was going to happen.

    Mary Magdalene didn’t believe it either. John 20:11-18:

    Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. 13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

    She was fully expecting Jesus’ body to be there, exhibiting her lack of faith that what Jesus had foretold about His own death was true. What’s more, in the very next verse she’s looking RIGHT AT Jesus, and she STILL doesn’t believe it’s Him.

    Going on:

    15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”). 17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

    Mary Magdalene didn’t believe He had risen until He showed himself to her. She and the other women had no more faith than any of the Apostles did.

  11. Paul says:

    During the Passover church service a thought crossed my mind regarding Mary of Magdala. Mary, of whom Jesus had cast several evil spirits, was the first to witness the risen Lord, in a garden, and gave faithfull withness of the resurrection to all the disciples (men and women) as instructed by the risen Christ. Hence she faithfully obeyed and gave testimony on the key event in salvation history. She thus became a counter-type to Eve, who was in the garden deceived by the serpent to spread a lie that led to death, to faithfully listen to the Lord in the garden and give witness of the life-bringing message of God Himself to all disciples. You could say she is a type for redeemed women, similarly to how Christ was the second Adam. Often Mary mother of Jesus is presented as second Eve with respect to the birth of Christ, but Mary of Magdala can also be seen as type.

  12. The Question says:

    “The first and most serious is Douthat succumbing to the temptation of our age, and trying to find a way to make Christ’s death and resurrection a story of female supremacy, if not feminist triumph.”

    You might forgive Douthat for mistaking the horrific death of an innocent man after a farce of a trial by people and institutions that hate him as a feminist triumph story.

  13. The Question says:

    “The men fled; the women stayed.

    That’s the story of Easter weekend in the New Testament.”

    Nevermind the Son of God hanging on the cross to die a terrible death after living a sinless life in order to atone for the sins of the faithful and make reconciliation with God possible. That’s just a side bit worthy of a passing mention.

    What’s “really” important apparently is that there were women there to witness it.

    Young men aren’t fleeing Christianity; they’re fleeing heresy preached by institutions that despise them.

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    I am not qualified to discuss the theological / Bible quote aspects of Dalrock’s reply to Ross Douthat, and let me say up front that I’ve never found Douthat to be anything other than a very shallow and emotional man who doesn’t think at all. Now on to the more interesting issue: Jordan Peterson.

    Peterson has become popular among men, especially those under 30, for a simple and obvious reason: he doesn’t talk down to them, he isn’t filled with contempt for them, he wants to help them in an adult-to-adult fashion rather than endlessly berate them like a caricature of a boot camp Drill Instructor. Ironically, Jordan Peterson is closer to the “1950’s father figure” than any traditional-conservative preacher or pundit that I have ever read. It is an aspect of the feminization of culture that anyone should be surprised at Peterson’s popularity on YouTube, TV, etc. because he’s just acting as most adult, responsible men with a leadership role used to. He’s the mentor that young men never had in K – 12 schooling, or university, or in any church setting. He’s the deeply knowledgeable, well read man that every institution used to have, especially churches.

    Women are notable for their ability to put men in no-win situations; it’s part of the red pill, of putting on the Glasses to notice this as just another fitness test, rather than a hoop to be jumped through on command. We now see society-wide no-win conditions for men, and those who claim to be “traditional” and “conservative” are among the very worst enforcers, as has been extensively documented in the androsphere. Peterson doesn’t put young men into no-win situations, he explains how they can better themselves. Just as men used to do for other men, back in the halcyon 1950’s.

    On the now-gone Spearhead website, Zed observed more than once that while society previously took a “carrot and stick” approach to men, now it’s just “GImme TWO STICKS!”. Pundits and preachers have largely bought into this feminine approach. Peterson doesn’t do that. That’s a big reason why young men are paying attention to him, rather than the How Dare You! preachers.

    tl;dr
    Pastors, opinionists, pundits, preachers, etc. who are asking themselves “Why are those young guys paying attention to Peterson?” should find the nearest mirror and look into it. There’s a clue to be found.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    seventiesjason
    He doesn’t say “there there, you poor men” he actually talks in way that he would like to be treated

    Exactly. These tradcon preachers and pundits love to dish it out, but they can’t take it.

  16. Bee says:

    OT

    Marriage unity results when the wife surrenders to her husband:

    https://www.henrymakow.com/theres_a_place_for_possession.html

  17. SnapperTrx says:

    I’m no psychologist at all, but even I understand that men aren’t going to do ANYTHING to improve their situation or the situations around them if their only drive comes from being insulted. Peterson is doing something no one else in the mainstream media is doing, and neither is the church: Encouraging men to be better rather than trying to shame them into being better. The church will continue to see men leave in droves so long as they use shaming as their only tactic to “build better men”. In the meantime men will flock toward secular sources like Peterson and the manosphere, leaving the church to suffer. Hopefully some will find a Christian/mansosphere hybrid source and not just the straight secular ones.

  18. sipcode says:

    Men instinctively have known [usually subconsciously] that the church is a sham, an effeminate manipulation of power. The church as we have known it for 500 years is going away. Sure, the buildings will remain there, and there will be people in them, but they will not be the church of Christ. The full-time paid pastor and author of 40 books, “whose damnation slumbereth not”, is coming to an end

    The church is becoming individual men, hungry for the Word of God and determining it for themselves by communicating directly with God, leading their own house, and interacting with other like men, as iron sharpens iron — as here on dalrock.com — in relatively small groups, as the REAL church is forced more and more underground in the coming persecution.

  19. Gary Eden says:

    Peterson is an intellectual preaching responsibility; he did not expect the popularity of this message. He intellectually knows why it has become popular; but he is still surprised by it.

    But I can see why. Jordan Peterson has love. He has gotten broke up in public several times over the plight of young men. This is something no tradcon nor feminist would ever do. He sees their pain and it hurts him too. As it should. The Christians should take note about what Paul says about love and what this difference in approach says about themselves!

    So I appreciate the props you give Peterson. He has also helped me better understand myself and agree with much of what he says.

    But I’m not as sure about his proscriptions and would like to hear a thoughtful critique of him from you. As you hint, his core message isn’t different than what we criticism of others (man up, marry the sluts, and load yourself up with burdens for societies sake); he just delivers it with love and promise of respect.

    But I don’t want to just hear what is wrong with it, I want to hear how that message could be fixed. However we may criticize Peterson, he does offer solutions to our present malaise; something thats been lacking around here. It is all well and good to criticize, but how do we fix our mess?

  20. Damn Crackers says:

    Peterson may be more responsible for bringing more men to the faith than any “Churchianity” leader out there.

    I have spoken to many agnostics/atheists who are now interested in the Bible specifically because they heard Peterson’s lectures on Genesis/the Gospels.

    You just have to know that Peterson is really just parroting a lot of Jungian archetypal psychology, not that there is anything wrong with that interpretation.

    As for Douthat, when are these feminists/white knights going to bring the Gnostic apocrypha into the NT, such as the Gospel of Thomas or Gospel of Mary?

    Gospel of Mary, Chapter 5

    1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

    2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

    3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

    4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.

    5) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman.

    6) Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.

    7) Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.

    8) And she began to speak to them these words: I, she said, I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to Him, Lord I saw you today in a vision. He answered and said to me,

    9) Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of Me. For where the mind is there is the treasure.

    10) I said to Him, Lord, how does he who sees the vision see it, through the soul or through the spirit?

    11) The Savior answered and said, He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind that is between the two that is what sees the vision and it is […]

  21. squid_hunt says:

    @The Question

    Young men aren’t fleeing Christianity; they’re fleeing heresy preached by institutions that despise them.

    I just took over a young boys Sunday School class (5th-6th grade). They gave me the curriculum, but told me the previous guy didn’t really stick to it and it wasn’t a big deal if I didn’t stick to it.

    I was going to try to atleast use the framework of it, but as soon as I got into the material it was 1. Be nice. 2. Be nice. 3. Be super nice, cause people are special. 4. Be nice to brown people. 5. Be nice.

    I sat there for about five minutes scratching my head wondering what I was going to do with that. It about made me want to puke. It was ridiculous and pointless. Then I saw the picture of the young boy in the apron making cupcakes. (I kid you not.) That pretty much did it for me. (And in case you had any questions, they had his name stencilled on the apron so there was no mistaken assumption that it was a girl.)

    So I tossed it and went to teaching them straight out of the Bible. They’re eating it up. I’m not sure exactly where I want to go with it, yet, but we’re going through Acts right now and having a blast, learning Bible history AND doctrine.

  22. Gary Eden says:

    Something else important to notice about Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus: they were members of the Sanhedrin. That is why they had the ability to get Jesus’s body. Not just anyone could waltz up to Pilot and make demands!

    But the fact they were rich and powerful men does not minimize what they did. To the contrary, they bore great personal risk to take those actions and had far more to loose than so many jobless fisherman. It would have been easy to remain secret and silent but they had the ability to meet the need and heeded the call!

  23. Pingback: Typical Boomer Ingratitude – v5k2c2.com

  24. Questa Nota says:

    Peterson’s Man Up can be generalized to Person Up.
    Life is a gift and if you acknowledge that and live your life accordingly then you and those around you benefit.
    Do not succumb to the simplistic Douthats and false apologists of the world.

  25. Boxer says:

    Mary, of whom Jesus had cast several evil spirits, was the first to witness the risen Lord, in a garden, and gave faithfull withness of the resurrection to all the disciples (men and women) as instructed by the risen Christ. Hence she faithfully obeyed and gave testimony on the key event in salvation history. She thus became a counter-type to Eve, who was in the garden deceived by the serpent to spread a lie that led to death, to faithfully listen to the Lord in the garden and give witness of the life-bringing message of God Himself to all disciples. You could say she is a type for redeemed women, similarly to how Christ was the second Adam. Often Mary mother of Jesus is presented as second Eve with respect to the birth of Christ, but Mary of Magdala can also be seen as type.

    Nothing to add but thanks. This is a compelling and interesting interpretation.

  26. Isaac Jordan says:

    Dalrock,

    Long-time (5+ year) reader, first time commenting. Thank you for all that you do; this blog is an oasis in the desert of insanity that is our culture.

    I’m glad to see you mention Jordan Peterson. Having watched nearly everything he’s put out (his Maps of Meaning and Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories lectures in particular), I find it fascinating how he’s able to so parsimoniously connect science (particularly evolutionary theory) and religion. He’s able to illustrate concepts that many believers act out every day, but have difficulty explaining (because these ideas are so incredibly powerful and complex they are often easier to embody than elucidate, like children who can call out cheating during a game but don’t know a lick of game theory/behavioral economics).

    One of these concepts (the existence of biological dominance/competence hierarchies) might help explain the “vagina worship” phenomenon you and other manosphere writers have been covering for some time now.

    In most animal species, from lowly lobsters all the way up to human beings, the males compete among themselves to form hierarchies, and the females then select mates from the top (hypergamy). This not only solves the problem of how to divide a limited amount of territory/resources among a population, but it also ensures that only the best genes make it into the next generation.

    (Some evolutionary biologists speculate that this process of sexual selection is how modern humans evolved from our primate ancestors. Chimps, for example, are our closest biological relatives, but their females are indiscriminate maters. It’s only through brute force and intimidation that the alpha chimps are able to scare off competition and monopolize mating opportunities – the females themselves will mate with any male they come across while in estrus.

    Human women, on the other hand, are obviously VERY picky. It’s quite possible – probable, even – that at some point in our evolutionary history, females began sexually selecting for (among other things) competence and intelligence, and the positive feedback loop of selecting for these traits enabled the human mind to grow into the large, powerful machine it is today.)

    Being selected by a woman is thus an indicator of where a male ranks in the hierarchy, while being rejected is a confirmation of low status. The more attractive a woman, the more sincere her attraction to a man, the more confirmation he receives that he is indeed closer to the top of the hierarchy than the bottom.

    Peterson argues in his Biblical Lectures that much of Judeo-Christian morality evolved as a way of structuring these societal hierarchies. Who should be at the top? Who should lead? What kind of man should be king/emperor/commander, and how will we know whether he is worthy?

    Over thousands of years of trial and error, of civilizational rise and collapse, humans came to realize there exists a set of moral ideas, such that he who embodied them would rise to the top of the hierarchy: He who speaks the Truth, who confronts Chaos and makes Order of it, who accepts the inevitable suffering of life yet bears the burden meaningfully, who willingly dies in order to rise again a better man; this (among other Biblical teachings) is the blueprint for those who would succeed in this world.

    I don’t imagine many readers here would disagree with that: live a Biblical life, do your best to walk with God and embody the ideals Christ put forth, and more often than not you’ll find yourself headed towards Heaven and away from Hell. Women will want you and men will want to be you.

    Given this reality, I can’t help but see a connection between women’s sexual selection of “worthy” men and the Churchian insistence on the purifying virtue of female attraction. Validation via vagina is literally built into men’s DNA, and the religious substructure of our society provides a pathway by which men can successfully climb the hierarchy, in a way that benefits not just themselves but also everyone else (and not just today, but tomorrow and the next).

    The problem, though, is that Churchian men seem to confuse climbing to the top of the hierarchy (by following the rules laid out by Christ and other godly men in the Bible), with being RECOGNIZED as being at/towards the top due to women’s sexual approval. It’s like the difference between virtue itself and mere virtue signalling.

    These men confuse cause and effect. You don’t become a worthy man by making your wife attracted to you; you become a worthy man and THEN your wife will be attracted.

    Perhaps it’s simply men being lazy: it’s certainly easier to “prove” yourself a good man by pointing at your wife’s wet panties rather than actually committing to the work and sacrifice required to live a virtuous life. Combine this with a decentralized Protestant church market where followers are willing to shop around until they find someone to tell them what they want to hear (pretty lies over ugly truth), as well as a feminist whitewashing of theological teachings where women are pure and virtuous and sinful men need to “man up” to earn their approval, and you have all the pieces necessary for a very ugly, unfortunate puzzle.

  27. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Showing up on the third day expecting to see Jesus’ body wasn’t an act of superior faith. It was a demonstration of the very lack of faith all of Christ’s disciples appear to have demonstrated at that moment.

    Good job on catching this. I’ve heard a lot of so-called “Christian feminists” point to this story as if it were some sort of proof for women having greater faith than Christ’s own disciples, and I never entirely understood why. It doesn’t take too much faith to believe in a miracle you’ve already seen before anyone else even knew it had happened. To be fair, this is a double standard that’s often applied to others in the resurrection story too. One apostle became famously known as “Doubting Thomas” after Christ admonished him by saying “Blessed is he who has not seen and yet believes.” But that also overlooks that none of Jesus’ other followers believed He was alive until after they had seen it for themselves.

  28. The Question says:

    @squid_hunt

    I was lucky as a kid. My Sunday school classes taught straight out of the Bible. Children’s books that were’t directly connected still contained strong theological themes that our teachers emphasized if we didn’t totally get it.

    “Be nice” is the last thing a boy should ever be taught. Being nice and being virtuous are not the same.

  29. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    Having a high IQ is probably a detriment in the area of relations, especially today. You would be much more likely to make a connection with an appropriate (or even inappropriate) woman than I would I suspect, if we were the same age.

    A strong mind can get in the way quite a bit, for better or worse.

    Scott,

    Many preachers see video games as either evil or only for children. I can agree that some go too far, but liking games is no worse than liking golf, especially if you use a golf cart. So they use rhetoric to try to associate games with living in your mom’s basement. Just something that irks me.

    Paul,

    Most “Easter” services are not Passover services since the official Roman Church separated them purposefully to remove Jewish influence from Christianity. I haven’t looked at it recently, but picking the date for Easter involves a lot of contortions to make overlap with Passover less likely. It is still just a day, but the effort to disconnect the two is rather amazing.

    AR,

    very shallow and emotional man

    That is most men today, especially in the church, unfortunately. I had someone in a men’s group get righteously indignant when I noted that 1 Pet 3:7 should be taken in context of 1 Pet 3:1-6. He pontificated that Jesus had done it all already, implying that men should do it all. I have some quick responses at the time, but I have thought of many more since, including that 1 Pet 3:7 begins with “likewise”, connecting it directly with the verses before it.

    The truth did not matter to his self-righteous proclamations though. Emotion ruled him, not logic and truth.

  30. Damn Crackers says:

    @Isaac Jordan – It’s like modern Christianity is just one big cargo cult.

  31. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    yaaasS! Jordan “Clean Your Room” Peterson

    When civilization ended
    The historians marveled
    At just how clean
    All the conquered men’s rooms were

  32. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Dear Isaac Jordan,

    Please read Genesis. The woman lusts after the base serpent. Adam is thus given complete control over her.

    In order for civilization to rise, the woman’s base lusts were constrained by the men, and sex was only for marriage, arranged by men and the patriarchy. It was men who appreciated the exalted character of the spirit and the soul. This constriction of a woman’s wanton wants and base lusts lead to Newton, Galileo, and Classical Architecture, Art, and Music.

    Today certain forces hath liberated the woman’s wanton desires and needs so as to conquer the West. I’ll leave it as homework for you to figure out who this is. Please ask Jordan Peterson.

  33. Magneto2975 says:

    “Showing up on the third day expecting to see Jesus’ body wasn’t an act of superior faith. It was a demonstration of the very lack of faith all of Christ’s disciples appear to have demonstrated at that moment.”

    Right – it is the equivalent of Moses striking the rock a second time.

  34. Nathan Bruno says:

    In an era where the Bible has never been more accessible, people don’t read it. Christians accept this tripe from “Christian writers” and believe that the Bible really says the men all ran away as a feminist polemic. That makes them so much more susceptible to the Piperisms that eventually lead to “Jesus was the first *real* feminist” and “Christians are the *real* feminists”. It’s a good thing the Will of God cannot be rejected, because the idea that your religion is a pressure group for the special privileges of a gender-exclusive group is pretty depressing.

    The Catholic Church could have avoided the whole Reformation by just putting the text of the Bible out there for general consumption. Once it was available, nobody would have read it, and they would have kept on accepting that whatever the priest said it said might as well be what it said.

  35. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Isaac Jordan writes:

    “Being selected by a woman is thus an indicator of where a male ranks in the hierarchy, while being rejected is a confirmation of low status. The more attractive a woman, the more sincere her attraction to a man, the more confirmation he receives that he is indeed closer to the top of the hierarchy than the bottom.”

    Dear Isaac, can you name any prominent civilization that ever allowed women to freely select their mates based on their gina tingles, without regard to Character, Virtue, and Honor?

    Jordan continues,
    “Peterson argues in his Biblical Lectures that much of Judeo-Christian morality evolved as a way of structuring these societal hierarchies. Who should be at the top? Who should lead? What kind of man should be king/emperor/commander, and how will we know whether he is worthy?”

    Why do you so ignore the Soul of the West exalted by the Greeks?

    Science, democratic republics, logic, reason, fitness, and beauty–are these not “manly” enough for you and Peterson?

    Both Newton and Einstein were famous for having messy rooms and offices. The problem with the Churchian Jordans is that they would rather have handwavy pseudoscience and clean rooms, instead of classical, manly, exalted civilization.

  36. dragnet says:

    “Peterson’s man up message is fundamentally different than the modern Christian man up message…Peterson offers both love and the possibility of respect for men who work to improve themselves. This is profoundly different than the modern Christian message, the very message that Douthat chose to stress as the message of Christ’s resurrection. If Douthat can’t bring himself to respect the legendary boldness of Joseph of Arimathea and the generosity of Nicodemus, he surely can’t be bothered to acknowledge when a young man starts Peterson’s process by cleaning his room, or even respect a young man who mans up and marries despite a legal system and culture fully hostile to married fathers.”

    A fantastic post, Dalrock–you win the internet today!

  37. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Thomas Jefferson stated, “They all fall off, one by one, until we are left with Virgil and Homer, and perhaps Homer alone.”

    Newton wrote: Amicus Plato — amicus Aristoteles — magis amica veritas. (Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth.)

    The big question is why does Peterson ignore Jefferson, Newton, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, and Virgil?

    Instead of cleaning your room, why always discussing how we are just like lobsters and apes, I highly recommend manning up and reading Jefferson, Newton, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, and Virgil, so as to discover why we are not lobsters nor apes.

  38. SnapperTrx says:

    One of the study bibles I used to have indicated that the priests and rabbis of the ancient world would never write down their thoughts on the scriptures for fear that their writings would be considered over the scriptures themselves. It seems modern pastors have zero concern over such a thing, and, in fact, laud the fact that their writings are taken as whole cloth despite what scripture says.

  39. Damn Crackers says:

    @da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo –

    “In order for civilization to rise, the woman’s base lusts were constrained by the men, and sex was only for marriage, arranged by men and the patriarchy. It was men who appreciated the exalted character of the spirit and the soul. This constriction of a woman’s wanton wants and base lusts lead to Newton, Galileo, and Classical Architecture, Art, and Music.”

    What you are describing is Nietzsche’s sexual sublimation. I’m not sure if he makes your Great Books list.

  40. Oscar says:

    All truth is God’s truth, and because Dr. Peterson speaks a lot of truth, much of what he says coincides with the Bible, even if unintentionally.

    For example, Dr. Peterson says that “if you can’t see yourself as one of the guards at Auschwitz, then you don’t know how terrible you really are”. That sounds a lot like the Biblical doctrines of Original Sin and Total Depravity.

    Dr. Peterson tells people to not try to change the world, but to change themselves. That sounds a lot like Christ’s admonition to “take the beam out of your own eye first”.

    Dr. Peterson tells people to start with the small stuff, like “clean your room”. That sounds a lot like Christ’s admonition that “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much”.

    Of course, there’s a lot of hostility towards the idea of self improvement; the “why should I?” types.

  41. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Thanks Damn Crackers, Yes Nietchchsez is up there!

    The Bible exalts in the exaltation of the MAN’S right to his wife, which is why Peterson will never quote this passage:
    16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    The Greeks taught a similar lesson. The ten year, devastating Trojan War was the result of a wife following her gina tingzgzlzozzlzozozo and running off with Paris.

    The Greek Men had made a pact that if any of their wive’s was taken ran off, they would band together and get her back.

    This is why you never hear Peterson referencing the Iliad or Odyssey either, even though, as Plato noted, “Homer educated Greece.”

  42. Opus says:

    America, perhaps because it does not have an established church has a tendency to produce inspirational preachers who last for a season or two before being replaced and Peterson (with whom I am not always in full agreement) and despite his being a Canadian seems to be of the type.

    Douthat goes on to observe that the failure of religion to attract men turns some to New Atheism (whatever that may be) and some to the Alt-Right which he describes as toxic – now where have I heard that word Toxic before??????

    I had never paid much attention to the details of the Resurrection and always become confused by there being four different although canonical texts – as if there were four different versions of Hamlet’s famous soliloquy to master – but I thought the point was that he had Risen and not point scoring as to which of the two sexes was being the more faithful; as if the nascent Christian church was already concerned about that Eighteenth-century piece of French Enlightenment ideology – equality. Next: we will be told the scene was not diverse enough.

  43. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Da GBFM has a solution to bring menz back to churchesz

    Simply teach Genesis:
    16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Teach Jesus:
    17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
    18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
    20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    Teach Corinthians:
    Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

    Simply teach the Truth, and let the Truth set men free.

  44. Pingback: The wages of miserliness. | Reaction Times

  45. Paul says:

    @BillyS: Most “Easter” services are not Passover services since the official Roman Church separated them purposefully to remove Jewish influence from Christianity.

    I don’t like the term “Easter” as it etymologically derives from the name of a goddess. I could also have used “Pascha”, but Passover commemorates the passing over the angel of destruction over those who were protected by the blood of the slain lamb.

    As for the disconnect; even for a long time there was a preference to follow the Jewish calendar, but eventually a date was chosen such that the remembrance of the resurrection would ALWAYS be on a Sunday, the same day of the week as Jesus rose from the dead.

    As for the relationship between Christianity and Judaism; Christianity started as predominantly a Jewish group of disciples of Christ, whereas Judaism consisted of those that rejected Him as Messiah. The leaders were actively involved in trying to destroy Christianity. We have several witnesses from the NT Scriptures, and witnesses from the early Church that testify to this. Especially after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and the following Jewish-Roman wars scattered the Jewish people and destroyed the land, Christianity gradually started to grow and gain influence among people of Gentile origins, who did not have a strong relationship to Jewish customs. It is a complex subject.

  46. squid_hunt says:

    @BillyS

    The truth did not matter to his self-righteous proclamations though. Emotion ruled him, not logic and truth.

    I would guess what you’re dealing with is a threat to his worldview.If he accepts your line of thinking, he has to take action and he knows he’s not right, so it scares him.

  47. Nick Mgtow says:

    Dalrock, my dear Dalrock. I immediately thought about you as a few days ago, I stumbled upon this trailer of Christ crucifixion and resurrection…until I noticed who the movie was really about. The answer is in the title of the movie…

    As you already have your opinion about Fireproof or Courageous, I can’t wait to hear (I hope) your opinion about this one. Best regards.

  48. Mountain Man says:

    Douthat misinterprets the Calvary story in another important way. He believes that the female presence at the foot of the cross, and the male absence, confirms female superiority and male weakness. What he fails to see is that the story illustrates female privilege. Throughout most of recorded history there has been a very strong societal taboo against attacking women. The male disciples had a very reasonable fear that, because of their close association with Jesus, they might also be arrested and crucified. The women had no such fear and therefore felt free to be present at the foot of the cross without negative repercussions.

  49. Oscar says:

    @ SnapperTrx says:
    April 3, 2018 at 12:44 pm

    “One of the study bibles I used to have indicated that the priests and rabbis of the ancient world would never write down their thoughts on the scriptures for fear that their writings would be considered over the scriptures themselves.”

    How ancient? Because the oldest Hebrew commentaries on Scripture we have are from some time around 200 AD.

  50. Otto says:

    @Opus,

    Look at the biographies of any great person. There are multiple ones that have different focus.

    George Washington the statesman.
    GW the military leader.
    Young GW.
    GW the man.

    These 4 biographies would include different events, and even the same events told from a different perspective to emphasize different aspects of the man.

    Combining them into one volume would be less informative, because you would lose the unique perspective on events and the man each brings.

    Only by reading all four as separate works will you get a complete picture.

    This is why there are four gospels.

  51. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Jesus: Aspire towards God.
    Jordan Peterson: Act like a lobster.

  52. Nathan Bruno says:

    @Opus

    “I had never paid much attention to the details of the Resurrection and always become confused by there being four different although canonical texts – as if there were four different versions of Hamlet’s famous soliloquy to master ”

    If I recall correctly, you are/were a barrister; I have heard this best explained as there are four recordings provided because they each have different goals, as you might get at a trial: John records what he saw and heard (having been there from the very beginning) and what the other Gospels may have missed (he probably wrote last). Mark records what Peter saw and heard. Matthew records for a Jewish audience what he saw and heard, but knowing that Matthew was of the Twelve but not of the Three. Luke records what he found out by talking to everyone as part of his fact-finding mission some 20-25 years after the fact as part of his own investigation and speaking to everyone. Thus, it is like calling witnesses who saw what happened, who immediately heard about what happened, or someone who was an investigator who collated multiple statements and depositions into a cohesive whole.

  53. SCC says:

    It was a demonstration of the very lack of faith all of Christ’s disciples appear to have demonstrated at that moment.

    I’m going to be a little defensive and say it was more a lack of understanding rather than a lack of faith. We read throughout the Gospels (Mark 9:32, Luke 18:34, John 12:16) that even as Jesus made His prophecies, the disciples didn’t understand what He meant at that time.

    My timing of reading the Bible w/ my son was off this year, so we didn’t get to the Easter story during Easter. Instead we’re in Luke 18, just read about the blind man who had his sight restored by Jesus. But the contrast of the this story, along w/ the crucifixion really struck me.

    Here are a group of believers who saw events that would be described as miracles even today. Heck, it probably even includes some who experienced miracles, those who were formerly blind or lame or demon-possessed. They know the scriptures, at least enough to know that Jesus took the mantle of Messiah. And suddenly, this guy who had supernatural abilities was gone. That didn’t just make them sad, or even sorrowful, it shook their very sanity.

    Think of what was going on. They were confused, perplexed, frustrated, and panicked. We’re they sane? Did they actually see those miracles? Were they some sort of scam? To what end? And if they were real, what did that say about their jewish ontology? There was a man who could do miracles. He claimed he was the Messiah. Sent from and predicted by the God who claimed to be the one true God, and who created the whole world. WHAT NOW? Was Jesus a demon, is that where he got his power? Was he who he said he was, but Jehovah was overpowered by some other god? Or is there some new teleology?

    These are the questions the disciples would be asking themselves for two days. True existential questions, with every reason in the world to ask them. Yeah, if they’d understood, they’d have a relaxed weekend. But none did, nor would any of us had we been there. But there was faith, though not understanding, as they waited through those days, trying to figure out how they could go forward and serve God. Fortunately, Sunday came, Jesus rose, and there is a true Gospel. We get the advantage of understanding this in hindsight.

  54. earl says:

    But to Douthat this is a moment to spike the feminist football, and by implication ask why other men are so inferior to him.

    He’d be like Peter and say he would go die with Christ. Everybody is a big man before the large group of guards with clubs and swords come.

    The male disciples had a very reasonable fear that, because of their close association with Jesus, they might also be arrested and crucified. The women had no such fear and therefore felt free to be present at the foot of the cross without negative repercussions.

    Bingo.

  55. SnapperTrx says:

    I don’t recall it being specific, but I will see if I can find the reference if I can find the bible in question.

  56. SnapperTrx says:

    Or, maybe I should have been more specific. I am talking pre-Christ, the OT books, is what the comment was speaking about.

  57. SnapperTrx says:

    I was actually going to post something about this earlier this morning but thought I should investigate the idea first. Seeing as how the disciples were with Jesus and thus ran into the soldiers send to arrest him, along with the fact that Peter actually assaulted one of them, and knowing that certain high ranking people wanted Jesus dead I always believed the disciples were in fear for their lives, and thus not necessarily hiding, but, making themselves scarce. The women likely had no fear of such a thing, as they may or may not have been directly tied to Jesus. Peter was well known enough that people recognized him as he walked amongst the crowd, so much so that they asked him three times if he was the guy hanging out with Jesus! It is little wonder the disciples weren’t running around but rather took to being unseen until they could figure out what to do next.

  58. earl says:

    I don’t know if the Romans ever crucified or scourged women. At least in Scripture the only real gruesome death a woman could experience was a stoning because of adultery or being ripped to shreds by dogs like Jezebel.

  59. Cane Caldo says:

    @Earl

    When the big crowd of men with clubs and swords came to get Jesus, Peter attacked them; cutting the ear off one guard. What is more likely to have deflated Peter was that Jesus healed the guard, and let Himself be taken away. If you’re Peter you have to wonder what in the world is going on!

  60. Cane Caldo says:

    @SCC

    Excellent comment!

  61. craig says:

    Paul says: “As for the relationship between Christianity and Judaism; Christianity started as predominantly a Jewish group of disciples of Christ, whereas Judaism consisted of those that rejected Him as Messiah.”

    Before 70 AD, Christianity may not have been visibly separate enough from other Jewish sects to bypass the Romans’ anger. Jesus’ “flee to the mountains” warning suggests it wasn’t yet. After 70 AD, Jewish Christians assimilated into Gentile communities and quit identifying as Jews, while Jewish non-Christians reinvented Judaism around the rabbinate instead of the temple priesthood. The Jewish Masoretic canon is post-Christian, much younger than the Septuagint.

    Mountain Man says: “What he fails to see is that the story illustrates female privilege. Throughout most of recorded history there has been a very strong societal taboo against attacking women.”

    Here I disagree. Female privilege would not have extended to the conquered nations. What the story illustrates is that the Romans considered Jewish women beneath worrying about.

  62. Opus says:

    Some great apologetics as to why there are four Gospels – aren’t their some others. I thus rather liked Tolstoy’s Harmonisation and Translation of The Gospels. The allusion to witnesses in legal proceedings made me laugh: one always finds that there is never any similarity at all between what any two witnesses (no hearsay or reported speech permitted) say of the same event – at least the Gospels are fairly close but repeating the story four or even four hundred times does not add to its veracity. Personally I would rather have liked it if there had been more than one telling of the early chapters of Genesis. I would like to hear Satan’s version of events although I suppose it might be said that that is provided by Milton.

  63. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Opus
    I thought the point was that he had Risen and not point scoring as to which of the two sexes was being the more faithful; as if the nascent Christian church was already concerned about that Eighteenth-century piece of French Enlightenment ideology – equality. Next: we will be told the scene was not diverse enough.

    Nah, the women haven’t finished with their turn yet. Their next move will be to claim that Christ’s male disciples supplanted the women from their role as Christ’s true and chosen heirs. How? By barring females from writing their own gospels, and thus obscuring the little-known fact that each of the 12 apostles had in actuality been an apprentice to one of 12 original female disciples chosen by Jesus himself, and that after His death, resurrection and ascension they took the opportunity of their Lord’s absence to shove the ladies aside so that they could hog all the credit for founding the church.

    Hear me now, believe me later:

    And from a “Reformed Gospel Rapper,” no less! Once again, Calvinists: Thanks for nothing.

  64. squid_hunt says:

    @SCC

    These are the questions the disciples would be asking themselves for two days. True existential questions, with every reason in the world to ask them.

    I don’t agree and I think the story of Lazarus’ resurrection proves it. Mary and Martha were both unbelieving about the resurrection and about who he really was and he took them both to task for it, then just to punctuate the lesson, called Lazarus out of the grave. I don’t think a lack of belief is tied to ignorance. I think it’s tied to sinful willfulness. And the Bible reiterates that over and over.

  65. Opus says:

    A slight correction: the exception to witnesses retailing different versions of supposedly one event are policemen. They always say exactly the same thing – presumably because they make up their notes in the same room and at the same time.

  66. Gary Eden says:

    da GBFM is onto something key. The fleshly nature of women drives them to select only on feels for pure power. It is only fathers who can select based on virtue.

    It is no coincidence then that the OT gives the choice to fathers and fathers alone.

  67. Lovekraft says:

    From my observation of Peterson (and I have watched his meteoric rise to fame since his initial mingling among the filth at the U of T), I think he is playing the role the time calls for. And to look to him as some sort of deliverer is missing the point (he basically warns the marxists that what comes after him, should the leftists continue to impose their ant-Christian/realistic views, will make all reel in horror).

    Peterson is another great thinker in a long line. Let’s appreciate him for what he’s offered and be careful not to make him into some type of savior.

  68. Gary Eden says:

    Peterson is not a savior type, he is a prophetic type.

  69. SnapperTrx says:

    My response would be:

    Jesus: I died on the cross for your sins!
    Women: Yeah, but LOOK AT ME!

    Indeed some things never change.

  70. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    Just like Jesus:

    lzozolzzo

  71. Paul says:

    @craig: The Jewish Masoretic canon is post-Christian, much younger than the Septuagint.

    And with the Dead Sea Scrolls we can now get a much better picture of the relationship between “the” Septuagint (LXX), the Masoretic text (MT), and the DSS. Most of the NT quotes fhe LXX, not the MT. Justin Martyr even tells the Jewish leaders corrupted the Scriptures to prevent people believing Jesus was the Messiah, e.g.

    “They have also deleted these words from Jeremiah: “I was as a meek lamb that is carried to be a sacrificial victim; they devised counsels against Me, saying: Come, let us put wood on His bread, and cut Him off from the land of the living, and let His name be remembered no more.” Since this passage from the words of Jeremias is still found in some copies of Scripture in the Jewish synagogues (for it was deleted only a short time ago), and since it is also proved from these words that the Jews planned to crucify Christ Himself and to slay Him, and since He is shown, as was likewise prophesied by Isaias, as led like a lamb to slaughter, and in accordance with this passage He is marked as “an innocent lamb,” they are so confused by such words that they resort to blasphemy.” (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho)

    I recently discovered a concise overview which you can use as a starting point for further research
    http://www.bible.ca/synagogues/Ancient-Synagogue-Archeological-Literary-Sources-Bible-Jesus-Israel-Judea-diaspora-first-century-oldest-pre70A-Justin-Martyr-patristic-apostolic-church-father-150ad.htm

  72. Pingback: Piety does not cover lies. | Dark Brightness

  73. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Lovecraft @Gary Eden

    People are building Peterson up into a larger than life figure for an obvous reason: he’s a humane, masculine man. Such men are scarce in the public square now.

    He has a lot of flaws. Jungianism is claptrap. He’s deeply blue pill, which should be no surprise since he met a girl when he was 8 years old that he liked, later he married her, they are still married…so he has no real understanding at the personal level about women. He’s prone to say “Man up and marry the sluts” although in a much more polite and kind fashion than the vast majority of US preachers. Generation Z is following him, and they could do much worse.

    If the feminist-SJW establishment succeeds in silencing him, that will send a clear message to younger men, and the results will not be good for anyone.

  74. freebird says:

    Here is the glory that is the Opposite of the false teacher.
    Christ said to the Woman from The Cross:
    “Woman,what hast thou to do with me?”
    [Translation “Look ma they are going to kill me,I can’t look out for you anymore.”]
    To the Disciple he says: “Look upon your mother.”
    [translation “Brother,please take care of this woman as if she were your own mother,fulfill The Law.]
    Point being: The woman is helpless without a man looking out for her,The Law requires the Son to do so.
    Christ about to be crucified was worried more about this woman than himself.
    DO YOU SEE NOW?
    To say the opposite is a nasty affront and heresy,and Takes Away from The Glory of God.
    Such will be taken away from those that speak as such.

  75. Oscar says:

    I left the following comment at Pastor Doug Wilson’s blog. Let’s see what happens.

    Pastor Doug,

    You wrote:

    “Those under authority owe certain things to their liege-lord, and the one in authority has the right to require it of them. But all the persons involved in this are equally bound in an organic, constitutional way. No one person is absolute” (How to Exasperate your Wife, p. 16)

    and…

    “The most important word in the marriage vows is ‘obey’” (How to Exasperate your Wife, p. 95)

    If both those statements are true, then the husband has the right to require obedience from his wife. But you also wrote in your 21 Thesis on Submission in Marriage:

    “The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives. Since true submission is a matter of the heart, rendered by grace through faith, a husband does not have the capacity to make this happen.”

    If that’s true, then a husband has the right to require obedience from his wife, but zero authority with which to enforce that requirement.

    But you also wrote in Chapter 2 of Reforming Marriage that a husband is like a ship’s captain, and is therefore responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in his home, just as a ship’s captain is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen on his ship.

    But a ship’s captain has BOTH the responsibility to lead his subordinates, AND the authority to enforce the rules when his subordinates refuse to follow the rules. But you wrote that a husband has no such authority over his wife.

    But you also wrote in How to Exasperate Your Wife that:

    “In a certain sense, a husband (as the head of his wife) is an honored and permanent guest, but he should learn to see himself as a guest. He wipes his feet at the door, he eats what is served to him, and he seeks to conform to the pattern established by her—as she in her turn seeks to honor him.”

    A guest – honored or not – has zero responsibility OR authority over the home in which he’s a guest. Have you ever tried telling a ship’s captain – or any other military commander – that he’s a guest in the unit he commands?

    Can you see why this is confusing when you put it all together?

    So, which is it? Is a husband…

    A) A ship’s captain, with BOTH the responsibility to lead his wife, AND the authority to enforce the rules when she refuses to follow? Or is a husband….

    B) A figurehead, with the responsibility to lead his wife by example, but zero authority to enforce the rules when she refuses to follow? Or is a husband….

    C) A guest in his own home, with zero responsibility AND zero authority over anything that happens in the home?

    These are mutually exclusive categories. So, which is it?

  76. American says:

    Ross “graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University in 2002, where he was also elected to Phi Beta Kappa” but can’t even represent a simple bible story correctly. I don’t believe that it’s deliberate on Ross’s part but rather he’s ignorant, misinformed, and deceived on the topic he’s writing about. What it says to me is that alt-left Harvard is producing wildly miseducated, substandard, faulty products at present and THAT I believe IS deliberate.

  77. Dota says:

    Whenever women touch an ideology, religion, or any space, they inevitably feminize it and transform it into a cheap and inauthentic version of its former self. This is why men are fleeing Christianity in North America. Similarly, look at how white women have ruined yoga. The philosophy of yoga is detachment and ultimately world renunciation. Women have taken a practice rooted in indifference towards the world and turned it into a billion dollar industry; the very antithesis of yoga.

  78. Spike says:

    I think Mr Douthat has fallen into that most common of temptations: to present himself as the only real man in the room.
    Using Scripture to do this is at best clumsy and at worst heretical. He, like many, many mis-users of Scripture, will find out the hard way that Scripture has turned around and bitten (or more accurately, sliced) him. He is in good company: former British PM Tony Blair invoked the parable of the Good Samaritan as a pretext for the Iraq War!
    Peterson has on previous occasions called himself a Christian, although like most intellectuals, he has a distinct Gnostic touch to his views. Gnosticism isn’t Christianity and that is something for him to resolve.
    The difference about what Peterson says and that of pastors is that Peterson tells men to man up, sure, but he tells them to do it for themselves, not for a thankless, ungrateful larger society that will not recognize a given man’s efforts.

  79. GBFM

    Jesus: Aspire towards God.
    Jordan Peterson: Act like a lobster.

    No. More like…
    Jordan Peterson: We ARE lobsters. Accept or deny, I don’t care either way.

  80. Frank K says:

    I have found that a lot of RCs like to emphasize this moment as seminal to the foundation of the Church. I don’t know what the dogma says.

    Never heard that one before. My understanding is that it was on Pentecost when the Church was founded.

  81. PokeSalad says:

    I think Mr Douthat has fallen into that most common of temptations: to present himself as the only real man in the room.

    His variant is, “The only real man at The New York Times.” What sort of ‘conservative’ do you think they’d allow to be a columnist there?

  82. Boxer says:

    No. More like…
    Jordan Peterson: We ARE lobsters. Accept or deny, I don’t care either way.

    He didn’t say that at all. He said that many species in the animal kingdom had hierarchical social structures. Lobsters being one example. This horrifies feminists, because feminists are anti-science kooks, who think humans are something unique, with no relation to other species.

    I find pseudochristians who fear such analogies funny, for the same reasons I find feminists funny.

    Your god must be a very weak and pathetic god, if he didn’t have the power to introduce such a basic symmetry between humans and other members of the animal kingdom.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  83. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas,

    Anonymous Reader sez:

    He has a lot of flaws. Jungianism is claptrap.

    You’ve never read Jung, and can’t argue anything specific. One would think after Anon spanked you so thoroughly and gratuitously, you’d learn to quit pretending to lecture on things you know nothing about.

    Dota sez:

    Whenever women touch an ideology, religion, or any space, they inevitably feminize it and transform it into a cheap and inauthentic version of its former self.

    They don’t do this to annoy you. It’s just part of being a woman. Women are centered on themselves. Dr. Jung alludes to this himself.

    The sexuality of man is more of the earth, the sexuality of woman is more of the spirit.
    The spirituality of man is more of heaven, it goeth to the greater.
    The spirituality of woman is more of the earth, it goeth to the smaller.
    Lying and devilish is the spirituality of the man which goeth to the smaller.
    Lying and devilish is the spirituality of the woman which goeth to the greater.
    Each must go to its own place.

    From Sermo V
    http://gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm

    Basically, women look at religion (and politics) as something trendy, like a handbag. They wear it and identify with it merely to augment their self-perception. It’s more like the handbag they buy, to prove themselves unique to other women. Men look at religion as a discipline, and use it to change themselves into something greater.

    This is not a bug. It’s a feature of sexual dimorphism.

    Best,

    Boxer

  84. Oscar says:

    So, the comments over at Pastor Doug’s are going about as one would expect. No one wants to answer the two basic questions:

    1. Does a man have the power to enforce the rules when his wife refuses to follow? Because, if he doesn’t, then he has no authority. But if he does…
    2. How does he enforce his authority?

    No one dares even touch those questions.

  85. Dry Holes says:

    Boxer:

    Well matched by Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Women generally stop at the inter-personal / group in their moral development (stage 3).

    In contrast, Men continue to higher, abstract, universal morality (stages 4-6).

    My wife finds my concern for consistency in (abstract) reasoning comical. She views it as a fantasy world, in my head.

  86. drifter says:

    It’s like they can’t help themselves. Here’s what I was treated to last weekend…starting at about 3:30.

  87. earl says:

    The sexuality of man is more of the earth, the sexuality of woman is more of the spirit.

    Yeah I’d expect the Gnostics to separate these things into sexes. The reality is we are both body and spirit.

  88. @ Oscar,

    I think you’re better off using a Biblical analogy:

    Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

    Governments are given authority by God to punish wrong doing.

    So can husbands, as given authority in marriage by God, punish a wife for wrong doing?

  89. Oscar says:

    @ Deep Strength says:

    “I think you’re better off using a Biblical analogy:”

    Maybe. I wanted to use Pastor Doug’s analogies because it’s his blog, and most of the people who frequent it agree with him. Besides, I think the military analogy is biblical. As the centurion told Jesus:

    Matthew 8:9-11 King James Version (KJV)
    9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

    Also, I’m an Army officer (in the Reserves now), and was a company commander in Afghanistan (the modern equivalent of a centurion), so I relate to it. Presumably, so does Pastor Doug, as a former submariner in the US Navy.

    Anyway, as a modern day centurion, I had both responsibility for and authority over my Soldiers. I received orders from above. I gave orders. I rewarded my Soldiers when they excelled in their duties and disciplined the ones who were negligent. THAT is authority by every sane definition.

    What’s the equivalent for a husband? No one seems to know.

  90. Your god must be a very weak and pathetic god

    Just don’t say that when you are standing near me. I don’t want to accidently be hit with the lightning blot

  91. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Boxer: He said that many species in the animal kingdom had hierarchical social structures. Lobsters being one example. This horrifies feminists, because feminists are anti-science kooks, who think humans are something unique, with no relation to other species.

    Back in the 1980s, I dated a woman who had a cat. Only in her 20s, and she already had a cat.

    She loved her cat.

    One day she was telling me about something her cat did. Something that delighted her and made her cat seem special. I broached the subject of sociobiology, and began explaining that her cat’s actions were the result of evolutionary biology.

    She cut me off with, “I don’t want to hear it.”

    “But it’s true,” I said. “According to science … (I continued explaining her cat’s behavior).”

    “Stop it!,” she exclaimed. “I’m serious. I don’t want to hear it.”

    She believed that her cat had thoughts, and feelings, and a personality, just like any human’s. And she freaked out at the notion that it might not be so.

  92. JDG says:

    da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:
    April 3, 2018 at 12:17 pm

    I believe this to be correct. For all of Mr. Peterson’s intelligence he is still an egalitarian which is just another flavor of feminism and contrary to God’s design for male / female relationships. Maybe that’s fine for unbelievers, but for those following the teachings in the Bible it is not enough.

    Mr. Peterson may or may not be headed in the right direction, but he won’t arrive until he can see Jesus as savior and Lord.

  93. JDG says:

    Simply teach the Truth, and let the Truth set men free.

    Yep! Needs to be repeated.

  94. BillyS says:

    Paul,

    I don’t like the term “Easter” as it etymologically derives from the name of a goddess. I could also have used “Pascha”, but Passover commemorates the passing over the angel of destruction over those who were protected by the blood of the slain lamb.

    I would agree. They are Ishtar services in origin, though I think they have changed in the minds of many and I am not sure if it is worth fighting, just like Jesus was most unlikely to have been born in late December.

    As for the disconnect; even for a long time there was a preference to follow the Jewish calendar, but eventually a date was chosen such that the remembrance of the resurrection would ALWAYS be on a Sunday, the same day of the week as Jesus rose from the dead.

    The idea was to make sure that Easter did not fall on the same time as Passover, not to keep it close as this idea would claim.

    The anti-Jewish people influenced the Church very early on.

    One of the study bibles I used to have indicated that the priests and rabbis of the ancient world would never write down their thoughts on the scriptures for fear that their writings would be considered over the scriptures themselves. It seems modern pastors have zero concern over such a thing, and, in fact, laud the fact that their writings are taken as whole cloth despite what scripture says.

    That commits the error of applying modern standards to a different culture. Very little was written at that point. Them teaching their views was the same thing. Keep in mind many of the “you have heard that it is said” things Jesus talked about is just that.

    Dalrock shouldn’t be writing here if we apply your standard, and that is bunk.

    Opus,

    and some to the Alt-Right

    I attend church regularly and consider myself alt-right, so his thesis fails, though it is driven by the idea that the fake-right is the alt-right.

    I had never paid much attention to the details of the Resurrection and always become confused by there being four different although canonical texts

    You have never heard of 4 stories about the same event? They do not disagree, they just tell different parts.

    I would like to hear Satan’s version of events

    That would only have value if it was true. I wouldn’t trust him to tell the truth anymore than I would trust Weinstein to tell the truth on his encounters with actresses.

    Earl,

    He’d be like Peter and say he would go die with Christ. Everybody is a big man before the large group of guards with clubs and swords come.

    Keep in mind that they all claimed they would do the same as Peter.

    [Mat 26:35 NKJV] 35 Peter said to Him, “Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!” And so said all the disciples.

    Note the last part. I assume this even includes John.

    [Mat 26:31, 35 NKJV] 31 Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: ‘I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’

    Note that the previous claims were in light of Jesus noting they would all flee, which is what happened.

    We are only told what Peter did, but they all had similar problems. Peter is just the focus on some things, likely because of the role he played early in the book of Acts.

    SnapperTX,

    Good point. Only the men were with Jesus in the garden. Peter was also more notable than the others because he tried to kill one of the group that came to arrest Jesus.

    Cane,

    It is most likely Peter meant to split the guy’s head and just had bad aim. I doubt he was trying to cut his ear off. Though Peter was clearly not supported in his attempt to rescue Jesus with his sword.

  95. BillyS says:

    RPL,

    I have 3 cats. They all have distinct personalities. I don’t buy the “they only act that way because particles to people evolution.” Though I also rarely talk about them with others. I definitely don’t get my value from pets.

  96. Paul says:

    @BillyS: The idea was to make sure that Easter did not fall on the same time as Passover, not to keep it close as this idea would claim.

    Not according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodecimanism, where Eusebius is quoted:
    “A question of no small importance arose at that time [i.e. the time of Pope Victor I, about A.D. 190]. The dioceses of all Asia, according to an ancient tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon [of Nisan], on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving pasch , contending that the fast ought to end on that day, whatever day of the week it might happen to be. However it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this point, as they observed the practice, which from Apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the Resurrection of our Saviour.”

    BillyS: The anti-Jewish people influenced the Church very early on.

    It was the other way around: the Jewish were very anti-Christian. Read e.g. Justin Martyr.

    The quote after that is not mine.

  97. Oscar says:

    RE: Pastor Doug’s commenters

    Now they’re down to “you can’t enforce submission, because submission is an attitude of the heart”. No, it isn’t. Submission is an action. Hell, it’s right there in the definition.

    sub·mis·sion səbˈmiSHən/noun
    1. the action or fact of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.

    The false doctrine that submission is an attitude of the heart leads to the false doctrine that wives need only submit to their husbands when they feel like it. And that leads to the marriage mess we have now.

  98. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    Also, I’m an Army officer (in the Reserves now), and was a company commander in Afghanistan (the modern equivalent of a centurion), so I relate to it. Presumably, so does Pastor Doug, as a former submariner in the US Navy.

    In Reforming Marriage Wilson says headship is like being the captain of a ship, and therefore a husband is responsible for everything that goes wrong. But in How to Exasperate Your Wife, in the chapter titled “An Honored Guest” he explains that headship should not be compared to a military leader:

    Unfortunately, many conservative husbands do not grasp the organic nature of their authority in the home. They have read that the husband is the head of the wife, but they then fill this language with connotations derived elsewhere—from their stint in the Army, from the shift manager at work, or from the leadership techniques of Tamerlane. In short, they think that head of the wife means boss of the wife, end of discussion…

    I’m told by Wilson’s followers that I should stop reading his written works as if they are normal publications, and instead treat them as if they are Scripture. Assuming both books are part of the Wilsonian canon, perhaps this is just an Army vs Navy thing.

  99. ray says:

    The reason Christ’s male followers didn’t appear at Calvary was that both the Romans and the temple ‘priests’ were hunting them, and they would have been arrested, minimally. That was not in the interest of the infant Church at that time.

    The legions and ‘priests’ were NOT hunting Christ’s female followers, for the same reason that a ‘church’ full of women (but not men) inspires no fear in the powers of this planet. Human females gathered in collectives, whether they pretend religion or otherwise, are not threats to satan. Quite the opposite. Western civilization over the past half-century illustrates the point.

    Ross Douthat, like the endless legions of others, does NOT want strong Christian men, REAL Christian men, leading either the churches or the nation. Because if they did, he and his fellow-travelers would be out of a job. He’d be missing some other stuff too, assuming he was permitted to live.

    How can I be sure of these things? Well as the folks here testify, I must be AMOGing. Whatever AMOGing is.

  100. RedPillPaul says:

    AMOGing is Alpha Male of Group
    Or, AMOGing is the process of establishing one as the alpha of the group

  101. ray says:

    I much prefer Jesse Lee Peterson to Jordan Peterson. Jordan’s ok, kinda whitebread . . . he reminds me of “men’s discussions” on the web twenty or twenty-five years ago. I mean, Jungian Psychology, really? lol Oh well, it’s ‘new’ to the masses.

    Jordan is being allowed a certain amount of impact in America as a pressure-release valve. Don’t imagine his big ink is an accident, a slip-up on the part of your rulers. He’s an Organization Man who placates the dispossessed masculine in America enough to produce some mild cheering and satisfaction — but nowhere near enough to challenge the power structure, which assuredly he’s not doing. To them, Jordan is an acceptable voice of dissent.

    I’m NOT implying that Jordan has any direct knowledge of his mal-uses; I don’t and couldn’t know that. But he is being used, that much is clear. Nobody who really threatens the powers is going to be allowed a broad platform in the modern U.S. Not through conventional channels, that is, and Jordan Peterson operates on those channels — established full professor, etc.

    “When asked if he believes in God, Peterson responded: “I think the proper response to that is No, but I’m afraid He might exist”.”

    LOL, want some sugar syrup for that waffle? You think satan and his angels are worried about Jordan Peterson impact? They ain’t. He and his messages are firmly under control. What they’re worried about is you.

  102. ray says:

    Red Pill Paul —

    “AMOGing is Alpha Male of Group
    Or, AMOGing is the process of establishing one as the alpha of the group”

    OK thanks, I figgered about as much. The accusation makes little sense, however, as I’m not part of this Group.

  103. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    I can’t keep up with all the contradictions.

  104. ray says:

    Mountain Man —

    Exactly. If the eleven had showed before the Cross, that would have been the end of a church that had just been established. One, mebbe two, apostles scattered in the crowd . . . probly o.k.

    Any open threat, no matter how passive, would have been dealt with quickly. As someone correctly pointed out, both Joseph the Arimathean and Nicodemus were respected public quantities at that time, known to both the ‘priesthood’ and the Romans. Violence against either would have produced bad p.r., and divided loyalties amongst the Sanhedrin and Roman authorities.

  105. DrTorch says:

    you can’t enforce submission, because submission is an attitude of the heart

    Yeah I’ve read that feminist psychobabble a number of times, but seeing it isolated on its own should make every adherent pause. It’s utter nonsense. It’s in direct contrast to the Bible and observational truth. It’s a lie, from the Father of lies. Or maybe some lesser demon, b/c this lie is clumsy and ridiculous.

    That it is an effective is an indication of how true this is: Ezek 11:19 (and 36:26). “I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,” These people have a heart of stone. But the Lord will remove it and put in a heart of flesh. But like any major surgery, it can be painful and requires strict discipline to be effective.

  106. BillyS says:

    Paul,

    I wasn’t talking about the day of the week, but the even being in the same week was viewed as a problem. I would have to dig back into the issue, but I wouldn’t completely trust Wikipedia in this case.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Quartodecimanism

    I may or may not dig back into it in the future.

    It was the other way around: the Jewish were very anti-Christian. Read e.g. Justin Martyr.

    That is part of what I see as the main issue. Just noting it, not necessarily arguing with you.

    Ray,

    The reason Christ’s male followers didn’t appear at Calvary was that both the Romans and the temple ‘priests’ were hunting them, and they would have been arrested, minimally. That was not in the interest of the infant Church at that time.

    That is certainly what they were afraid of, but I am not sure it was accurate. The Scriptures only note they were in fear of that, but not that anything was done by the Jewish leaders to do that AFAIK.

    Also note it was more than 11 at that time. See how they picked the replacement for Judas. The two choices were both around as well, and others are implied. Joseph and Nicodemus were also followers. Don’t confuse the Apostles for the entirety of the Church. God would also have provided protection had they been there, as he clearly did for John.

  107. BillyS says:

    It is true a husband can’t make his wife submit, but that is not the question. The true question is whether he should ever attempt to lead her in that, or anything else for that matter. They don’t allow any leadership for the husband, even in leading her to do right. I guess the husband could also not stop her from stealing from a store and would just have to rely on his good moral example and character to dissuade her from that.

  108. RedPillPaul says:

    A husband CAN make his wife submit, its just the state has stripped him of his power to.

    If brute force (not that i am advocating that) was not “illegal” a man can make his wife submit as Bubba in prision can do the same to a weak fish.

    I agree with your premis with the current legal conditions

  109. earl says:

    The only apostle at the foot of the cross was John…now I’m not sure why the Romans or chief priests weren’t aware of him being there and arrested or killed him…but perhaps him being there with Jesus’s mother had something to do with it. After all that’s where Jesus gave the command of behold your mother and behold your son.

    Would the other 10 apostles been afforded the same protection as John in that moment…we’ll never know.

  110. earl says:

    A husband CAN make his wife submit, its just the state has stripped him of his power to.

    That’s one way to look at it…I also see it as the state (and churchianity) tempts wives to rebel against their husband.

    The difference in the two statements is the perception. A husband is granted authority in marriage from God. A wife rebelling against that by using the state or churchianity doesn’t strip the husband of that authority. It strips her from being under that authority and preferring a counterfeit.

  111. Oscar says:

    The question is not whether or not a husband can MAKE his wife submit. The question is whether or not a husband can enforce the rules, and if so; how?

    Enforcing rules doesn’t mean MAKING anyone submit. It means handing out consequences. For example, the government can’t MAKE anyone submit to the law, but the government can, does, and SHOULD hand out consequences for breaking the law.

    So, can a husband hand his wife consequences for breaking his rules? And, if so, how?

  112. Swanny River says:

    Oscar, that’s a nice and short distinction that helps the sharpening process, thanks. The fact that your question is largely rhetorical is an indication of how far feminized the church is. Can you rent a plane and fly that question on a banner around my church some Sunday?

  113. jon dough says:

    GBFM…
    “When civilization ended
    The historians marveled
    At just how clean
    All the conquered men’s rooms were”

    I bow to the ease with which you masterfully and mercilessly mock absurdity.
    May your cup forever remain full.

  114. Oscar says:

    Swanny,

    Ha! That’s hilarious! And, you’re welcome. Dalrock’s is a good place for iron to sharpen iron. Lord knows it happens to me often enough.

    The irony about pastors denying husbands’ authority is that they (pastors) retain it for themselves. A pastor’s authority is very limited. The only consequences he can hand out are…
    1. Inform a parishioner that he/she is sinning and call them to repentance
    2. Repeat step 1, but with two or more elders
    3. Repeat step 1, but in front of the congregation
    4. Excommunicate the unrepentant sinner

    That’s it, but it’s a powerful, and effective process, when it’s used Biblically.

    We Christian husbands aren’t asking for unlimited authority (straw man), or to be allowed to beat our wives (slanderous straw man), but for a clear explanation of our authority (such as pastors have), and for the Church to support us up when we exercise our authority.

    That isn’t happening, and that’s largely pastors’ fault.

  115. Let’s give Douthat the benefit of the doubt for a nanosecond and assume that the men “fled” and the women “stayed”. This raises the question of “why?”.

    And the answer is found in yet another question:

    How many women did the Romans crucify?

  116. ray says:

    BillyS —

    If I told you a cloudless sky was blue, you’d tell me it was a turnip, instead.

    PLEASE, go ‘teach’ somebody else.

  117. Pingback: If You Want Men In Your Church, Stop Treating Them With Contempt – The Ray Tribune

  118. Pingback: If You Want Men In Your Church, Stop Treating Them With Contempt - Novus Vero

  119. Pingback: Covefefe Press & News Coverage If You Want Men In Your Church, Stop Treating Them With Contempt

  120. Pingback: If You Want Men In Your Church, Stop Treating Them With Contempt | MaryPatriotNews

  121. Kevin says:

    @Oscar

    What consequence can you hand out to a wife? You have the authority to lead your wife. No one gives it or takes it away. How do you make your wife submit?

    What consequence did Christ hand out to his disobedient and quarreling disciples? How did Christ make his disciples submit? He handed out scripture. I think this is all you have – washing in the water of Christ. There is no secret tool in our day. Under the new testament all you have is persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness and pure knowledge.

    I guess you could try and dread game her if you are into that thing. But we are left to our own devices because the church does not support us and society does not support us. The church and family could also apply pressure in the past, but that no longer exists.

    Your tools are limited, but learn to use them and use them often by washing in the water of word.

  122. feeriker says:

    The irony about pastors denying husbands’ authority is that they (pastors) retain it for themselves.

    Maybe they’d like to think so, but what I’ve observed in many evangelical Protestant churches is that Mrs. Pastor rules the roost. These guys seem to fear their own wives more than they fear God or Satan.

  123. Pingback: Something in the Air | All Along the Watchtower

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 )

w

Connecting to %s