He had to know they would one day come for him.

Vox.com recently announced A major evangelical leader just lost his job. It’s a huge moment for #MeToo.

Paige Patterson was removed as Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president after sexism controversy

Dr. Patterson was a founding member of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), and was instrumental in realizing what is arguably the CBMW’s greatest lasting accomplishment.  Thanks to Patterson and the other CBMW founders, nearly all conservative Christians now believe that it is essential to have women be the ones who teach Christianity to women.   The CBMW has been so successful in this regard that scarcely anyone remembers that for two thousand years 1 Tim 2:12 was understood as prohibiting women from preaching.

The CBMW’s opening salvo against the traditional reading of 1 Tim 2:12 came in 1991, in the group’s founding book  Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism.  In Chapter 2 Drs. Wayne Grudem and John Piper explain that they wish to break with the (then) accepted reading of 1 Tim 2:12, and replace it with a more feminist friendly reading:

Paul gives this as one of the reasons why he does not permit women “to teach or have authority over a man.” Historically this has usually been taken to mean that women are more gullible or deceivable than men and therefore less fit for the doctrinal oversight of the church. This may be true (see question 29). However, we are attracted to another understanding of Paul’s argument.

Grudem and Piper brought in Dr. Douglass Moo to write an entire chapter making the case for their desired innovation.  Moo would go on to be an influential figure in the NIV’s push to make the Bible more feminist friendly, but at the time he shared a common cause with the CBMW.

Under the CBMW’s new interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12, women are permitted to preach, so long as they only preach to other women.  This new interpretation meant that women preachers like Beth Moore were formally accepted by conservative Christians.  As time went on, the CBMW founders pushed to further expand the loophole they had created for women to preach.  In 2010 Piper offered an even more feminist friendly doctrine.  Women like Beth Moore could in fact preach to men, so long as the men didn’t become dependent on her:

I’m a guy. Is it wrong for me to listen to Beth Moore?

No. Unless you begin to become dependent on her as your shepherd—your pastor.

But reinterpreting 1 Tim 2:12 wasn’t enough.  To fully achieve their desired revolution the CBMW had to create women’s studies programs at conservative seminaries in order to produce an army of women with the credentials they would need.  This is where Patterson came in.  With the assistance of his wife Dorothy, he personally created women’s studies programs at two different seminaries:

[Dorothy] Patterson, along with her husband, were instrumental in establishing women’s studies programs at Southwestern and at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, where Paige Patterson was president until his election at Southwestern in 2003.

As time went on, the doctrine of women preaching to women continued to expand.  What started as a novel reading granting women permission to preach quickly turned into a mandate.  The army of complementarian women’s studies majors started aping their secular feminist counterparts.  At the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lore Ferguson Wilbert complained that complementarian church leaders are “maddeningly male”:

In the 35 years or so since then, liberal churches grew more liberal and the conservative—heaven help us. McQuinn uses the term androcentrism to describe the shift in neo-reformed environments in particular. It means being dominated by or emphasizing masculine interests or a masculine point of view. It wasn’t that the theology was all wrong, it was that the voices of church leaders were maddeningly male, through the male perspective, with male interests paramount, and evaluated by males.

Imagine with me for a moment a room of chimps all chimping about how to be a better room of chimps and pandas.

Over at The Gospel Coalition (TGC) Wilberts asked:  Who Will Teach the Women Who Want to Be Taught?  The answer of course is not the woman’s husband (1 Cor 14:35, Eph 5:26), and not male pastors (1 Tim 2:12), but other women.

As secular feminism rises, more and more women within the church will be looking for strong female voices.

The Women’s Studies section of Paige Patterson’s Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary makes the same case:

Will you tell her?

Most women will hear and respond to the Gospel through the words and influence of another woman. Are you ready to engage in woman-to-woman Bible teaching and discipleship and extend your talents and gifts to meet the needs of your family, to serve the church and to reach the world?

The Women’s Programs at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary will equip you for kingdom ministry. You will prepare theologically through biblical studies; practically through the development of home, life, and ministry skills; and spiritually through mentoring and accountability relationships.

Become a woman who can open God’s Word and teach eternal truths, engage the culture, and help women and their families come to Christ locally and around the world.

For a period the plan seemed to be working.  Complementarian feminists were appeased by men like Piper and Patterson and didn’t make them the object of their revolutionary zeal.  But it wouldn’t work forever.  This spring the complementarian wing of the SJW lynch mob descended on Patterson for (among other things*), counseling separation instead of divorce in cases of abuse.

While the lynch mob made the issue about Patterson ostensibly forcing women to endure abuse, the real issue is about all women having the ability to use threats of divorce to gain power over their husbands.  Academic feminists Wolfers and Stevenson explain this in their paper Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress (emphasis mine):

To see how divorce laws affect the external threat point, note that prior to unilateral divorce, a partner wishing to dissolve the marriage could leave without their spouse’s consent.  However, in such a situation, a legal divorce is not granted and, as such, the right to remarry is forfeited. Under unilateral divorce the value of the exit threat increases for the unsatisfied spouse, as the right to remarry is retained regardless of the position of one’s spouse. Thus, the exit threat model predicts that changes in divorce regimes will have real effects. If the divorce threat is sufficiently credible, it may directly affect intrafamily bargaining outcomes without the option ever being exercised.

But facts don’t matter to a lynch mob.  The mob smelled blood and came after Patterson, with Beth Moore carrying the banner.  The Christian Post headline read: Beth Moore Slams Christians Who ‘Demonize’ Divorce as Worst Sin: ‘We Do Not Submit to Abuse’

Evangelist Beth Moore, founder of Living Proof Ministries, has slammed Christian church culture that she says “demonizes” divorce as the worst sin even as wives are being abused by their husbands.

Moore’s comments come in the midst of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson seeking to clarify past comments of his that many say appeared to support women staying with abusive husbands rather than separating.

Now that Patterson has resigned as head of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, the mob has responded by demanding yet more power.  The new Christian Post headline reads: Beth Moore on Paige Patterson Controversy: ‘Broken System’ Will Not Mend If Men Refuse to Listen.

The men of the CBMW and TGC saddled this bronc.  We shall see if they can ride it.

H/T dudedont

*Patterson was also accused by a women’s studies major at his former seminary of not responding correctly to her allegation of date rape against another student.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in #MeToo, Beth Moore, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Domestic Violence, Dr. Douglass Moo, Dr. John Piper, Dr. Paige Patterson, Dr. Wayne Grudem, Social Justice Warriors, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, The Gospel Coalition, Threatpoint, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Women's Studies. Bookmark the permalink.

162 Responses to He had to know they would one day come for him.

  1. Pingback: He had to know that they would one day come for him. | @the_arv

  2. earl says:

    From the ‘ Who Will Teach the Women Who Want to Be Taught? ‘ link

    As secular feminism rises, more and more women within the church will be looking for strong female voices. They are not looking for poor theology, but many of them haven’t been taught how to study their Bibles, or how to discern good theology from bad. More women than ever lack husbands or godly fathers, so there is great opportunity for us to be like the women Paul wrote about in his letter to Titus: teaching what is good (Titus 2:3).

    Interesting she only pointed out that verse of Titus…and not Titus 2:4-5. That’s how you combat secular feminism.

    Then again your typical churchian wimminz aren’t really against feminism…they just want churchian feminism.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, I was hoping that you would summarize the recent events but going back to the 1990’s CBMW timeline adds a great deal of value. This article deserves a permanent link if for no other reason than the numerous key articles linked in the content.

    Unfortunately we all know the answer to the “saddled bronc”. As long as men are putting women’s needs, and wants, and whims first they will continue to get bucked and trampled. Because there never is enough fried ice, it’s always too hot and too slushy.

    Conservative feminists are just as bad as radfems, each is special in their own way, but the convergence of institutions to the feminist norm is slow demolition.

    Thanks for all the work to crank this out.

  4. It’s an old story.

    On 28 July 1794, Robespierre was guillotined without trial in the Place de la Révolution.

    “Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”
    — Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793.

    [D: Great quote!]

  5. Splashman says:

    He had to know that they would one day come for him.

    First, let me say this: HA HA HA HA HAR HAR HA HA HA HAR HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA [deep breath] HEE HEE HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA [wipe away tears of deliciously schadenfreudian mirth] HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HEE HEE HAR HAR HA HA HA HA HA [gasp for air] HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

    Actually, that’s pretty much all I have to say.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    “It’s different this time” applies to more than economic bubbles and blunders.
    We all know that he had no idea that conservative feministas would someday come for him. Because he’s special…

    @Earl
    Since I read through Proverbs I’ve noted that most people cherry-pick quotes from the Bible, sometimes even ignoring the very next line when it is inconvenient. Context? What’s that?

  7. Lost Patrol says:

    The men of the CBMW and TGC saddled this bronc. We shall see if they can ride it.

    There is no plan to ride it. They’re just pointing and saying “look, we saddled it”.

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    They’re just pointing and saying “look, we saddled it”.

    My reply is: “Say, what’s that thing on your back all cinched up? Why is there a ring in your nose?”

  9. 7817 says:

    Al Mohler says the judgment of god has come upon the Baptists, but since he is talking about #metoo, it may be a feminist god.

    https://albertmohler.com/2018/05/23/wrath-god-poured-humiliation-southern-baptist-convention/

  10. feministhater says:

    Yeah, fuck em. I will not ever listen to a woman when it comes to Scripture or how to be a man. There we go, they can all go and fuck off.

  11. 7817 says:

    An excerpt from Mohler’s article:

    “The #MeToo moment has come to American evangelicals. This moment has come to some of my friends and brothers in Christ. This moment has come to me, and I am called to deal with it as a Christian, as a minister of the Gospel, as a seminary and college president, and as a public leader. I pray that I will lead rightly.

    In Romans 1:18 we are told: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”

    This is just a foretaste of the wrath of God poured out. This moment requires the very best of us. The Southern Baptist Convention is on trial and our public credibility is at stake. May God have mercy on us all.”

    I don’t think this is God’s judgement.

    This is eerie to read if you think about things in terms of woman worship vs God worship. If you read it as “we have angered the #metoo gods and now must pay” the article makes alot more sense.

  12. feministhater says:

    These women continue to push and push. The men who grovel to them will be removed in time. It only stops when men say ‘no’ and then mean it. The men of CBMW deserves all the scorn they will get and they deserve to be destroyed and feminised.

  13. feministhater says:

    This is eerie to read if you think about things in terms of woman worship vs God worship. If you read it as “we have angered the #metoo gods and now must pay” the article makes alot more sense.

    It’s all women worship, from the tradcons, to the PUAs, to the complementarians. All of it.

  14. Jack Morrow says:

    Paige Patterson has been accused of helping to cover up sexual abuse in the SBC, using the term “evildoers” to describe not the abusers, but their victims.. See http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm and http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.ca/

  15. seventiesjason says:

    Beth Moore and conservative women today (“conservative with a small letter “c”) just want everything to be “equitable”

    Soon all churches are going to have a full on HR office (I am not just talking a Snyod or regional / national denomintaion headquarters). Complaints will not be brought to the Elders, or dealt with in a very Christian “not of this world” way………it will be a State requirement or the threat of removal of 503c status to have an HR office in the church to “protect” women……even though they don’t need protection, but it will be done in the name of being “equitable”

    The men in church will swallow it.

    A few years back I was at a seminar at a local church seeing a speaker about prayer life. He at the end says “Look, we have to pray hard for women. They’re no longer filler the gap, they are running the whole thing….and it’s time we men stopped. Turned off the game. Listened to our wives. Helped her at home, and be the men God callled us to be.”

    It was a room full of men, the few women there did the “Yee-owwww!” riot girl cheer and the men ‘stood up’ to applaud this man who was ‘bold’ to tell all us men this.

    Protestantism is dead in the USA.

  16. earl says:

    Context? What’s that?

    That’s why you make sure to read not only just the cherry picked verse…but perhaps the whole chapter of the book. That’s your context.

  17. earl says:

    Wimminz and churchian pastors seem to have a funny way of taking a verse by itself and then warping it to whatever they want. Much like the OP.

  18. earl says:

    Protestantism is dead in the USA.

    It’s what happens when you start giving women any type of clergy responsibility. It goes from worshiping Christ and promoting the Gospel to worshiping whatever is popular in the world and spouting the gospel of SJW.

    They’ve been trying this game in the Catholic church (female deacons) and thankfully they’ve squashed it to this point. Some Jesuit priests however have pretty much signaled they are on the SJW train instead of the Gospel.

  19. Dota says:

    He who lives by the social justice sword, dies by the social justice sword.

  20. Anon says:

    Hallelujah!

    I have often pointed out that it was taking an unusually long time for #MeToo to start snaring pastorbators and other churchians. Finally, the long-overdue event has arrived.

    I am similarly eager to see #MeToo snare some National Review cuckservatives.

  21. Anon says:

    Protestantism is dead in the USA.

    Hence, the field is now clear for Islam. Remember, nature hates a vacuum, and women get gina tingles from Islam.

  22. Jack Morrow says:

    Winston Churchill’s quote on appeasement is appropriate: “Each one thinks that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last.”

  23. Pingback: He had to know that they would one day come for him. | Reaction Times

  24. Strefanasha says:

    See how they dance around what St Paul said about it being the woman who was deceived by the serpent in the garden. I have heard that the argument against woman preachers was cultural, namely that women preaching was not culturally acceptable in roman times. I warrant it was not. But Paul’s argument goes back to the very beginning of the human race, speaks to the nature of women as fallen beings, and cannot be ignored, even though when i was a feminist gynocentrist fool I tried to ignore it. So Piper was “attracted” to another understanding? so what?? If i were attracted to a married woman that would be sin, being atracted to heretical misreadings of scripture is still heresy. and it is indeed heresy for the plain wording makes plain sense and no other sense need be sought – this in paraphrasing an old dictum you may already know. Besides, becoming dependant on your preacher or pastor is always the sin of idolatry. it is fallacious to use this as a special exception to justify women teaching men

  25. Strefanasha says:

    such churches as these are already apostate. I recommend simply leaving them. They will not listen so why waste your breath?. Let them devolve into eath mother worshipping cults without us

  26. ACThinker says:

    Divorce shaming? I guess Paul must have been doing that when he compared Christ and the Church to a man and his bride. As the Man has no purpose absent having his bride, and the bride can not be so absent having a husband, so it is with Christ and his church. To say a man and bride can divorce is to say with the Church can exist absent Christ, or that Christ’s earthly purpose can be absent his bride the Church. Each divorce is a lie to that theology.(I refer to Ephesians chapter 5)
    But what would I know. The letters after my name said I did science, not philosophy or theology.

  27. Oscar says:

    … we as a church culture demonize divorce as the worst possible outcome – the sin of all sins…

    That’s a lie directly from a fork-tongued devil. In reality, the divorce rate among Christians is only a little lower than that of non-believers. That would not be true if the Church took the sin of divorce seriously.

  28. Jack Russell says:

    The pasturbators forgot to mention Eve as being gullible and deceivable, not to mention most of the adverts for useless junk are aimed at women. YMMV.

  29. Anonymous Reader says:

    ACThinker
    As the Man has no purpose absent having his bride,

    Wait, what?

  30. Bee says:

    Oscar,

    “That’s a lie directly from a fork-tongued devil. In reality, the divorce rate among Christians is only a little lower than that of non-believers. That would not be true if the Church took the sin of divorce seriously.”

    One of Beth Moore’s two children is divorced.

    https://the-end-time.org/2016/10/29/two-divorce-cases-summer-white-and-melissa-moore/

  31. feeriker says:

    And once again, Satan — along with the legions of non-believers– is laughing in delight.

  32. earl says:

    Evangelist Beth Moore, founder of Living Proof Ministries, has slammed Christian church culture that she says “demonizes” divorce as the worst sin even as wives are being abused by their husbands.

    She’d probably say the same thing when Christ talked about divorce.

    The go to argument for these feminists that divorce should be allowed for the few cases of husband abuse. Much like abortion should be allowed in the few cases of rape. I’d retort all the frivolous divorces where the wife just doesn’t want to be married anymore is a worst phenomenon.

  33. Scott says:

    I love this.

  34. info says:

    @Jack morrow

    Reminds me of male feminists

  35. earl says:

    From Bee’s site about Beth Moore’s daughter…care to take a guess why she divorced? Was it adultery, was it spousal abuse, was it abandonment…the things Beth Moore is so concerned about when the church ‘demonizes’ divorce.

    I know court records are public so I found the public divorce documents. The reason for Melissa Moore’s 2013 divorce was… “Personality Conflict”. Melissa initiated it

    Personality conflict is NOT one of the allowable exclusions for escaping the marital covenant. Unless further revelations are shared in good faith transparency, one must sorrowfully conclude that Melissa Moore is sinfully divorced and falls below any standard of being able to teach scripture. Her mother’s continued support of her daughter and her continued partnership with Melissa in spiritual endeavors also casts Beth in a negative light.

    You guessed it… she’s part of the 70% that frivorces.

  36. SnapperTrx says:

    When i confronted my pastors i knew as I was leaving our meeting that their failure to uphold scripture regarding women teaching the congregation would cost them their church. God said he would not be mocked, how then do these pastors think they will get away with mocking him in his own house? The scripture is right there and you literally can’t screw it up you can only willfully disregard it.

  37. SnapperTrx says:

    Ah yes, that contextual morality comes in handy, don’t it! “I am firmly against divorce, except when it’s my daughter! Then God is okay with it because he would never want such a sweet, innocent princess to suffer!”

  38. dudedont says:

    Much respect to all you’ve done over the years Darlock. I’m not aware of any other Christian out there that makes it plain like you do.

  39. I’ve stated many times, modern church culture is openly hostile to men today. MeToo will be the end of Evangelical Christianity. Feminism and the Feminine Imperative has fundamentally rewritten articles of faith in the female image. Your religion is lost:

  40. This is quite the good news.

    The earlier that the “complementarian” structures fall, the easier it will be for people to see that they’ve been deceived.

    Liberal Churches are dying off as they hemorrhage members, so no worries on that front either. When the gospel is distorted, it loses it’s power because it’s not the gospel anymore. It’s no wonder people want to leave when their “churches” are ruled by women.

  41. purge187 says:

    “He who lives by the social justice sword, dies by the social justice sword.”

    Starbucks is finding that out the hard:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/employees-find-needles-drug-baggies-and-blood-all-over-the-walls-after-starbucks-opens-its-bathrooms-to-everyone/

    Concerning the subject at hand, suggesting that a wife is obligated to stay with an abusive spouse strikes me as a rather Muslim thing to do.

  42. purge187 says:

    * Starbucks is finding that out the hard way:

  43. feministhater says:

    Concerning the subject at hand, suggesting that a wife is obligated to stay with an abusive spouse strikes me as a rather Muslim thing to do.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the advice was to separate from an abusive spouse rather than divorce them. I don’t think the advice was to stay in the same house as an abusive spouse.

  44. dudedont says:

    @Rollo Tomassi

    No Rollo, the remnant is not lost. The world is lost.

    “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”
    ‭‭1 John‬ ‭2:18-19‬ ‭KJV‬‬

  45. bdash 77 says:

    people who think this is Good
    http://www.fox4news.com/news/woman-who-falsely-accused-dps-trooper-of-rape-won-t-face-additional-charges
    this is coming next…

    you piss of any female ( manspread on the train)
    she will accuse you of rape

    your life is over
    she faces no consequences

    celebrating feminists take over of the church is silly…

  46. Oscar says:

    @ Bee & Earl

    That explains a lot, doesn’t it?

  47. Emperor Constantine says:

    Larry Kummer, Editor said:
    “May 26, 2018 at 3:27 pm
    It’s an old story.
    On 28 July 1794, Robespierre was guillotined without trial in the Place de la Révolution.
    “Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”
    — Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793.”

    If it makes you feel any better the revolution will eventually be coming for Beth Moore when she refuses to go the whole way on unilateral divorce and abortion.

  48. Boxer says:

    Feminist Hater sez:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the advice was to separate from an abusive spouse rather than divorce them. I don’t think the advice was to stay in the same house as an abusive spouse.

    That’s the way I read it as well.

  49. JRob says:

    This has opened the door for the -feminist-arm-up-the-ass- sock puppet SJW “leader” to be named in Patterson’s stead. He managed to hide the puppet hand somewhat. #MeToo is about power and ultimately replacing masculine with feminist

    Russell Moore, laughing, spreads his wings.

  50. Emperor Constantine says:

    That part in the Bible where Eve reached for the apple? The abortion vote in Ireland & the feminist coup in evangelicalism reminds us that when women reach for power things don’t turn out so well. It’s time women humble themselves before God and submit to men.

  51. JRob says:

    Beth Moore is already all for unilateral divorce. She projects, blames, and hamsterizes it all around so it’s the man’s fault and it appears she believes the other way. She’s picked up where Oprah left off ruining the American female.

    In other news, anyone who gives money to Charles Swindoll this week gets two books written by his hypenated-surname daughter.

  52. bdash 77 says:

    Jen Wilkin who Dalrock has blogged about here has called for Female Leadership and Influence in the SBC…..
    he end game is always a takeover…

    but guess what
    it is MEN who want this
    MEN who want a weak church and a weak Gospel
    Men like Jen Wilkin’s and Beth Moore’s husband who would rather stay home and make pesto and dinner and claim they are “SERVING’ their wives like Christ….

    they were trained by older men to think this way…

    They do it in my Church….

  53. JRob says:

    *Frivorced, moved the kids 800 miles away from their father to run to Daddy hypenated-surname daughter

  54. rhodigian says:

    Will this endure?
    This plague is spreading even in Europe, even in Pope’s home, Rome and Italy.

  55. Nerock says:

    This is also part of a broader denominational takeover attempt by a liberalizing faction, heavily overlapping with the Calvinist wing, within the SBC. It’s not just about gender issues, but also about their “racial reconciliation” movement, and moving towards LGBT acceptance. The latter is in the earlier stages, retracing many of the same kinds of steps that Dalrock outlined in the post around feminism. This takeover looks likely to succeed. The same thing is happening in the PCA (conservative Presbyterians).

  56. JRob says:

    *hypHenated

  57. Anon,

    “Hence, the field is now clear for Islam. Remember, nature hates a vacuum, and women get gina tingles from Islam.”

    That is the elephant in the room. Unmentionable in polite company. Consider this a test! Mainline Christianity has gone full feminist. Pedestal polishing, wife worshiping, etc. This washes away the foundation of many boys raised as Christians. Good feminists will love the men they become.

    Theory B says that women want strong men. We do have a rapidly growing religion in the West that’s all about producing strong men. How many women will convert to it during the next generation or two? Might this be a winner-take-all game?

    Here is my guess: “Conversions to Islam will reshape the West.”

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/05/10/a-big-future-for-islam-in-the-west/

  58. feeriker says:

    If it makes you feel any better the revolution will eventually be coming for Beth Moore when she refuses to go the whole way on unilateral divorce and abortion.

    Beth Moore is so close to full apostasy now that going the full route to the logical end will be easy for her.

    No, if she gets “purged” it will be for contrived, trivial, purely political reasons, not scriptural or ideological ones.

  59. freebird says:

    Describing herself as “the elephant in the room with a skirt on,” Moore noted that while the experiences she mentioned “may seem fairly benign” compared to other incidents in secular and religious institutions, they nevertheless come “from the same dangerously malignant root.”

    The Root (pun intended) Being Patriarchy.
    Ya know,the sinful ungodly Father Son Holy Spirit shit.

    The difference between male and female leadership.
    Female lead with emotion not logic making very unsound choices,often yanking men around with Yo-yo behaviors just to get the emotional satisfaction of domination. (The original sin)

    Whereas most often men make leadership (headship decisions) with logic and foresight,trying to improve the family unit.
    This is why the social engineers set out to destroy the family unit want female headship,it destroys so well.

    But none can say shit these days because the ((PTB)) has it’s big boots on male necks.
    It IS telling men would rather NOT reproduce than live as denigrated slaves.
    This situation will not be tolerated much longer, Mother Nature wants reproduction and if it will be all Muslim,so ALLAH wills it to be.
    God Is great.He will be obeyed,one way or the other.You bet your ass on that.

  60. JRob says:

    @Nerock

    Very astute. They’re pushing their agenda using PC and churchian feminists and their ilk as the vector. If you oppose an EAP even using the proper true Biblical argument you are shamed, accused, and shouted down. Sound familiar?

    The Marxist script is well represented in the SBC. Also throw animal rights into he pot. LBGTBR549EIEIO is next.

  61. I’ve spoken with several Beth Moore fangurlz and every one is still very much ego invested in her ‘message’ even after her ascension to female godhood. The Sisterhood Über Alles knows no conviction beyond itself. Evangelical christianity is lost. This is the future that male feminist church leaders created for themselves. Now that the beast has outgrown the usefulness of its male enablers it’s time to cull them (via MeToo) and assume church headship.

  62. ACThinker says:

    Anonymous Reader. Please read it in context. I was using man instead of husband. And while Paul said it is better to be single and about God’s work than married, God himself recognized that it was not good for man to be alone.

    My point was that as each marriage points to the truth that Christ and the church are joined. Each divorce is theological lie saying that the church can exist absent God or that Christ coming too earth makes sense without the church. So does a divorce say that a bride can be without her man, or that a man well not going to earth but similar there a man providing maybe? Makes no sense absent his bride

    Through looking at each and seeing the similarity between them we can understand more of both. Thus because of the theological lie that divorce is, it may not be the sinner finally sins, but it is fairly high. Perhaps rebellion against God would be

  63. earl says:

    Nothing new under the sun…the minute men let women run things or give them the headship, all the destruction we know today as feminism comes about.

    Wanting divorce-remarriage, abortion, promiscuity, women seeing themselves as ‘goddess’…it’s Jezebel all over again. Nobody ever points that out as the downside of giving women the authority. It’s always the classic red herring ‘what if the man abuses his power and beats the wife’? Apparently because that has happened before women should have all these destructive outs in marriage and take them even when the husband has never shown signs of being abusive.

    Whereas we have the model of marriage in Scripture and how God set it up. It works.

  64. earl says:

    I’ve spoken with several Beth Moore fangurlz and every one is still very much ego invested in her ‘message’ even after her ascension to female godhood.

    It’s a very easy temptation to get women in to do all sorts of evil things…’you’ll be like God’.

  65. “He had to know they would one day come for him.”

    Eh. People like this typically have no idea what they’re dealing with. If they did, they wouldn’t let them in to begin with.

  66. “Hence, the field is now clear for Islam.”

    LOL. Sure, in 20 years 90% of Americans will be Muslims. Yeah. Right.

  67. @feministhater

    Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the advice was to separate from an abusive spouse rather than divorce them. I don’t think the advice was to stay in the same house as an abusive spouse.

    Why are you and other commenters adopting the frame of feminism vis a vis “abuse”? You appear to be attempting to distance the churchian pastor from the feminist claim that he is tolerant of “abuse” in the feminist sense. “Abuse” as it is understood today can mean almost anything, if it displeases a woman. This has been discussed at length here and from other authors.

    There should be no attempt to ameliorate the churchian pastor’s words because even if he said that a wife should not separate from an “abusive” spouse, he would be correct, because the term “abuse” can now mean literally anything, which then indicates that divorce/separation can be justified by anything. The term “abuse” must never be taken seriously because it no longer holds any meaning, and is now equivalent to “generalized female displeasure.”

  68. Boxer says:

    LOL. Sure, in 20 years 90% of Americans will be Muslims. Yeah. Right.

    In 100 years, there probably won’t be any Christians left. Guess what? It doesn’t matter. Islam is right now in the median stages of feminization. Your Muslim descendants will grovel and scrape to their feminist masters, exactly as you do.

  69. RichardP says:

    Couple of points need to be clarified:

    1. God did not create every woman to be the help for every man. He created the wife to be a help for her husband. Likewise, for those who use “submit” rather than “help”, God did not create every woman to submit to every man. He created the wife to submit to her husband.

    2. It is not divorce that creates the sin. It is the remarriage. Therefore, it is true that divorce is not the greatest sin. (Reasonable men can and have used Bible verses to argue that divorce is not a sin at all). The greatest sin (or the only sin) occurs in the remarriage. It is the remarriage that creates the adultry – and it is adultry that is sin.

    3. Where lies the power of God’s word to us – in the sex of the speaker, or in the words of God that are spoken (assuming they are spoken correctly)? For the arguments in this thread to have any merit, we must make a distinction in public speaking between those speakers who only say “this is what God says” (by quoting scripture) and those who go beyond “what it says” to elaborate on “what it means”. Because that is one of the great conundrums of life regarding any written word: all can agree on what it says but yet all disagree on what it means.

    The sex of the speaker is irrelevant if speech is constained to proclaiming “what it says”. Going beyond that, into the “what it means” part seems to reserved by Paul for the males. Yet, amongst the males who say “what it means” you will find great disagreements. So how is multiple men disagreeing with each other an improvement over women and men disagreeing with each other? This is not a call to accept expository preaching from women. It is simply an acknowledgement that the arguments for men-only being made in this thread are built on a really flimsy base. History has proven that men can be (and are) just as wrong as women.

    4. An example of Point 3: Upthread we have appeals to Paul’s rule that only men should preach – because … whatever … they are not as easily led astray as women. Then we have others denouncing men for being so easily led astray as to let women get a foot in the door of leadership in the church. One set is arguing for men-only, because they see clearly and correctly and never get fooled. The other set is claiming that men have allowed themselves to be fooled by the women. So let’s let the men easily fooled by women be the leaders, becaaauuuse it was Eve that got fooled, right??? Again, not a call to put women in leadership. Just a call to acknowledge the reality of what is being discussed. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. That means both sexes. At the judgement seat, you are not going to be welcomed into the joy of the Lord just because your argument rests on the fact that “I am a man, not a woman”. You aren’t protected just because you are a man. Something more is needed. And Paul’s argument that men should be in leadership because they don’t get fooled and women do – is not the argument that Paul is actually making, even though so many here think it is. Men get fooled, just as women do. Men get it wrong (all men who disagree on “what it means” cannot all be correct), just as women do The argument for men-only preaching is based on something other than male infallibility.

  70. Nathan Bruno says:

    @RichardP

    “At the judgement seat, you are not going to be welcomed into the joy of the Lord just because your argument rests on the fact that “I am a man, not a woman”. You aren’t protected just because you are a man.”

    No one has ever argued this on Dalrock’s website. I can’t tell if you actually revere the Scripture or not, but I don’t think you do from what you’ve said, because, if you did as you say in #3, you would know the answer is – we have male church leadership because Paul gave qualifications, and it starts by being a man. You also are trying to suggest that Malachi 2:16 does not say its plain meaning, which would make people question your fidelity to Scripture.

  71. Swanny River says:

    “What if the husband abuses his power and wife?”
    I need to read this question so I can tell them what they want to hear, when I don’t feel like be lectured to. The response they want to that question? Yes, yes dear, you did right and don’t you dare let those judgmental people say otherwise.”
    They don’t care about the bible, or more importantly, an abused person. When someone asks that question, they are seeking permission to sear their conscience.

    I saw a movie from 1945 yesterday, “Operation Pacific” with John Wayne and Robert Montgomery. What an eye opener to see how far we’ve fallen. Wayne is divorced and pursuing to be remarried to his ex. She gives a you-go girl speech to him, and I slap my forehead about how awful it was, even in 45. But later, something great happens, an older women tells the ex, what is what. It was Titus 2 in action and would lead viewers to more godliness then a stack of bible study books. Also, Wayne has a short but poignant bible quote in the movie(not about marriage) which wasn’t intended to evangelize, and is so much more salty than the garbage put out today. Has anyone seen the movie recently and know the older lady beatdown I saw?

  72. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Interesting critique of Beth Moore’s teachings about “binding prayers”: http://pulpitandpen.org/2016/05/19/beth-moores-bible-twisting-now-includes-binding-prayers/

  73. earl says:

    And Paul’s argument that men should be in leadership because they don’t get fooled and women do – is not the argument that Paul is actually making, even though so many here think it is.

    @RichardP

    It’s the second half of the argument. 1 Tim 2:12-15

    But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

  74. Swanny River says:

    Nathan P,
    I have the same reaction to Richard’s finger wag, that is, he is correcting an argument no one has made. Not a purposeful troll, because he often writes here with his “above it all” well- meaning corrections, which tend to be the same warning, regardless what the original post is about.

  75. Jim says:

    It’s all women worship, from the tradcons, to the PUAs, to the complementarians. All of it.

    Yup. I’ve not always been red pilled but damn! I’ve never been like these pathetic little bitch boys. These bitch boys have no self respect at all. It’s so pathetic.

  76. JRob says:

    @RichardP

    I understand your argumemt and you’re correct, all are fallen.
    In the 80’s we had the Swaggarts/700 Club scandals, Oral Roberts’ empty hospital, and other craziness. The common theme was the quest for power, money, and poontang. Wolves in sheep’s clothing if you will.

    You can follow this theme backwards chronologically through the Latter Rain movement all the way to the apostle Paul’s time with different flavors of apostasy and heresy.

    The current theme we banter about here is feminism in the church . Women and their champions are burning down our society. They are destroying the family, male-female interaction, and the church. Their favorite female teachers are heretical, aberrant at best. I for one disbelieve anything that comes out of their mouths. The thing is, churchian women lap this stuff up and run with it despite its clear contradiction with scripture. They demand their day in the sun in the church and it’s given them. As a group they REFUSE to follow scripture which commands us to act contrary to our sinful proclivities. Most truly Christian men will at least attempt this. Women will only try if their emotion is stirred up in that direction at any given time. They refuse to follow any absolute behavioral standard except their emotions. A lecherous man in church will be disciplined and disfellowshipped if need be, what about the sexually active single mothers?

  77. Bee says:

    JRob,

    “*Frivorced, moved the kids 800 miles away from their father to run to Daddy hypenated-surname daughter”

    This is not an exhaustive list. I have not searched all possibilities, but amazing how many well known Christian leaders have at least one child that is divorced. If your mom or dad was a Bible student and a full time Christian leader wouldn’t you think you would have more input and wisdom on how to choose a good partner than the average pew sitter?

    The following have at least one child that is divorced:

    Chuck Swindoll
    James Dobson
    John Piper
    Beth Moore
    TD Jakes

    Deep Strength says this is because Complementarianism is a flawed system.

  78. seventiesjason says:

    Protestantism is cornered now in the USA…..and probably the ‘modern west’ in general. In Latin America, in Inida, in China……Africa…….probably 75-100 years behind of what it has evolved into here.

    I can’t speak for the Catholic tradition. I have a few relatives on my dad’s side (Polish side) that are pretty devout……..and none of them “like” the current Pope.

    What got protestantism to this point? It isn’t one answer. It’s a large puzzle of small npieces that were slowly fitted together over the decades to give us what we have now. Creeping incrementalism?

    I will be looking for a church when I move to Santa Rosa in a few weeks, doubtful I will find one…..but I will try. If not? I will find a “bible study” group to be a part of, and even Daniel…..exiled, in a foreign land…….his people in BONDAGE……..removed from their homeland…….and yet he KEPT the tennants of faith. He prayed, served, trusted and loved God.

    He did this without a “priest” and “the temple” and its courts.

  79. earl says:

    It is not divorce that creates the sin.

    It makes the sin of adultery much more possible though.

    Besides…when Scripture itself says God hates something…it’s a good idea to not try and defend it.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+2%3A16&version=NASB

  80. Anon says:

    Boxer said :

    In 100 years, there probably won’t be any Christians left. Guess what? It doesn’t matter. Islam is right now in the median stages of feminization. Your Muslim descendants will grovel and scrape to their feminist masters, exactly as you do.

    Yep.

    Real Peterman tends to respond to things others have not said or even implied. That is why he has so many difficulties. Among other things, his handle links not to his blog, but to AVFM, even though he has no connection to AVFM. This also implies an endorsement of Paul Elam’s deceptive fleecing of his donors.

    By contrast, Larry Krummer (an actual thinker, unlike Real Peterman) gets it.

  81. JRob says:

    If your mom or dad was a Bible student and a full time Christian leader wouldn’t you think you would have more input and wisdom on how to choose a good partner than the average pew sitter?

    I’d argue if they were teaching the Bible in the first place the children would understand the call for holiness above haaaaaappiness in marriage despite not choosing a “good” partner. The gubment/church/court subsidy of fathers’ ejection from the home and any meaningful input into child rearing, and its destruction of society, is well presented and discussed here.

  82. Anon says:

    Boxer said :

    In 100 years, there probably won’t be any Christians left. Guess what? It doesn’t matter. Islam is right now in the median stages of feminization. Your Muslim descendants will grovel and scrape to their feminist masters, exactly as you do.

    The thing is, democracy, over time, becomes wholly incompatible with the institution of marriage. Islam cannot resist this other than to the extent that Islam precludes democracy in the first place.

    Democracy = more and more laws passed to rig everything in favor of women, and to transfer resources from men to women. Hence, no religion, not even Islam, can resist this trend forever.

    Extremely few people truly realize that over time, democracy precludes the existence of Marriage 1.0.

  83. JDG says:

    Rollo: Your religion is lost.

    Not quite.

    Evangelical christianity is lost.

    Possibly, but those who belong to Christ will remain. Christianity (as described in the Bible) can’t go anywhere until His glorious return.

    “4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.” 1 John 2:4-6

    “19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” 1 John 2:19

    “13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Matt 7:13-14

    “12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” Matt 3:12

  84. Micah says:

    Even if he’s innocent, perhaps the women are still justified in accusing him because they’re only reflecting some of his other actions, and his overall treatment of them.

    That’s what they would tell husbands whose wives are not doing God’s will for them in their marriages.

  85. Anonymous Reader says:

    ACThinker
    Anonymous Reader. Please read it in context. I was using man instead of husband.

    Consider writing more carefully, without pedestalization of women embedded in your text. Where is it written that a man is nothing without a woman? Book of Oprah, maybe?

  86. Lost Patrol says:

    Instapundit finds an available woman for anyone interested, and notes: “It’s very important to list all the things you won’t do for your future husband before you meet him.”

    https://www.yourtango.com/4-modern-reasons-i-refuse-to-change-my-last-name-for-marriage

  87. Opus says:

    My objection is this: Beth Moore uses the word abuse. To do so is to prejudge the issue. Abuse is a judgement about an action and not a description of the action. Neither does the word abuse explain whether the ‘abuse’ is short and fleeting or inadvertent. It is entirely subjective. It is a judgement whereby any marriage can be ended for (as I use to say to my clients) it is inconceivable that if you have been married that there has been no instance where you were less than happy with your husband. Beth Moore poses as one concerned for married women. In truth she is intent on creating something surely unknown to Christianity and contrary to Paul namely divorce and at that divorce at whim. Women do not divorce their husbands for abuse (I have never seen it); they divorce by reason of whim and usually the mildest of men: women always stick by and defend bastards. Beth Moore has created a straw man and then set about destroying it with a view to setting up a victory marker.

  88. Now Lost Patrol, why shouldn’t we be taking advice from a woman who blogs about dating tall, emotionally unavailable men?

  89. JDG says:

    Heidi you could have ended that question after the word dating.

  90. Anonymous Reader says:

    Heidi you could have ended that question after the word dating.

    Is it still required to Kiss Dating Goodbye?

    @Lost Patrol
    A Millennial friend of mine got married about 3 years ago. She didn’t change her last name because of professional reasons; would have to change various licenses & so forth. At least, that’s what she said. But I suspect the deeper reason, that she would never admit to is she settled for a man who was “good enough”…sad to see.

  91. CSI says:

    This is the weakest metoo moment in the history of metoo. Was that 16 year old girl who was “objectified” real or fictional? Can’t tell. Anyhow, no man is safe if this is it takes to get him publicly shamed and stripped of power. That is the point though.

    The controversy seems to have begun with a series of posts about Patterson on a blog called the Baptist Blogger, run by Benjamin S. Cole, a former mentee of Patterson who has since been critical of Patterson’s right-wing stances.

    I doubt if he felt any genuine outrage, but just saw his chance for power. But you only have to look at the purges of any revolution to know his head might be next to roll. But the end game will probably be the removal of men from any position of authority and their replacement by women. Do you think the Bible can be tortured into submission enough to allow women to preach to men? I’m guessing so.

  92. seventiesjason says:

    Was sent this article from a Salvationist I chat with online in London. My age, single, never married, dateless………….we both had a snicker and wry smile over it. Christian women want men to “man up” and ask them out!!!!!!!!

    the clincher and fine print of this statement that is never mentioned out loud: Only men that I am ATTRACTED to physically……..

    https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/70-per-cent-of-single-women-want-Christian-men-to-man-up-and-ask-them-out

  93. CSI says:

    @seventiesjason,
    there’s plenty of articles from unmarried churchgoing men why they don’t ask out unmarried women in their church. Firstly, church women tend to be uninterested in any man who isn’t rich, handsome and/or exciting. Male intuition may be derided, but it is good enough so we can tell when a woman has zero romantic interest in us. Also, the unmarried women tend to form a single gossiping clique. To be approved by one, you have to be approved by all. If you are rejected by one, you are rejected by all.

  94. earl says:

    “It’s very important to list all the things you won’t do for your future husband before you meet him.”

    I love it when women just flat out display all their red flags upfront. Makes it easier for me to go ‘NEXT’.

  95. Oscar says:

    Paige Patterson should feel fortunate. I mean, at least he didn’t take an ice pick to the brain. Although, I suppose there is still time for that.

  96. earl says:

    “There just aren’t any single Christian men! I’ve read all the books, know that God is in control and all of that, but when there literally aren’t enough men to go round, I really don’t know what else we’re supposed to do?”

    I’ll give the worst advice anyone could give to the princess…the type she would refuse to hear.

    Lower your standards. Not moral standards…I mean the monetary-prince charming standards.

    There are plenty of single Christian men…they are just invisible to you.

  97. Lost Patrol says:

    @ AR

    Even long ago my own wife’s mother and three sisters were encouraging her to keep her name, or hyphenate our last names before we got married. Strictly a control measure, no professional documents at stake. They wanted to make sure she started out holding a strong hand I guess. Hopelessly blue pill as I was, I still had a visceral reaction to this and categorically refused to participate under that condition. Not that it saved me from all the usual intersexual warfare after the fact.

    @ Jason

    It’s right in the article’s subheading. If she is thinking “man up” in conjunction with a particular man, or saying it to her friends, the entire enterprise is doomed from the outset. She does not see him as a man worthy of respect in his own right. It is a blatant tell. MAN UP, is the signal for a man to STEER CLEAR.

    @ CSI

    Dead right. My son and his friends confirm this. Date one church girl and if she puts you on the bench they all do. You might as well move on, as far as that place is concerned.

  98. feeriker says:

    If your mom or dad was a Bible student and a full time Christian leader wouldn’t you think you would have more input and wisdom on how to choose a good partner than the average pew sitter?

    It just proves that “professional Christians” have no more interest in proactive parenting than churchian pew-warmers or non-believers. Everybody in the West today sees their children as burdens to be rid of as soon as possible.

  99. feeriker says:

    earl says:
    May 27, 2018 at 6:16 pm

    We know that NONE of these women are serious about marriage, so your advice, essential and spot-on as it is, would be completely wasted. If any of these slags were truly desperate to marry, they would have adjusted their standards to the real world years ago. All of these crocodile-tears “oh-where-are-all-the-real-Christian-men?” rants are just the editorial equivalent of a 12-year-old throwing a tantrum because she can’t have exactly what she wants when she wants it.

  100. earl says:

    I’ll also vouch for the date one girl in church and if she rejects you it’s over for the rest of them (at least if they are all in a group). The next girl I dated from the same church ‘coincidentally’ gave me almost word for word the same break up speech as the last one shortly after the two girls became friends.

  101. earl says:

    We know that NONE of these women are serious about marriage, so your advice, essential and spot-on as it is, would be completely wasted.

    True…that’s probably the #1 reason why these women aren’t getting married. They say they want to…but their actions prove otherwise.

    We should just go back to the father deciding which man for his daughter to marry and take her discernment out of it. Over a long enough time period she either chooses badly or chooses the unrealistic guy in her head that she doesn’t choose at all.

  102. JDG says:

    Is it still required to Kiss Dating Goodbye?

    I wouldn’t know, but I would say dating is fools errand. Nevertheless, my comment was agreeing with the answer to Heidi’s rhetorical question and kicking it up a notch: “Why shouldn’t we be taking advice from a woman who blogs about dating”.

  103. Kevin says:

    Islam is not an internal threat to the West. It could be an external threat through terrorism or war but since most the countries are garbage without an economy that can produce a military that can project force it’s unlikely. Things could change but current trends suggest we will be fine. Europe might be lost becasue or proximity.

    I don’t think widespread conversion to Islam is likely. Islam is 1) Not true and 2) Incompatible with modernity. The far more likely income is just widespread atheism even among the growing Muslim population – essentially Boxers vision. Islam will suffer 2nd and 3rd gen with lots of Apostasy – we are the Great Satan and if the true message of Christ is losing ground the false religion of Muhammad has little chance. In order to survive Islam will likely need a reformation internally as some try to make
    It workable with feminism and other wicked western traditions. It’s not going to be attractive except for to some African Americans as a way to rebel against their western culture.

    Christians having no babies in the West doesn’t help.

  104. JRob says:

    Christians having no babies in the West doesn’t help.

    It’s all one giant circle, isn’t it? Cultural Marxism/Marxist feminism corrupts the culture at large, then moves into the church. Feminine imperative rules all to where it’s , “Egad! Anything but a white male with a job!” Then the Judeo-Christian ethic which built the west is sacrificed on the altar of entitlement and Hamster. Those who drove it get what they want, then figure out that wasn’t what they wanted after all.

    MGTOW will briefly interrupt the OODA Loop perhaps.

  105. John James R. says:

    Poor guy thought he was all tucked away safe with his AMOG position (that he fortified each Sunday). He didn’t know that feminists are the new AMOGS these days.

  106. Strefanasha says:

    JRob wrote:
    . . . . . . . to follow scripture which commands us to act contrary to our sinful proclivities. Most truly Christian men will at least attempt this.

    and I Strefanasha respond. I am sorry but the inward nature of sin itself blows this one out of the water. We are comanded to have new hearts where the sinful procilivity is removed, for to force action against such is to whiten the sepulchre, clean the outside of the cup. This very determination that you laud is is what made the pharisees the pharisees. To repress hatred of our neighbour is not to love our neighbour and neither is to repress – ie act contrary to our own inclination for same – our disobedience or unbelief in God to obey or trust him. I know this for I tried this with full rigour, and I mean the rigour that had me break down to become an invalid for some 12 years. I do not in the slightest dispute the command to love God or refrain from lust of any kind, But how this is reponded to is utterly crucial. The galatians got it wrong and were rebuked for forsaking God for the Law. I know for a fact that I do not love God and never have, as my careless words give the game any time my guard is down – ie when i forget to act against my inner jnclinations. Thus all my efforts to obey God were self rigteous filthy rags for they never were obedience. My inner inclinations by their very existence made this clear. For if I look with lust it is too late. I have already sinned regardles of how i act on it. Grace is not an aiud for my hypocrsitical efforts. It is something else entirely. Praise be ot God

    Besides there is no peace in the kind of effort you recommend if it is in any way consistent. we are not to force proper action but to repent, itself a gift of grace, of our inward desires that if undealt with make of our proper actions so much hypocrisy. I am sorry sir but your teaching is what nearly destroyed me. It is a crushing burden where His yoke is easy, and it stirs up sin to make it worse. where His grace leads me to life changing and cleansing repentance.

    I learned all these things the hardest possible way. I can no longer force against my inclinations for it made me a house divided against itself, and my fall was great indeed.

    I could go on for legalism is deadly and my decades ofagony therein have well acquaintged me with it. But brevity is still the soul of wit so I end here

  107. JRob says:

    Yes, I understand your point. All law and no grace is crushing. My language there where you take pause was probably not clear. I struck a nerve apparently.

    I was raised in legalistic charismatic churches where leadership was iron fisted and harsh. They were often grabbing all the money, power, and sex they could get under the guise of piety.

    What I see now is exactly what most discuss here. Unchallenged license given to women in the church under the guise of grace. Men are held accountable, they aren’t. Men are held accountable for their sin too. This behavior, such as that of the hereticess Beth Moore, is rooted in the Fall just as legalism is. This behavior, and Marxist feminism, is driving men out of the church.

    I’m not advocating strict legalism, I’m advocating accountability.

  108. Frank K says:

    the clincher and fine print of this statement that is never mentioned out loud: Only men that I am ATTRACTED to physically……..

    She wants a “Godly Chad”

  109. Spike says:

    So, there we have it: Dr Patterson loses his job because he said a few politically incorrect things. This, despite being quite mild, moving the conservative movement he leads to the Left.
    Nothing, it seems, pleases the Radical, regressive Left. You can be as mild and mainstream as you want. They will go after you. They will cut you to pieces. They will do this because you’re a follower of Christ and they hate your guts for it.
    There is no point to compromise, concede, try to find middle ground, be reasonable, rational and moderate. Any such overtures are interpreted as a sign of weakness.
    And Christian women? They side with their fat, ugly, mentally ill, disturbed, fluro-haired, pierced, tatted, husband-less, thug-spawn bearing vegan sisters against Christian men. EVERY TIME.

    So, throw out the 2014 NIV satanic bible. Refuse women leadership positions. Boycott them if they preach. Do not help them if they have in any way stepped outside of their biblical roles. And avoid all kinds of flattery.

  110. Sharkly says:

    Anonymous Reader says: I’ve noted that most people cherry-pick quotes from the Bible, sometimes even ignoring the very next line when it is inconvenient.
    Context? What’s that?

    earl says: That’s why you make sure to read not only just the cherry picked verse…but perhaps the whole chapter of the book. That’s your context.

    Sometimes you even have to read the chapter before. Please pay attention to what I’m about to expound here. This is bedrock against the heresy of Feminism. Passed down from God through Peter to us.

    1 Peter 2:13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

    1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

    1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.

    1 Peter 3:5
    For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

    There it is!
    first Peter 3:1 Starts off with “Likewise,” and can’t be fully understood properly without reading the last part of first Peter 2. I shouldn’t have to explain the above scripture, but for those who might miss it, I’ll give you my reading of that:
    God wants us to be subject to the authority He places over us.
    1 Samuel 15:23a For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
    We are to be subject to the general rules from a ruler right on down to the micro-managing of our daily tasks by our masters, even when those people are abusive and beating us unjustly. God says so, and was in fact our example. Christian wives are to likewise be subject to their husbands, even if some husbands obey not the Word of God. Thus failure to follow your husband cannot be blamed on his poor spiritual leadership, wives are called to suffer even unjust beatings at the hands of sinful husbands for the sake of holding to God’s commands. If you read what was written, that the clear intent of the scripture. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. We and our wives can’t just talk about doing good while we live life as rebels against the hierarchy that God has placed over us.

    It is a hard truth to accept, and even harder to follow. But choose you must. God’s word will make you an enemy of the world. The foolish churchians are trying to maintain friendship with the world, because they “fear anything that is frightening“.

    James 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that He has made to dwell in us”? 6 But He gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

    The churchians have not submitted to God and have made friends with the devil. The world knows that they only follow Christ where it suits them. They will never suffer for their beliefs, because they are fools who do not fear God. At the first sign of suffering they whitewash their rebellion against God’s call to endure suffering for His sake.

    Patriarchy: It is God the Father’s holy hierarchy, and a child of God will humbly reverence it.

    We have to get past the fear of being seen as supporting abusive husbands,(it is a meritless smear) and realize that God Himself put them in charge of their wives, and if we believe that their is a just God, who will not be mocked, God himself will hold that man accountable for all abuse even that done in secret, and God Himself will reward a wife who endures suffering nobly out of duty towards God and her husband, who is her earthly lord. And I need not remind those here that a good respectful helpful wife who delights to give her husband sexual pleasure, and praises him privately and publicly, will not often be “abused” for such behavior by her husband, perhaps just scorned by Feminists and their churchian comrades. I believe if You read 1 Peter 2 it calls for us all to be willing to be abused for our Christian faith right up to death by crucifixion, as our example suffered for us.

    I can’t tell you how many times my wife has complained that she doesn’t think I’d be willing to die for her like Christ did, and says; that is my role. We need to pronounce that a woman should be in subjection to her husband, even to the point of dying of abuse, because that is her role. Back when they preached and followed that divorce was almost unheard of. And as has been said before by others, pretty soon anything, unless it makes a woman’s vagina tingle, becomes abuse to them. Because, she has been taught the only proper use for a woman is: to worship, to wield power, and to indulge her every whim and farfetched fantasy.

    Nobody that I know of wants to be a martyr for Christ. And I don’t think but a very few would ever endure it. Most can’t even stand up to Feminist talking points for God. They go silent and are ashamed of the Word of God.
    If Patriarchy enables abuse, well, God is the father of it, and I’m on his side. But I don’t see it that way, I see patriarchy as enabling harmonious male/female head/helper relations. And it is children raised by single moms that by far commit the most violence against women. Go figure! God, our Creator, was wiser than the Feminists and churchians after all.

  111. Sharkly says:

    Strefanasha says: We are comanded to have new hearts where the sinful procilivity is removed, for to force action against such is to whiten the sepulchre, clean the outside of the cup. This very determination that you laud is is what made the pharisees the pharisees. To repress hatred of our neighbour is not to love our neighbour and neither is to repress – ie act contrary to our own inclination for same – our disobedience or unbelief in God to obey or trust him. I know this for I tried this with full rigour, and I mean the rigour that had me break down to become an invalid for some 12 years.

    Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

    You should not be too dogmatic about there being little work to living the Christian life. There is for me right now. Your personal experience is in some ways opposite to mine. At times I have found not just an easy yoke, but quite trying times of unjust hardship to be endured, and this is not because God delights to torment me, but because He knows through His grace I will be able to endure it without denying Him, even though I may stumble. Yes it is a great grace when God changes our will to His, but when we don’t will to do right, we must work to do right. And it was not wrong that the Pharisees did works of the law, it was wrong that they felt self justified and somehow cleansed by them. However, faith without works is dead! Real faith will push us to do real work. If one does not love their neighbor as God commands, it is still better that he works at suppressing his hatred, than not. God works through us both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
    Anyhow, I must work out my own salvation, and am convicted by my own conscience, and I have the liberty to know that it is OK that I will always struggle against a proclivity to sin. Like the apostle Paul, I end up doing those sinful things that I don’t want to do, because part of me does want to do them.
    Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
    I am free from the law of sin, but not free from transgressions. I have repented of all sin, past, present, and future, but, I still confess my sins, and I know that God’s shed blood will cover them all, even if some are unconfessed when I die. And I don’t need any other man to perform any last rite. The last man (last Adam) Jesus has shed His holy blood and performed my rite of redemption, and declared “It is finished”. And I by God’s grace through faith am saved form all my iniquity, and I get to serve God, unto reward, when my works are righteous. That is the good news!

  112. CSI says:

    They will do this because you’re a follower of Christ and they hate your guts for it.

    This was nothing to do with Mr Patterson’s beliefs, this was pure politics. But having seen how easy it is to force someone out of power using even the most trivial accusation of “objectification”, the temptation will be there for others to go the same route. The end result will be many more women in power, because women are largely immune from these acccusations.

  113. Scott says:

    Why are you and other commenters adopting the frame of feminism vis a vis “abuse”? You appear to be attempting to distance the churchian pastor from the feminist claim that he is tolerant of “abuse” in the feminist sense. “Abuse” as it is understood today can mean almost anything, if it displeases a woman. This has been discussed at length here and from other authors.

    There should be no attempt to ameliorate the churchian pastor’s words because even if he said that a wife should not separate from an “abusive” spouse, he would be correct, because the term “abuse” can now mean literally anything, which then indicates that divorce/separation can be justified by anything. The term “abuse” must never be taken seriously because it no longer holds any meaning, and is now equivalent to “generalized female displeasure.”

    I was kind of thinking the same thing. It doesn’t really matter what this pastor said married couples should do in the case of “abuse.” As soon as he used the term, he agreed, without reservation or qualification to its common use today, which is exactly as you say. In my own case, “abuse” meant “not wanting to go out and do the same things as me” and it was accepted by the elders and 1/2 the church as barbaric.

    There was no yelling. No hitting. No drinking. No controlling/jealous behavior. Just garden variety relationship growing pains which was transformed before my very eyes as “emotional abuse and neglect.”

    So, I have very little empathy for what happened here. He was ensnared by accepting the language, and therefore the very rules of engagement of the enemy.

  114. feministhater says:

    Why are you and other commenters adopting the frame of feminism vis a vis “abuse”? You appear to be attempting to distance the churchian pastor from the feminist claim that he is tolerant of “abuse” in the feminist sense. “Abuse” as it is understood today can mean almost anything, if it displeases a woman. This has been discussed at length here and from other authors.

    I don’t care about the churchian pastor or the feminist frame, it was merely to clear up any confusion. Over there in their sphere of feminist horse manure, everything is abuse, everything is sexist, everything is racist and everything is Patriarchy, it would matter not what I interjected in an effort to try and clear-up the understanding of real abuse vs emotional ‘abuse’; and I would not even care to converse with them. However, here on Dalrock’s blog, where people at least try to see the objective case and still think of ‘abuse’ as real and on going physical abuse, it is pertinent to advise that a separation is the order of the day if there is real abuse going on and not divorce.

    He and others like him got himself into the mess they are in by allowing women to teach Scripture.

  115. Joe says:

    He and others like him got himself into the mess they are in by allowing women to teach Scripture.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————-
    Beth Moore, Joyce Meyer and all the rest are not allowed in my house. Niether is another book written by a woman “Jesus Calling”. A friend gave that book to my wife. I took a look at it and told her that it was not Biblical. She listened and the next day I saw it in the trash.
    I allow very few so-called “christian” books in my house. This includes most male authors as well. “Christian” bookstores are dangerous places for those without any discernment.
    I noticed that a large providor of video Bible studies (forgot the name) no longer has any Beth Moore studies. Hmmm… People waking up?

  116. seventiesjason says:

    For Opus, and any other lurking British Subjects on the isles or elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

    *Tommy Robinson. Opinion on his arrest? His views?
    *Britian First? Opinions? I currently am a member, but all they seem to do is ask me for money.
    *My friend in the UK who is a practicing Salvationist as welll will not discuss the ‘grooming gang’ issue, nor will he give his opinion about any of the above people and organizations. Yet, every month in The Salvationist (UK Salvation Army News) I read about the army’s “daily fight” against the sex trade, and standing up for “children” but no Officer in chat forums, or my friend will discuss this issue with me,

    I have reminded him of the outright dangerous stances our beloved Army took in the past. I remind him of the bricks, bottles, stones, violence, and excrement hurled at Sally Army Soldiers in times past in the UK, and the USA.

    *My Uncle / family in Wales. They are silent as well. Shrugged shoulders, or they question me about the USA, and how stupid we were to elect Trump. Why will no one speak about Tommy, Britian First, or their opinions on this????

    *Where is the COE in all of this??????

    Dalrock. Apologies for this being off topic. If you feel you must remove the comment, I will take zero offense

  117. Pingback: Patterson’s crimes against feminism. | Dalrock

  118. earl says:

    @Sharkly…

    Good points all around. If there is one person who is THE example of taking an unjust beating while following the will of the Father, it’s Jesus.

  119. earl says:

    Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. (ed note…the complete opposite of what feminism preaches)

    Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    Phillipians 2: 3-11

  120. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    My opinion on Britain is that Anthony Burgess was right. The UK is going down the totalitarian path. No free speech. No right to bear arms. They promote homosexuality. They punish Christianity.

    Burgess is best known for A Clockwork Orange, but I recommend his prescient (and very depressing) The Wanting Seed. The latter features government promotion of homosexuality to combat overpopulation, cannibalism, and black-lipsticked policemen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wanting_Seed

  121. Sharkly says:

    earl says: Philippians 2: 3-11

    I have actually heard hirelings preach that women are not to be “doormats”. By which they mean they are not to follow that passage. They are instead encouraged to be fierce in standing up against their husbands. “Doormat” is just a pejorative meant to make submission sound abusive. The hirelings use “doormat” to encourage women to rebel.
    Men and women both should not be afraid to demonstrate meekness when it is appropriate. And they should be prepared by their ministers to endure the scorn of the world for their meekness, and not slurred by their hirelings instead.

    The (Feminist coffee shop)church, my wife still goes to, hosted “Fight Night” where Christian couples are taught how to “fight fair”. SMH!

    I did not go, and really felt like standing out front with a protest sign stating:

    You should be having;
    Unity Night
    Ephesians 5:24b Wives should submit in everything to their husbands. ~ God
    No fighting in marriage is ever Godly!
    No matter how wives rebel.

    Things are pretty bad in church when Christians feel like standing outside protesting instead of being a part of the disgraceful false teaching.

  122. Boxer says:

    The church my wife still goes to, hosted “Fight Night” where Christian couples are taught how to “fight fair”. SMH!… Things are pretty bad in church when Christians feel like standing outside protesting instead of being a part of the disgraceful false teaching.

    I certainly hope your wife isn’t giving any of your money to the feminist priest in charge of this farce.

    Obviously you can’t stop your wife physically from attending, but you should be able to keep any money you’ve earned out of the pockets of these hucksters. Let the feminists shift for themselves, and make their own money. Don’t give them a free ride.

  123. Sharkly says:

    No, I never really felt comfortable giving to a mega-church that had such fancy earthly facilities, and was constantly building on more splendid facilities. I’m not sure what and if my wife gives to now, but if she gives anywhere, it is money zapped off of my paycheck before I get it for spousal and child support.
    I myself have evolved in my giving, due to my experience. My dad, a genius and wise man taught me that “Storehouse Giving” was a flimsy doctrine tortured out of a single verse. He also was inclined to value “Souls per dollar” as a metric of good stewardship. Back in his day this meant he focused on Christian short wave radio broadcasting to large language groups, many of them behind the “Iron Curtain”.
    I however have learned some things by experience that also affect my giving. When I had my business hostilely liquidated by warring investors and wound up “holding the bag”, losing my big house, owing the IRS, and not being able to afford legal help, and Etc., my “family” was quick to throw the following verse at me:
    1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
    They really gloated that my wife was complaining we didn’t have any money, and I didn’t have a job.
    The Spirit, I believe, revealed to me that while they were refusing to help me, and ensuring that I would lose the big house that they envied, that they in fact were not providing for their own kin, and that I, in fact, was begging, borrowing, and self producing, anything I could to provide for my household.
    So, I now try to insure that I help any of my extended family if there are dire needs, before I give outside of that.
    Anyhow, Right now I don’t have much if anything to give due to the ongoing divorce, which is a family matter, and needs to be covered first, but I have been curious if there is a way to help Dalrock’s cause, with my money. I know it is better if money is not involved in the ministry unless necessary, but if there is a need, I think fighting feminism with God’s truth is a worthy cause.

  124. ys says:

    The Southern Baptists have been stumbling for a while. At their convention this summer they will go, I fear, all the way down.
    But as Dalrock said, they have nothing to insulate them from this poison. Nothing good will come from any of this.*

    *Except one thing. Before he was fired, Patterson issued an apology. His apology was roasted by his SJW critics. Reminds us all of what Trump, Vox, so many others say…never apologize. It’s not about the apology. They want a scalp. Don’t give them yours.

  125. Swanny River says:

    Ys,
    I was liking Patterson, but you said he apologized. Ugh, if he didn’t know not to do that, how did he ever get the submissive part right? How could he be so clueless?
    Sharkly.
    Your early morning posts were great. Complainers come here and say we need to spin the red pill with positivity for better influence, but I think your 4 am posts say what the right thinking is in a positive way.

  126. JDG says:

    Sharkly says:
    May 28, 2018 at 2:33 am

    Well said.

  127. pb says:

    seventiesjason

    If you are moving to Santa Rosa, CA, you may be interested in checking out the Orthodox church there.

  128. Sharkly says:

    Thanks Swanny River, and JDG.

    Off topic, but, since when does having a degree in Psychology qualify one to occupy the pulpit?
    I guess if folks want psycho babble preached, then who better to preach it?

    I find it appalling that I know the Bible better than many pastors, and I did not go to Bible college or seminary, and I’ve never been in any professional ministry, and I don’t even spend that much time reading the Bible. I’ve just read it more than once, and I try to understand it and remember it when I read it, like my life depends on it, because it does. Who knew that would give me more Biblical knowledge than many pastors? What a shame that churches hire Biblical novices to entertain them, and soothe them with talk of going along with following worldly values and denying the parts of the Bible that are not popular today. Seriously! Like when Elijah told the people of Israel to lynch the 450 prophets of Baal, we need these hirelings removed.
    1 Kings 18:40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

    I’m not advocating violence, I’m just saying; something needs to change.
    Our churches aren’t Christ’s bride! They’re whores! They’re whores! They’re whores!

  129. Swanny River says:

    Protest from parishioners would be unpopular but may be effective if it shames the pastor. Sharkly mentioned carrying a sign. That’s a good start. Renting an airplane banner would be more extreme, but the current model of quietly moving to a new church doesn’t seem effective. We’ve had three families leave, who wrote and mailed letters to explain why they were heading to a new place(one with an international focus) but they praised our church, so not much gained there. But there is some mild embarrassment so a broadcast letter would be a good first step after the pastors wave one off during a personal confrontation.

  130. BillyS says:

    Taking Scriptures in context is an attitude than just a practice. I have heard enough preachers who proclaim they teach what is written verse-by-verse completely mess things up, like Eph 5:22 by negating it with Eph 5:21, when they apply to different areas of life.

    We also need to keep in mind God can say what He wants to say. Matt 2:15 seems to use Hosea in a context that was not intended, for example. The better approach is to look if things are confirmed with multiple sources, not just one, especially variant doctrines.

  131. squid_hunt says:

    First of all, never give an inch to the SJWs. It’s never enough. Ref.: implacable

    Second of all:

    Imagine with me for a moment a room of chimps all chimping about how to be a better room of chimps and pandas.

    Men preaching to women is chimps preaching to female chimps:

    Gen. 1:27

    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    The Bible says God created man in his own image, male and female. Women are a part of men, not some new thing. And to stave off the mob, that’s not to say they’re not different. They definitely have different and distinct roles as well as makeup and physiology, but they’re of the line of men.

    Third of all, can someone please shut that woman up? Nothing worse than a braying, loud mouthed woman.

  132. Oscar says:

    @ squid hunt

    I believe what you meant to say is… “who bitch dis is?”

  133. squid_hunt says:

    I don’t care about that. She doesn’t have to go home. She just needs to go.

  134. Gary Eden says:

    Jason, a lot of the governmental and NGOs involved in antitrafficking are actually perpetrators. If you see little concern then either they are posturing and actually do nothing or the organization is involved.

    This being Britain, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the latter. Even in America Baptist organic have been implicated.

  135. seventiesjason says:

    PB. I might. Thank you. My cousin married an American Greek in 1998….she divorced him in 2007. I did enjoy the wedding and marriage ritual. It was a long wedding ceremony. The Father, I did like speaking with during the reception……..a gregarious and friendly man. Was very liberal socially and politcally though. I was talking to him about the church in general and everything was about “Jesus actually was the first socialist” and I met him a few months after in his recotory when i was visiting Modesto from the San Francisco, he had a Clinton-Gore sign in his office. Idk.

    I want study and reading of Scripture and DEEP, deep haertfelt prayer with an attitude full of ecpectation. Not just ritual and tradition. I suppose it depends on the Father or Pastor, Priest, Reverand, Minister or Officer……….thus far………Protestantism in its full potential can and does enabel this better that some of the other respected traditions of Christendom.

    Thank you though. I can say when I say “I might” that I will seriously consider it. Not just humoring you my friend.

  136. seventiesjason says:

    Thanks Gary.

    I am lertting my membership of Britain First lapse……..I don’t want to be detained when I get off in Heathrow in June 2019 and “denied” entry in the UK. I will be “dammed” if I will not be allowed into the “Land of My Fathers…Carol Lan!!!!!” 🙂

  137. illuvitus says:

    “I’m pro marriage. Nearly 40 years of ups and downs to back that up. But when we as a church culture demonize divorce as the worst possible outcome – the sin of all sins – we truly have no clue on this ever loving earth what some people are enduring. We do not submit to abuse. NO.”

    The logic is simple, here. The way to get around Paul’s teaching that wives are to submit to their husbands “in everything” is to make it distasteful for wives to submit to abuse. After all, so the thinking goes, who could disagree with that?

    Once you’ve found a loophole in Paul’s teaching, it becomes a game of creatively expanding the definition of “abuse” until it includes any behavior any wife doesn’t like from her husband, including expecting submission, asking for sex, “washing her with the word” – that’s “talking down to her”, a form of psychological abuse -, etc. This expansion must be done slowly, as conservatives will only liberalize in modest increments, but liberalize they will.

    This strategy often works with the Left, because they control the media and thus the language.

    ——————————————-
    “I’ve dealt with sexism in my church culture for 60 years. Had to accept certain degrees of it to serve & serve I would because I was called. Then 18 months ago the meticulously groomed dog that is sexism rolled over & we who’d bear to look saw its gross underbelly, full of ticks.”

    Framed properly, Beth Moore is saying that the church which Christ founded has been guilty of evil, patriarchal sins since Pentecost, and it took the rebellion of feminism to fix problems that Jesus and His disciples through the ages were too stupid, selfish, or sinful to fix on their own.

    Which is to say, Beth Moore thinks feminism has saved the church. It’s as if Marx, in his social disciples, has redeemed Christ. Not exactly orthodox Christianity.

  138. @feministhater

    Thanks for responding to my question. I figured you were referring to abuse in the traditional sense, I just don’t think it holds that meaning anymore. IMO, it would be like saying in 2018, “It’s great being married, my wife has to fuck me and cook for me and can never divorce me without cause,” pretending that Marriage 1.0 still exists. You could argue traditional marriage exists in the theoretical sense, as does traditional abuse, but to say it is a practical reality would be farcical.

    I feel that even pretending that traditional abuse still occurs on some sort of scale that makes it a serious problem that needs addressing in the public sphere is wrong. This notion of any significant number of “abused” (traditional sense) women in 2018 is simply a joke. It doesn’t happen. Men today are terrified of even raising their voices against women lest they be clapped in irons and thrown in the brig for insubordination.

    @Scott

    I think you and I have been through something similar, and I think that, for all a man’s knowledge and empathy, if he has not been through the gauntlet of false accusations of abuse, he will not truly understand the visceral reaction we feel when we hear a man accused of the evil lie, “abuse.” The word triggers me to this day and I hope one day others will see the damage domestic “violence” laws do to good men in the Anglosphere. I was prosecuted not for hurting anyone, but causing someone to “experience fear.”

    @illuvitus

    I think you stated in a more articulate manner what I was trying to say, about how they control the language. By redefining what abuse means, everything is abuse, and thus, everything comes under feminists/churchian/enabler control.

  139. DR Smith says:

    I would like to say “I told you so…” – but I am afraid those whom are in power will not listen because they are afraid and cannot do anything anyway as the cede their power away a long time ago.
    I would like to say “They need to take back Christianity from the leftist/feminist/socialist agenda” but they are too weak to do anything other than get along.
    I would like to believe the majority of men in the West wake up and start to repair the damage that has been done, but I’m afraid all we are let with is duck tape and scissors when a hole in the collective psych of man is as wide and as deep as the grand canyon.
    Want to know how bad it is – I made a comment to my wife the other things are so bad the only decent countries left are China and Russia because they still by and large have not given themselves over to the feminist agenda….and the wife responded I have been to both and they are not all that great (which of course I expect because she is a woman….she is less feminist than most but the devil still has a powerful grip and does not want to let go)

  140. Boxer says:

    Dear Sharkly:

    Apologies for not keeping track on your story. When you mentioned your wife, I thought you were still living together. Please see below…

    No, I never really felt comfortable giving to a mega-church that had such fancy earthly facilities, and was constantly building on more splendid facilities. I’m not sure what and if my wife gives to now, but if she gives anywhere, it is money zapped off of my paycheck before I get it for spousal and child support.

    It is right and just that your ex-wife be bilked by her Christian priest, and you should do what you can to ensure that she continues to give generously. Remember that your money is being stolen by the feminist state, and if the state gives her an allowance, it is one step removed from you.

    The only thing better than this would be for her reduced to poverty via a Nigerian romance scammer.

    May the bitch be fucked over, even as she has fucked over innocent men.

    Anyhow, Right now I don’t have much if anything to give due to the ongoing divorce, which is a family matter, and needs to be covered first, but I have been curious if there is a way to help Dalrock’s cause, with my money. I know it is better if money is not involved in the ministry unless necessary, but if there is a need, I think fighting feminism with God’s truth is a worthy cause.

    One of the best things you can do costs nothing: namely, start your own free blog, at wordpress or blogger, and start telling your own story. Linking back to Dalrock, and other subversive sites, will help them rise in the search results.

    Don’t worry too much about fancy artwork, and don’t buy any extras at first. Just write about your experiences honestly. The readers will come.

    Best,

    Boxer

  141. Sharkly says:

    Thanks for the good advice, Boxer. And, I know it is good advice, because I was already thinking about doing that. LOL Isn’t that just how women think? I’m not happy with my husband, I chose, and my friend, who I always bitch to about him, thinks I should leave him too, thereby confirming my rectitude. LOL It may be a great while before I have the time to begin a blog, but if I do, I guarantee it will not be acceptable to the Feminists and their enablers. I’m not the one for subtilty.
    No need to apologize for not keeping track of my story. I can hardly keep track of my life myself.
    It seems like I worked diligently my whole life to one day finally be luxuriantly floating with my bride in a serene white pool made of fine porcelain, but somehow the pool was not as promised, it quickly was overtaken with a foul odor and almost immediately the placid water began churning with crazy upheaval and then a giant whirlpool emerged, spinning her out of control and threatening to swallow me up. I am plagued by the thought that after all my heroic effort, I ignorantly married a turd who has made a big stink, and along with her, my life and my sons’ lives are now being flushed into a putrid sewer of misfortune.
    Sometimes I feel like I’m no longer playing for the championship, of a life well lived, but am now stuck in the loser bracket, playing just to see how much of my dignity I can salvage from this debacle. I have to remember that God is my portion, and He is all that I will leave this pre-eternal-life screening with or without. And I have to remember that Gold is purified in the fire. We can’t choose our times and chances, just whether we engage and fight wisely and heroically for God in the battles of our day.

  142. RichardP says:

    @Nathan Bruno: I said “The argument for men-only preaching is based on something other than male infallibility.”

    Your response to me suggests that you get what I meant. You referred to Paul. The reference may go through Paul, but it goes on to God. We have men-only preaching only because God decreed it. We don’t have men-only preaching because males are infallible. That is a distinction some folks need to be reminded of. It is not men over women because men are better. It is men over women because God decreed it, regardless of who can do it best.

  143. RichardP says:

    @Swanny said: “… he is correcting an argument no one has made.” I’m not correcting anything. I’m making a comment. In one form or another, the argument is made that men rule over women in church because women are deficient. As I stated to Bruno just above, that is not correct. Men rule over women in church because God said so. In many cases, men are as deficient as women, as I pointed out in my original post. The point is not who is least deficient. The point is who did God appoint to the position, regardless of skills.

    You may notice this argument from me from time to time because, quite consistently, folks here make the point that men rule because women are deficient. That can be said in many ways. But saying that men rule only because God appointed them can only be said in one way. So I may not seem to be addressing the arguments (couched in a variety of expositions), but actually I am.

  144. Sharkly says:

    Richard P Says: I’m making a comment. In one form or another, the argument is made that men rule over women in church because women are deficient. As I stated to Bruno just above, that is not correct. Men rule over women in church because God said so. In many cases, men are as deficient as women, as I pointed out in my original post. The point is not who is least deficient.

    1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

    I think the apostle Paul made the opposite point. That the woman was the last thing created on earth, and the first thing on earth to transgress. Thus she is proven the more deficient(weaker vessel), and needs to be taken care of accordingly. Certainly not allowed to usurp those above her by the nature of their creation, and demonstrated greater strength of character. While I agree we do things the way we do, because Paul told us to under inspiration of God. I think he also let us in on why, if you have the discernment to find it.

  145. RichardP says:

    @Sharkley: “I think the apostle Paul made the opposite point.”

    And there is the approach that I was addressing in my original comment when I said “And Paul’s argument that men should be in leadership because they don’t get fooled and women do – is not the argument that Paul is actually making, even though so many here think it is.”

    I am not debating this. I am not arguing this. The point stands on its own, and is incontrovertable. Sharkely, I am simply pointing out a fact that is ignored by references to Paul such as you made and others make: being deceived is not the point; getting it wrong is not the point. All can see what it says. But not at will agree on what it means. Look at the number of denominations we have, all based on disagreements over “what it means”. Men also are deceived and get it wrong, just as women are and do. Look at all of the various male encampments on the Internet, each protecting their own interpretation of “what it means”.

    Only one interpretation of “what it means” is correct. One denomination is more correct than all the others (without specifying which one that is). All the rest are deceived, fooled, misled, wrong. And, being led by men, we must say all those men are deceived, fooled, misled, wrong. If an honest look shows us that this is true, then how can it be true that men should be in charge of the church because women are easily deceived? Men suffer from the same charge.

    Men are to be in charge of the church for one reason, and one reason only: because God said so. Not because they can’t be deceived and women can be.

  146. RichardP says:

    If we accept that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, if we accept that God never changes, if we accept that no man should make changes to what God has said – then we must accept that Paul was not setting a new standard for the redeemed to live by. He was simply making reference to what God had already decreed.

    To look at it a different way, women were not allowed positions of leadership in the Temple or any other form of Jewish worship. This heirarchy was put in place long before Paul made his utterance in 1 Timothy 2:12 -14 – so that heirarchy had to be based on something other than Paul’s argument. And it was. Paul’s words were not imposing a new requirement; rather, they were pointing to the requirement that was already there.

    Adam and Eve are presented as an example of husband and wife. Adam was to rule over his wife (and by inference, his children). In Old Testament times as well as New Testament times, it was rare that a woman would exist outside of the family structure. So, except in rare instances, women in the Temple or the New Testament churches would belong to some family group – ruled over as God had decreed to Eve, by a male. Not because the males were perfect, or incapable of being deceived, or incapable of coming to a wrong conclusion – but because that was the order that God decreed.

  147. feministhater says:

    I am not debating this. I am not arguing this. The point stands on its own, and is incontrovertable.

    Don’t pull that, you’re not God.

    Adam and Eve are presented as an example of husband and wife. Adam was to rule over his wife (and by inference, his children). In Old Testament times as well as New Testament times, it was rare that a woman would exist outside of the family structure. So, except in rare instances, women in the Temple or the New Testament churches would belong to some family group – ruled over as God had decreed to Eve, by a male. Not because the males were perfect, or incapable of being deceived, or incapable of coming to a wrong conclusion – but because that was the order that God decreed.

    Your point? The very reason God placed Eve under Adam was because she was deceived and sinned. She was deceived first and is the weaker vessel. The Church only survived for as long as it has because men are not as easily deceived as women. As soon as they listen to women, the Church becomes deceived. Notice a pattern?

  148. Pingback: He Should Have Fought Back! – v5k2c2.com

  149. RichardP says:

    @feministhater said: “Your point?

    I made my point very clear. feministhater, address my point. Stop talking about women. Talk about the point I am making. Which has to do with men. Not women. Men get it as wrong as women do. Talk about that. Or don’t. Let all the words disappear. Let silence descend on our minds. And then let this sentance rise in volume until we can hear it clearly in our minds – and nothing else. “Men rule the church because God decreed it”. That is all we need to know. That is all we need to say. When we argue that men rule women in the church because women get deceived, the legitimate response is “men get deceived as well”. Since that is true, you are left without a response. If, instead, you simply say that men rule women in the church because God decreed it, and then make the argument that I made above about God appointing men to rule their families, the argument ends there.

    You said “The very reason God placed Eve under Adam was because she was deceived and sinned.” That is not correct. God placed Eve under Adam the moment he decided that it was not good for Adam to be alone and so he would make a help for him. “Help” implies subordination. He gives the instruction; she receives it and carries it out. That is a simple definition of “rule over” and it existed before Eve ate the forbidden fruit.

    Later, God placed Adam over Eve – he did not place Eve under Adam. He told Eve that Adam would rule over her (action lies with Adam). He did not tell Eve that she would submit to Adam (action lies with Eve).

    You and so many others are bending words in the Bible to fit preconceived notions. As best you can, get rid of the preconceived notions and look at what the words actually say.

  150. RichardP says:

    @feministhater quoted me:

    Men also are deceived and get it wrong, just as women are and do.

  151. RichardP says:

    Don’t know what happened, but that posted when I pressed enter. So – do over:

    @feministhater quoted me:

    I am not debating this. I am not arguing this. The point stands on its own, and is incontrovertable. – and then feministhater said: “Don’t pull that, you’re not God.”

    This was my point that I was not debating or arguing because it stands on its own: Men also are deceived and get it wrong, just as women are and do.

    I don’t need to be God to know that. But I will admit that my comment was not as concise as it could have been and it was maybe unclear what I meant by saying that the point stands on its own.

  152. RichardP says:

    @feministhater said: The Church only survived for as long as it has because men are not as easily deceived as women. As soon as they listen to women, the Church becomes deceived.

    Not correct.

    1. The church (read “men”) began to splinter before Jesus was even crucified.
    2. The church has continued to splinter up until today (read “revolt at the SBC”).
    3. The church may become deceived by listening to women. But the church is not deceived when it listens to all women – so that argument is not primary here. Both men and women have historically led the church astray.

    In your quote above, you say The Church only survived for as long as it has because men… . That is attributing the survival of the church to the works of men, not to the Grace of God. Jesus said that no man comes to God except through him. And also says that no man comes to Jesus except that the Father draws them. (John 14:6; John 6:44) God is the one keeping a remnant for himself. Whether men can be fooled or not has nothing to do with it.

  153. earl says:

    “And Paul’s argument that men should be in leadership because they don’t get fooled and women do – is not the argument that Paul is actually making, even though so many here think it is.”

    Could you please point out who around here has made the statement that male leadership is because women get fooled and men don’t get fooled.

  154. feministhater says:

    I made my point very clear. feministhater, address my point. Stop talking about women.

    You haven’t made a point. You just keep saying that men are as deceived as women and that only God does anything. So, cool story bro, I give up, let God handle it since men are no better to do the work required. Okay, great. Now what you’re going to do?

  155. feministhater says:

    That is all we need to know. That is all we need to say. When we argue that men rule women in the church because women get deceived, the legitimate response is “men get deceived as well”. Since that is true, you are left without a response. If, instead, you simply say that men rule women in the church because God decreed it, and then make the argument that I made above about God appointing men to rule their families, the argument ends there.

    If that were true, none of this would be happening. Try that argument in Church, see how far it gets you. God decreed it for a reason, you don’t believe that reason, so whatever, no more debate.

  156. feministhater says:

    It’s incontrovertible remember Richard? So, no more discussion is allowed, go forth and make manifest what you have stated is the absolute truth of the matter. Since you have the right of it, millions will flock to this holy banner, do it and in a month we’ll all check in with how you’re doing. (which is more than enough time for you with God at your back). Nothing can stop you. Off you go. Not one more peep from you until you have shown us the way.

  157. feministhater says:

    Later, God placed Adam over Eve – he did not place Eve under Adam.

    *facepalm

  158. earl says:

    Adam and Eve are presented as an example of husband and wife.

    There’s also another example in the Bible that is presented as an example of husband and wife….Christ and the church. Things got a little clearer about this after Christ’s death and resurrection.

  159. pb says:

    seventiesjason, in case you are still checking this thread — the Greek Orthodox tend to be the most liberal jurisdiction, more true of the laity than the priests, but even some of the priests can be “liberal” with respect to political views. The Slavs tend to be more “conservative” doctrinally.

    In Santa Rosa there are three Orthodox parishes, one is ROCA/ROCOR, probably has more native Russian-speakers, one is Bulgarian Orthodox, and one is OCA, more likely to have English services and English-speaking converts, and the one I was actually thinking of when I made the recommendation–St. Seraphim of Sarov Orthodox Cathedral.

  160. Pingback: Breaking the Fifth Wall – A New Protocol for Post-Truth Debate | Σ Frame

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

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