It would be unchivalrous to tell her no.

Pastor Tim Bayly shares a youtube video put out by the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) in his post Try Saying “No.” I Dare You… 

Note that the woman speaking has been teaching other women for many decades.  We can get a sense of what she teaches other women by what she teaches in the youtube video:

  • Complementarian rules are good because they feel good (to her).
  • If men are good (nice) enough, women will want to be complementarians because it will feel good.
  • Pastors who don’t lead the way she tells them to lead are sinning because they make her feel bad.
  • Women in the PCA aren’t tempted to usurp the role of men.  If they experienced such a temptation they would simply go to a different denomination and usurp the roles of men.
  • Women who go to other denominations and usurp the roles of men are only doing so because men in those denominations have forced them to do so (they are playing golf instead of leading the church, etc).

Simply put, a woman’s feelings rule and there is no sin of feminist rebellion.  If there is a problem, it is because men are sinning.  If a woman feels bad about what the Bible says, it is proof that a man has somehow sinned.

As Pastor Bayly puts it:

Mrs. Mary Beth McGreevy’s leadership is needed at her church session meetings. Her pastor told her so. Now then dear fuddy-duddy going 40 miles per hour in front of her, pull over. She knows where God wants her and when she’s scheduled to be there, and you’re in her way.

These are the sorts of things on the heart of Covenant Seminary grad Mary Beth McGreevy which she “shares” in a video posted on the Presbyterian Church in America’s in-house promo publication titled byFaith. McGreevy is pretty and sweet and cheerful and puts a great face on the “women can do anything a non-ordained man can do” Kellerite feminism called “complementarianism” that now owns the PCA.

No pastor wants to criticize women like this. McGreevy tells us “you can’t put women in a box anymore” and who would want to? Women are pretty. If mother is happy, everyone’s happy.

If McGreevy’s pastor is terrified of telling her no in matters relating to his own church, imagine how her pastor would respond to her husband telling her no.

Related:  

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Complementarian, Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Pastor Tim Bayly, Rebellion, Tim and Kathy Keller, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

147 Responses to It would be unchivalrous to tell her no.

  1. Pingback: It would be unchivalrous to tell her no. | @the_arv

  2. Anon says:

    Simply put, a woman’s feelings rule and there is no sin of feminist rebellion. If there is a problem, it is because men are sinning. If a woman feels bad about what the Bible says, it is proof that a man has somehow sinned.

    This is THE definition of a goddess cult.

  3. anonymous_ng says:

    http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/7-awkward-questions-millennial-women-should-ask-potential-husband

    Here’s some more fodder for ridicule. A few of the comments were golden.

  4. squid_hunt says:

    Good thing my wife belongs to me, not my pastor, that I’m her head. I don’t have any problem telling her or her rude, disrespectful, intrusive friends no.

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Hmm, isn’t this your denomination? How long before women are deacons? 2 years? 5 years?

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Trying to watch that video. It is not easy, because Mary Beth is exactly the kind of humblebragging, oh-so-sticky-sweet, butter-won’t-melt-in-her-mouth churchlady that is like fingernails down a chalkboard over & over. Churchgoing men are easily fooled by this “well, I’m just trying to help!” drivel. I could see through this kind of feminist blather years ago, but The Glasses brings everything into crystal clarity.

    She says pretty words. But watch what she’s done, not what she says. She’s been catered to by colleges, and I’m sure plenty of White Knights will spring to her defense.

    @Hmm: This is the kind of woman who will be the first female preacher in the PCA. Count on it.

    By the way, This kind of woman is what pops into my head when I’m reading one of Doug Wilson’s pedestalization pieces…with extra helpings of humblebragging and a “mah better half!” Average Frustrated Chump standing in his designated position, one step behind her. Where he belongs.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    PS: This just confirms that “complementarianism” is just another world for “conservative feminism”.

  8. Lost Patrol says:

    Fascinating – to borrow from Mr. Spock of the starship Enterprise.

    Additional things I learned:

    1. There are only two ways complementarianism can go wrong. Men are responsible for both those ways.

    2. Nobody wants to go beyond what scripture has given us. Guessing here, but this must be unless we need to in order to have women as adjunct professors at our seminaries, which we apparently do. But seminary is not church per se, so no harm no foul.

    3. The only thing holding women back religiously speaking, is men’s fear of how much and how fast God is willing to hand over to women. But it’s ok for men to come along with women if they can overcome this fear. The invitation stands.

    4. Complementarianism is not a word made up 30 years ago, it comes from the Bible somehow.

    5. The nature of women has fundamentally changed between the 20th, and 21st centuries.

  9. RichardP says:

    From the linked video in the OP: “Male headship was given to us after the fall.”

    Where in the Bible did she start reading??

    Before the fall, God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone and so made a help for him. When Eve came along we then had two: the help and the helped. That implies a heirarchy, a headship if you will. Who gives the instructions and who carries out the instructions?

    In the plainest meaning of the words, the “help” is the one that carries out the instructions. The “helped” is the one who gives the instructions. In that dynamic, before the fall, when was Eve ever NOT the help for Adam?? In that dynamic, before the fall, when was Adam ever NOT the giver of instructions to, and therefore the head of, Eve?? (- in both meanings of kephale – Adam was the source of Eve as well as the giver of instructions to Eve – before the fall.)

    Through such little “slips of the tongue” (headship given to us after the fall, etc.) is the clear meaning and direction given in the Bible muddied and confused in the pursuit of getting the folks to accept a different gospel.

  10. Hmm says:

    @AR: @Hmm, isn’t this your denomination? How long before women are deacons? 2 years? 5 years?

    Yeah, it’s my denom. Every blasted year at General Assembly we beat back the feminists, and always by fewer and fewer votes. And some PCA churches already have unordained female deacons (they often call them deaconesses to distinguish from the ordained office). Others refuse to ordain any deacons at all until they can ordain women with men. Presbyteries are powerless to take action in the latter case because churches are not required to have deacons.

    There is a sort of Biblical and historical argument for something like female deacons. Philip’s daughters in Acts are identified by the same word used for male deacons elsewhere (but can also mean simply “servant”). And in the early church, there were always women who worked alongside the male deacons to handle women’s issues (illness, female problems, preparing bodies for burial).

    There are a few denominations in the Reformed tradition that have ordained women as deacons and have solidly held the line against ordaining them as elders / pastors, but the landscape is littered with other denominations for which female deacons was the start down a slippery slope.

  11. RichardP says:

    I said: Through such little “slips of the tongue” (headship given to us after the fall, etc.) is the clear meaning and direction given in the Bible muddied and confused in the pursuit of getting the folks to accept a different gospel.

    I’ve seen the argument that Adam and Eve were cursed after the fall (so “headship” is part of the curse), and the death and resurrection of Jesus destroyed that curse – so “headship” is no longer a relevant concept for the church.

    That argument works only if one argues that “headship” was part of the curse (ignoring the debate about whether God actually cursed A & E). I can only conclude that that is why I see women so often doing what Mrs. McGreevy did in that video – namely, tieing “headship” as an issue to the fall rather than going back and tieing it to the reason that Eve was created – to be a “help” for Adam, and the heirarchy that that dynamic implies. Can’t say that “headship” is no longer relevant to the church if we have to admit that the dynamic of “headship” in inherent in the reason God made Eve – for Adam, not for herself, to be her own self.

  12. Pingback: 7 Ways To Vet A Potential Wife – v5k2c2.com

  13. Splashman says:

    @RichardP, good comment.

    Not sure where I first heard this: “Every man needs a master, a mission, and a mate.” Why? Because that was the pattern God set in Genesis. He created Adam, then gave him a mission (work the garden, take care of it, name the animals), which affirms that God was Adam’s master. Adam was occupied with that mission when God decided to give him a mate/helper. God did not give Eve her own mission; she was designed and created to be Adam’s helper, and necessarily under Adam’s authority.

    Any woman who embarks on her own mission/agenda is in rebellion to God. An unhappy life is guaranteed, but a mere side effect.

  14. Gunner Q says:

    “Philip’s daughters in Acts are identified by the same word used for male deacons elsewhere (but can also mean simply “servant”).”

    Notice they didn’t have names, just “Philip’s daughters”. That’s a very strong implication of patriarchal headship.

  15. earl says:

    Simply put, a woman’s feelings rule and there is no sin of feminist rebellion. If there is a problem, it is because men are sinning. If a woman feels bad about what the Bible says, it is proof that a man has somehow sinned.

    So if a woman feels bad about the Word of God…that’s proof a man sinned.

    I’d like to see them try that rationale at judgement.

    Perhaps if the Word of God makes you feel bad…that’s proof YOU’VE sinned. You know the whole figure out the plank in your eye before you start noticing specks in men’s eyes.

  16. earl says:

    This is THE definition of a goddess cult.

    Women are good no matter what they do, men are evil no matter what they do.

    Just remember anyone who says or thinks they don’t sin makes God a liar. 1 John 1:10

  17. Swanny River says:

    I would like to think through years of pursuing the Lord, and especially in the area of church feminism, that one of the fruits is coming up with post-titles that convey so much in so few words. Excellent! And I like Bayly’s use of “Kellerite,” which is also a strong and succint term.
    Why am I getting this information from Dalrock instead of my PCA pastor? One last thing, he is being too generous to call her pretty.

  18. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    Others refuse to ordain any deacons at all until they can ordain women with men.

    Just like the SJW’s who refused to get married until homosexuals could do the same. Pure grandstanding in the name of ideology.

    Presbyteries are powerless to take action in the latter case because churches are not required to have deacons.

    Seems like those churches are just making more work for a smaller leadership group, for the sake of politics. That should turn out well.

  19. Swanny River says:

    Earl,
    They don’t need to have a rational argument because of the power their emotions have over cross-dressing leaders. It’s almost funny thinking about a PCA pastor demanding a rational argument be given,.
    My post before was referring to the title of Dalrock’s post, not Tim’s. I really appreciate the tie-in to chivalry because it really explains much of the mechanism for achieving cross-dressing leadership status.

  20. earl says:

    I mentioned judgement…and by that I mean final judgement…because using that emotional rationale won’t fly in front of a just judge.

  21. Swanny River says:

    Yep, you did, my bad.

  22. Pingback: It would be unchivalrous to tell her no. | Reaction Times

  23. info says:

    @RichardP
    In addition Adam was the one to name his wife “woman” after naming the animals. Indicating his headship over her and the animals.

  24. info says:

    @Hmm
    ”Every blasted year at General Assembly we beat back the feminists, and always by fewer and fewer votes. ”

    Why couldn’t they be excommunicated?

  25. earl says:

    I’ve seen the argument that Adam and Eve were cursed after the fall (so “headship” is part of the curse), and the death and resurrection of Jesus destroyed that curse – so “headship” is no longer a relevant concept for the church.

    They must just keep skipping over the part where Paul points out Christ and the church is THE model for marriage. Jesus’s death and resurrection didn’t destroy that part of the deal in any way…it brought the model of it to the forefront.

  26. info says:

    ”The Second Council of Constantinople in 553, in its eleventh capitula, declared: “If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.”

  27. Was there headship before the fall? Yes.

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/adam-had-headship-prior-to-the-fall/

    Went through most of the reasons here. Can’t say it’s exhaustive, but it covers most of them I think.

  28. MKT says:

    If you have any doubt about identity politics and progressives making inroads in the PCA, SBC, etc., just read this article from a well-known Baptist pastor and trustee/guest lecturer for Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:
    https://sbcvoices.com/voting-greear-could-as-easily-vote-hemphill-tempted-to-nominate-beth-moore-for-sbc-presidency/

  29. Hmm says:

    @info: Why couldn’t they be excommunicated?

    Because the overtures the feminists create come to the General Assembly with the approval of a Presbytery, which means that a majority of the elders in that group of churches approve it. It’s a “feature” of Presbyterian polity that any overture that comes to General Assembly from a Presbytery must be presented and voted on. The sticking point is that if such a motion is passed, it needs a supermajority of the Presbyteries to approve it to become law.

    What this means is that a few likeminded churches in a couple of Presbyteries can tie up General Assembly with a slew of overtures about similar items. At some point, the General Assembly representatives might tire out and pass the least offensive. But the thing is almost always shot down when the individual Presbyteries fail to approve it. Most PCA Presbyteries are rather conservative, especially concerning women’s ordination, since that was one of the reasons the PCA split from the mainstream Presbyterians (now the PCUSA) in the first place, and that split is still fairly recent (1973). I give it at least five more years (more likely 10) before any women’s ordination overture, even for deacons, could gain approval of the Presbyteries.

    (for the uninitiated, in Presbyterian government, each individual church is led by a Session made up of their elders, including the pastors. The Presbytery is a geographical group made up of all pastors and representatives from the individual Sessions (usually around 10-15 churches are in a Presbytery), and General Assembly is a meeting representatives from all Presbyteries. Any decision at a lower level can be appealed to a higher level, General Assembly being the highest court of appeal. General Assembly meets once a year.)

  30. Spike says:

    Golf? Us men are playing golf instead of leading church? This is new to me.
    Perhaps there is an alternative hypothesis that Mrs McGreevy would like to entertain:
    The average man hates going to church, because the feminised environment makes him cringe. He hates it because he can’t speak his mind, he can’t lead because he doesn’t make those around him – women and gelded men – comfortable. He is told he is a predator, that he should be a broken man if he’s repented (Yeah. Also rebuilt in Christ as a new creation). He is told that he is never to get angry because it isn’t Christlike (despite Jesus rage against moneychangers, saducees, Pharisees and even calling the despot of his country a sneaky animal).
    Meanwhile church women can demand ministries, rationalising away the prohibitions in scripture, cry and take their case to the (anti Christian) media whenever they want,
    And demand that their secular or vocational experience (“But I work as a University evangelist full time. I should be able to preach! Crying and tears).
    We actually don’t have to attend church in a worldly sense. We do because we are commanded by Scripture. What we want is those commands be treated with a consistent set of standards, or not accepted at all.
    We really shouldn’t be surprised, Dalrock. A year or two ago there was an outbreak of Ebola in Africa. A missionary nurse was removed from the hot zone and placed in quarantine in a western country. Since she was feeling well, she broke quarantine and went on a bike ride, because she felt good. She was hunted down by police in a squad car and insisted on her bike ride. She also went to the media and complained about how stupid the quarantine was. Okayyyyyy……

  31. pariah says:

    RichardP said:
    “I’ve seen the argument that Adam and Eve were cursed after the fall (so “headship” is part of the curse), and the death and resurrection of Jesus destroyed that curse – so “headship” is no longer a relevant concept for the church.”

    Aside from the fact that headship is not part of the curse, Genesis states that women will have an increase in pain during child birth. Christian women still experience pain in child birth. Therefore, this consequence of the Fall is still in operation. The death and resurrection of Jesus has not undone (yet) the effects of the Fall – that is still to be done in the future once we Christians receive our glorified bodies in exchange for these mortal bodies we currently inhabit.

  32. Bee says:

    Splashman,

    “God did not give Eve her own mission; she was designed and created to be Adam’s helper, and necessarily under Adam’s authority.

    Any woman who embarks on her own mission/agenda is in rebellion to God. An unhappy life is guaranteed, but a mere side effect.”

    Great comment!

  33. bdash 77 says:

    they teach men to fear women even in counselling
    https://biblicalcounselingcoalition.org/2015/08/12/12-things-that-every-first-time-dad-should-know/

    a man’s role is to assist and help his wife….

    many women I know see women who make their husbands stay up all night while they have to go to work as selfish…

  34. bdash 77 says:

    when they teach that men are always the problem
    https://biblicalcounselingcoalition.org/2017/10/20/4-reasons-for-writing-shes-got-the-wrong-guy-why-smart-women-settle/

    unless a man cooks, cleans, supports his wife’s goals
    he is not worthy of being a husband

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Hmm

    In the US court system a case can be dismissed ‘with prejudice’ which means it cannot ever be brought before a court again. Is there anything similar in the PCA governance? Could an initiative be voted down “with prejudice”? I ask because it appears that a small group can bring up the same ideas endlessly merely by tinkering with the language a bit. That’s not debate, that’s badgering like a toddler in the back seat whining “Are we there yet?” until enough people give in just to shut them up. Rather like a nagging wife, actually.

    The other political question: does your denomination have standing committees inside the General Assembly that meet year round? Because that’s where other denominations have had serious problems; the permanent committee not really accountable can generate all sorts of “temporary” opinions / policies that have to be formally ended in a public hearing. Personnel is policy.

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    Just for the sake of completeness I finished viewing the video. It’s tedious and painful all the way to the end. “Well, I’m just trying to help” is the overall theme, a standard line that women use when they are trying to take over some function / area / job description.

    It is interesting to watch her body language and facial expressions through the video. She really does light up a bit when talking about the male leadership of the PCA. This should be no surprise to game-aware men: women want men to lead them. Of course she’s also engaged in fitness testing – pushing the boundaries to see how far she can go before a man tells her “no”. Going by the concluding remarks about her pastor, “no” isn’t a word she hears very often from any man.

    This is a good example of the middle-aged church lady who has all the same fitness testing, boundary pushing, passive-aggressive-fight-picking habits as any other woman. Put a Jesus fish on AWALT, it is still the same.

    Again, if this denomination caves in, this is the kind of woman who will make up the first wave of lady preachers. The tattooed, cursing ones will show up later.

  37. info says:

    @Hmm
    Fatal flaws of the system that allows the infiltration of heretics. Need fixing.

  38. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    If a woman feels bad about what the Bible says, it is proof that a man has somehow sinned.

    I guess they’d say the woman actually feels bad about a man’s misinterpretation of the Bible. The Holy Spirit is making the woman feel bad by speaking to her superior heart, warning her against the man’s false teachings.

    Every time a man explains the Bible, a woman’s Holy Spirit inspired heart is there to check the man for any errors.

    The Holy Spirit doesn’t speak to men. Men must rely on women for corrections from the Holy Spirit.

  39. bdash 77 says:

    this is how women teach…

    One pastor was mocking us for refusing to date the single girls in Church….
    he said men who did not want career women as wives lacked the servant heart of Christ….
    If we were truly saved we would serve them, help them and dedicate our lives for them….

    Where do they come up with this nonsense?
    I did not know how to respond, I wish I was quick .

  40. bdash 77 says:

    it seems the tingles of women are the heads of the church , not JESUS

    as for women choosing the denomination because they do not want to preach,,,
    LIES

    these women know men are more influential so want to be running their ministries…

  41. Hmm says:

    @AR:

    As far as I know (I am no expert on PCA polity, only an experienced layman), overtures cannot be dismissed with prejudice.

    Four weaknesses in the current PCA system:

    1. You put your finger on one of them, Standing committees have a large impact in saving the General Assembly and the Presbyteries work, and they are always hungry for people. By stuffing a committee, a large influence can be had by a small number of people. This is especially true of the committees that interview and recommend potential pastors. The liberals’ long march through the mainline Presbyterian church began with their infiltration of committees.

    2. All discipline of individual pastors begins at the Presbytery level. If a Presbytery is unwilling to bring or sustain charges of heresy, it is very difficult to remove a pastor for his beliefs. Even if the Presbytery’s decision not to charge a pastor is appealed to the General Assembly, they generally don’t rehear matters of fact, only of procedure.

    3. The Book of Church Order (BCO) and Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO) are complex procedural documents, and sufficiently determined pressure groups can tie up even obvious matters in layers of red tape, until representatives wind up too tired to fight.

    4. It only takes a majority vote of General Assembly to set up a “study committee”, and they are often created as a sop to vocal minorities. Although committees have no power to legislate or act, they are charged with presenting “reports” to the Assembly. There’s seems always to be least one committee on women’s matters and one on gay matters active as a kind of fifth column. They issue reports, which are routinely shot down, but they keep the ferment going.

  42. info says:

    @Hmm

    Bureaucratic unlike the Synods of the early church. Like the one organized by Constantine.

  43. feministhater says:

    Just remember. These guys are my supposed betters, and like Jordan Peterson and his followers, think they have the solutions and all the answers… so, get to it chaps, don’t complain that men won’t come to church, don’t complain that birth rates are down, don’t complain men are not cleaning their rooms, you have all the answers, you know what is best for men and just need to get them to clean their rooms and all will be well. No incentives required.

    Where are all the good men? Fuck if I know.

  44. Scott says:

    bdash-

    Thanks for those links. The Biblical Counseling Coalition is nouthetic oriented in its approach. That’s the theoretical model for counseling I learned at seminary.

    Looking back, I guess I could have predicted they would continue to double down on the notion that a wife will only follow if you are doing it (leading) right. And that “leading right” is a constantly moving target determined solely by her and her vast superior and natural expertise on leadership. That’s essentially the schtick I was immersed in, way back then. I finished that program in 2000.

  45. Scott says:

    In that model, the job of the counselor is to listen to the wife’s complaints and translate her sophisticated, brilliant erudite concerns into easier to understand grunts and fart noises for the dumb husband to understand.

  46. earl says:

    it seems the tingles of women are the heads of the church , not JESUS

    In the church of feminism…yes.

  47. earl says:

    Although I am curious as to what are some ideas to stop this god complex women have?

    I would think reminding them that they are not God would be first.

  48. Jim Christian says:

    “http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/7-awkward-questions-millennial-women-should-ask-potential-husband Here’s some more fodder for ridicule. A few of the comments were golden.”

    Good find. 7 questions for MEN, one of which is sexual history? I have about 15 questions for any college-educated woman based merely on their sexual history. Then another 15 about her abortion/STD history. Wouldn’t hurt to know her birth-control history. A decade and a half on hormonal birth control is an iron-clad PROMISE she’s been a slut from the start with hundreds of sexual partners. Women on the pill do a lot of fucking. Unmarried, they do it with a lot of guys. Good luck in this depraved atmosphere.

  49. bdash 77 says:

    @Scott
    yeah
    its sad
    men actively telling other men that they should marry women who would rather submit to their boss/company and support that instead of suppository him, no wonder they remain single.

  50. Novaseeker says:

    A decade and a half on hormonal birth control is an iron-clad PROMISE she’s been a slut from the start with hundreds of sexual partners. Women on the pill do a lot of fucking. Unmarried, they do it with a lot of guys.

    Exaggeration. The number of women who have hundreds of partners is very small — even as a percentage of women on the pill, it’s very small.

    A more realistic partner count for a woman who has been on the pill for 15 years by the time she is 30 and not married is more like this: assume 4-6 longer term boyfriends, likely 5-10 ONS type scenarios for an average woman. So it’s more like 916 or, if you want to round up, 10-20. That’s still a very healthy number, and presents the same kind of problems you’re concerned about, but it’s simple exaggeration to believe that the average women on the pill has hundreds of sex partners. Those are the truly prolific sluts, and there aren’t that many of them. The problem today is that the average “non-promiscuous” woman today has 10-20 priors by the time she is getting married — that’s the real issue, not the small number of non-hookers who have hundreds of partners.

  51. Jim Christian says:

    No offense, Nova, but that’s a delusional estimate in a college town such as my old hometown region of Washington DC. 10-20? Maybe their frosh-senior High School years. Add another 10-20 (being kind, here) in college, most of them more, half again as many if Master’s grads. Out in the working world it ramps up to a dozen or more a year EASY, plus women don’t count one-night stands 2 a month. Do the math over a 30-35 year-old’s sexually active period age 14 onward. That was MY pace, it’s more for women because it’s EASIER for women. I made a lot of these women what they are over the years and I wasn’t the only one. Oldest lie there is would be “I’ve never done this before”. If you have an ounce of sense in your thick skull, you go get tested after THAT proclamation. You overestimate the virtue of the college-educated sexually-liberated #i’mwithher feminista. Where you have such a high population of same, the entire market is a festering scab of rotten wombs and diseased cooters. Also assume a high percentage of these sloots will need expensive IVF treatments or worse. There’s no sorting out the truth from them either because they lie. It’s worse than you think. Way worse.

  52. seventiesjason says:

    In my undregrad of 600 students, the psychology dept did a campus study of sexual health, parctice, and frequency. It took almost a year to compile. After figuring the metrics of exaggeration. A telling picture emerged.

    The study was for the academic year 1991-1992. Women on the pill had more sexual partners than those who used other methods. About 25 percent of the men on campus were hooking up with 75 percent of the women.

    Womwn had more cases of STDs than men. The study said this was because of lack of “education” and “womens health services” on campus.

    There were slightly more women than men on camopus…..and back then women would say “the guys here can act like jerks because there is a lack of nice men here”

    Which I alawys thought was funny. I was part of the group that none of the “cooler” women on campus liked…..and the women I was friends with all wanted one of those dudes in the 25%

  53. Hmm says:

    “the guys here can act like jerks because there is a lack of nice men here”

    Han Solo: I’m a nice man…

  54. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    So it’s more like 16 or, if you want to round up, 10-20. That’s still a very healthy number, and presents the same kind of problems you’re concerned about,

    More like “an unhealthy number” for purposes of longer term pair bonding, though. Recall Social Pathologists analysis of “risk of divorce” vs. “number of sexual partners wife had prior to marriage”. Anything over 1 increases risk, although in the older GSS data he was using the risk did level off at a higher N (something like 8 to 10 if I recall).

    Now then, if a sexual partner count of 10 to 20 by the age of 29.999 is now the norm, then a “slut” has to be a woman with 20+ partners; that would be in the 20 to 30 territory. Yet I’ve been told by aging Boomers that back in their day the average was probably 3 to 5 sexual partners per girl prior to marrying. This could be rose-colored glasses, this could be foggy memories, almost certainly this was earlier median age of first marriage: a lot of women used to be married before they turned 25. But these are the women who were filing divorces back in the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s…

    Whatever the cause, if older Boomers think of “slut” as “woman with sexual partner count of over 5”, then that surely is a factor in some of the older tradcon ManUP! chatter. Because what they are calling a “slut” is pretty conservative now in 2018, and what the 20-something men are calling “slutty” is something older men can’t really grasp. Because likely the only women with N counts over 30 “back in the day” were escorts/hookers/prostitutes.

    As usual, details matter.

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    Womwn had more cases of STDs than men. The study said this was because of lack of “education” and “womens health services” on campus.

    The biological differences between men and women that we are supposed to pretend do not exist? Those physical difference often make women more susceptible to catching various STD’s. Women with asymptomatic disease would be less likely to get tested, of course, leading not only to possible complications inside them but further spreading of the disease to the next man.

    Which reminds me: there has been a notable increase in the number of oral cancer cases among men in the last few years. HPV is the immediate cause. Even the MSM has noticed.

    https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/03/12/oral-cancer-epidemic-in-men-caused-by-hpv-immune-system-gone-awry/

    Larger article:

    http://www.philly.com/philly/health/hpv-is-causing-an-oral-cancer-epidemic-in-men-by-outwitting-natural-defenses-20180309.html

    Apologies for the off topic rabbit trail in advance.

  56. earl says:

    Exaggeration. The number of women who have hundreds of partners is very small — even as a percentage of women on the pill, it’s very small.

    Doesn’t matter…the fact is women on the pill have a built in excuse to be promiscous. They think they can have consequence-free sex without pregnancy (even though that is not a guarentee…hence abortion)

  57. earl says:

    Oral cancer, HPV, STDs…it’s almost like having numerous sexual partners isn’t what sex is meant for.

  58. Darwinian Arminian says:

    McGreevy is pretty and sweet and cheerful and puts a great face on the “women can do anything a non-ordained man can do” Kellerite feminism called “complementarianism” that now owns the PCA.

    “Women can do anything a non-ordained man can do.” The aggravating thing about seeing the church use this line is that it isn’t so much a declaration of freedom for the church’s women as it is a bait-and-switch tactic for the church’s men. If this line is true, then when single Christian women complain that no one is marrying them the pastors can advise them to build themselves into an attractive prospective wife, and maybe initiate their own romantic approaches towards men instead of waiting to be asked out. Likewise, if married Christian women are disappointed with their husband’s lack of ambition or his material provision then the church leadership can advise the wives to fill that role themselves since their men are not filling it to their satisfaction. They can get a better job themselves, or choose to start and direct new practices and rituals of their own in the family. Or here’s a novel approach — the church could even tell them to get the behavior they desire out of their husbands by “loving him as Christ loves the church,” embracing a spirit of sacrifice, and hoping that their good behavior will encourage him into being more like the kind of man they want.

    Are pastors going to take that approach and start dispensing advice like that? Nope. When the women are disappointed with the men you’re going to hear the leadership issue a lot of “MAN UP!” directives and sermons to the males to get up off of their lazy asses and start making their churches and their families better. Never mind that they just finished telling them that the women are perfectly capable of doing that themselves, and very possibly even better suited for the job.

    If they were really being honest, the line would probably be something closer to: “Women can do anything that men can do. But they shouldn’t have to. Unless they want to!”

  59. BillyS says:

    How can she be a homemaker if she is an adjunct professor?

    The Curse didn’t put Adam in the leadership role, it gave Eve the desire to usurp that from him. I have not heard anyone preach that. (The “desire for your husband” is the same phrasing noting sin desired Cain – the desire was to rule.)

  60. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: Feminist business school launches anti-capitalist summer camp.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/feminist-business-school-to-launch-anti-capitalist-summer-camp/

    The curriculum will be oriented around the Feminist Business School’s “Guide to Prototyping a Feminist Business,” which outlines steps that entrepreneurs can take to help create a more “feminine economy.”

    “Free yourself from the myth of meritocracy,” the guide preview tells aspiring business owners. “There is no earning. There’s no deserving. There’s no reward,” it says, adding that students should “let inner wisdom be your guide.”

    As PJ Media previously reported, the Feminist Business School launched in late 2017 and is founded upon a critique of “the masculine economy.” This masculine economy values “distribution of wealth,” “the myth of meritocracy,” “competition,” and “profit,” all of which can be detrimental to the “soul” of entrepreneurs.

    However, it doesn’t have to be like this.

    “If capitalism is an economy that values masculine traits, what could another economy look like?” asks Jennifer Armbrust, the Evergreen State College graduate who serves as the Feminist Business School’s only instructor.

    Instead, a more “feminine economy” could value other traits, such as “generosity,” “empathy,” “gratitude,” “integrity,” and “intimacy,” Armbrust suggests.

    No actual business skills — such as bookkeeping or marketing — will be taught.

    Of course not. Women are all like Rey; magically able to do absolutely everything perfectly with zero training.

  61. seventiesjason says:

    Jim Christian. Agreed. I saw this in college back in the early 1990’s. Then grad school at the bar / pub I worked at off campus. The hockey players pretty much nailed every undergrad who went to the women college nearby. On my campus itself in grad school? Not so much. I went to a polytechnic that was over 90% men from 1993-1995 and I lived in grad student housing on campus. Women at that level usually had a very serious boyfriend or were not that type of girl……….or they as usual thought they deserved a hockey player or some upper escleon of grad school life (good looking future architect or whatever)

    Lot of sex going on. A lot. This was when “AIDS” was still a big deal too.

    Once into my career when moved to California in 1995, hyperspace. I was 25, and there was tons of sex going on all around me. I rented a spot in a large loft for two years…….had to buy earplugs. Got tired of hearing the same five guys or so always with a different woman every few weeks. These women were supposedly “educated” and “degreed” and “knew more than me”

    I always liked when they exchanged sex for what they thought was love with these player types. They would get furious. Smash his stuff up. Scream. Hit. Yell……THEN…….get REALLY mad at the “new” f*ck buddy the guy had. Threats. dumping spray bottles of her urine on her car. Slashing tires. But these women were “it” and plenty of men were lining up to get their turn (abuse?) and she of course “knew exactly what she was doing”

    The few I lightly befriended would tell me that “I just needed more confidence” and “we girls really just want a nice guy” and when I would gently warn one about one of my roommates the very nasty and efensive “You don’t know him like I do” and “I am just jealous” because I guess I wasn’t deemed *hot* by her.

    This is the time in my life when the drinking and drugging started to get heavy (late 1990’s). I saw the same dudes getting these supposed “amazing, fun, sexy, sassy, intelligent women”

    I guess I dodged a bullet in these matters, and it was at this time I really started to get a very LOW opinion of them in general.

  62. In her relating her feelings on the slow driver, even in that you can hear the absolute disdain, revultion, she has for any man who might be fearful, who might be anything other than full of his own absoute confidence.

    And how dare any man endanger her chance to be more. Just as God had no right to keep Eve from being more, men have no right to caution any woman away from her own huberis.

  63. DrTorch says:

    Trying to watch that video. It is not easy, because Mary Beth is exactly the kind of humblebragging, oh-so-sticky-sweet, butter-won’t-melt-in-her-mouth churchlady that is like fingernails down a chalkboard over & over.

    Amen. It was painful to endure this video.

    But what I love is, “Just eat a bite of this fruit, it’ll be ok b/c you’re not eating the whole fruit.” Just let women assume a few roles in the church, that matches their “calling” (calling from whom), they won’t take over all of the roles, like in those other denominations that are becoming extinct. Otherwise it’s oppressive.

    And we get the obligatory “Reformed theology will protect us. We aren’t like those others, we’re reformed so we can’t sin.” I heard that numerous times in the 6 mos I attended an OPC. Which BTW, was following this same path re: women in the church.

  64. Damn Crackers says:

    Where does the Church see the role of Nuns teaching the laity? Serious question…I’m not trying to start a fight between our Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant friends.

  65. DrTorch says:

    Therefore, this consequence of the Fall is still in operation. The death and resurrection of Jesus has not undone (yet) the effects of the Fall –

    Exactly. Anyone posing the position that Jesus undid the curse of the fall is demonstrably wrong.

    Jesus undid the consequence of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (spiritual death). The subsequent curse is completely different.

  66. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    I couldn’t torture myself enough to listen to the whole video, so I might have missed the part about: keepers at home, meek and quite spirt, reverence for husbands, if a wife has a question to ask her husband at home, older women teaching the younger how to love their children and husband, to obey him lest the Word of God be blasphemed and how to fix a really good sammich as a servant (deaconess). It was in there wasn’t it?

  67. MKT says:

    It seems the PCA/SBC/etc. are totally missing the spirit of the Law (Paul telling women to be silent in church, younger women learning from older women, men normally occupying all leadership positions, etc). Instead, they’re focusing on the letter of the Law (“it’s not an ordained clergy responsibility so let’s let a woman do it!”). The idea is to fill as many non-ordained positions as possible with women. Both John Piper and some in the PCA have pushed this type of “affirmative action.” Some are calling for Beth Moore to be the next SBC president (makes me think of Marlon Brando saying “The horror!” at the end of Apocalypse Now).

    Maybe there’s an occasional need of a Debra (there’s simply no faithful Christian man to fill the position), but that should be very seldom and the exception, not the rule.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    It was in there wasn’t it?

    Uhh…..

  69. Frank K says:

    Where does the Church see the role of Nuns teaching the laity?

    Nuns are not allowed to deliver homilies/sermons at Mass, only a priest or deacon can do that. Nuns (or women in general) are not allowed to perform the Gospel reading in Mass.

    If nuns teach, say like Mother Angelica used to on EWTN, it’s supposed to be under the supervision of a Priest. She actually ran afoul once and a Bishop reined her in.

    In practical settings, there are so few nuns or sisters left that you won’t ever encounter one at a parish or parochial school. The few I know of are on overseas missions. FWIW, at our parish, all lay teachers are men.

  70. Frank K says:

    The curriculum will be oriented around the Feminist Business School’s “Guide to Prototyping a Feminist Business,”

    Do they provide an EZ bankruptcy kit?

  71. Frank K says:

    Why couldn’t they be excommunicated?

    I think you mean disfellowed. Being excommunicated means you can’t receive communion, but you’re still a member of the church.

  72. Anonymous Reader says:

    MKT
    Maybe there’s an occasional need of a Debra (there’s simply no faithful Christian man to fill the position), but that should be very seldom and the exception, not the rule.

    Could you expand on that? I’ll do a quick search on “Debra”, but if you would summarize the role of “Debra” in the Bible that might be useful in the context of the OP.

    @Damn Crackers, @Frank K

    The last time I saw a nun was a couple of years ago in Rome, downhill from St. Peters. There was a group of two, they were reciting words through a small PA system to about 20 people sitting on little bleachers. The nuns would recite a line in a kind of metallic voice, the people they were addressing would repeat back what the nuns had just said. Clearly some sort of religious practice, but not necessarily teaching. More like call/response. It was rather mechanical sounding.

  73. Hmm says:

    @AR: You’ll need to look for “Deborah”. In the book of Judges.

  74. Lost Patrol says:

    @ DA

    “Women can do anything that men can do. But they shouldn’t have to. Unless they want to!”

    That’s going right to the one-liners collection.

    Speaking of which, Mary Beth’s approach brings to mind the enduring truth of this Dalrock quote (not bootlicking! honest! it just works in so many ways, especially churches):

    The compromises of yesterday become the starting position for bargaining today, and today’s new compromise will become the starting point for bargaining tomorrow.

    She is trying to hurry things along, but the method is the same.

    @ AR

    “This is a good example of the middle-aged church lady who has all the same fitness testing, boundary pushing, passive-aggressive-fight-picking habits as any other woman.”

    This is a good summation. Church lady also enjoys the advantage of capitalizing on the individual, and corporate practices of both placating women, and lift seeking that are built into the modern church scene. I don’t think anyone in a church can stop this, only delay it, maybe. Most clergymen are not up to the task by temperament nor training. A bolder layman will be crushed by the weight of numbers of his peers that are either white knighting, or worried their own wives will find out if they didn’t wholeheartedly participate in said crushing.

    I often think it’s time for the final match. Let’s do this right now. Put church women in charge of everything they want, from A to Z, and do it this afternoon. Take it and run with it. What better way to separate the wheat from the chaff amongst the men of the churches? Who will stay and who will clear out of that place? Being ruled over by women is associated with a biblical lamentation by the way, just saying (see the prophet Isaiah).

    Fortunately for all of us, I’m not in charge of the timing.

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Hmm
    Already found it. Don’t quite get how “lucky rabbits foot that goes along to a battle” maps to “women should be in charge of everything”, though. Probably I just need a really spiritual woman to explain it to me…

  76. Boxer says:

    How can she be a homemaker if she is an adjunct professor?

    With respect, she’s like 50+ years old. I don’t think there’s anything in the New Testament that prohibits an old granny (with no little children) from teaching school, or otherwise bringing in dough to help the household. I think the real problem lies in the fact that she’s not adjuncting in the art department at her community college. She’s pretending to teach Christian priests how to ply their trade, at a religious seminary.

  77. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Hmm
    One question I have: where does a woman being a prophetess end and nagging begin? Because reading the text Deborah was basically nagging the men of her tribe “Do something! Fix this!”, while at the same time clearly unable to do anything herself. Very popular with women, but again I don’t see how it maps to “Wimmenz should run everything! Now! Get out of the way of my fast car!”.

    Again, I admit ignorance…

  78. MKT says:

    “Already found it. Don’t quite get how “lucky rabbits foot that goes along to a battle” maps to “women should be in charge of everything”, though. Probably I just need a really spiritual woman to explain it to me…” – AR

    AR, the basic idea is that Deborah was a judge. A female judge was very unusual for Israel–she’s the only one mentioned in the Bible. It was an era of wickedness, so the historical interpretation is there weren’t any godly men to fill the position. Of course modern feminists hate this interpretation, though they can’t find other examples as proof that it’s normal for women to lead.

    Anyway, Deborah sends Barak (not Obama, but he was probably similar) into battle, but Barak says he’ll only go if Deborah comes along , too. Deborah’s response: “because of the course you are taking, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will deliver Sisera into the hands of a woman.”

    Imagine Mary Beth telling her male counterparts, “If we make a good decision, you men won’t receive any honor because you had to have a freakin’ woman help you out.” That will never happen, but it would be the modern day equivalent.

    Here’s what John Calvin said about Deborah:

    “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 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.

    If any one bring forward, by way of objection, Deborah (Judges 4:4) and others of the same class, of whom we read that they were at one time appointed by the command of God to govern the people, the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound. Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above all law might do this; but, being a peculiar case, this is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government.”
    Source: http://baylyblog.com/blog/2007/04/john-calvin-deborah

  79. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I saw part of the video. She describes herself as “A homemaker by profession. A pianist by trade. But my passion is to help people know Jesus Christ.”

    So her profession is homemaker, but her trade is pianist? Then she adds that she’s an adjunct professor at a seminary? How does that fit in with being a professional homemaker?

    Fried ice?

    She later says something about “men abdicating their leadership,” which I guess is her justification for being a seminary professor. So … if men return to lead, will she meekly step aside?

  80. Anonymous Reader says:

    Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound.

    Oh, well, logic again? Tish tosh!

    Mary Beth already answered this in her video: “God gave me this fast car, God expects me to be somewhere, get out of my way!”…

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    She later says something about “men abdicating their leadership,”

    Yeah, well, that’s like a basketball player on defense “abdicating his leadership” when he gets elbowed right out of the paint…

  82. Gunner Q says:

    Concerning Judge Deborah, there are two things to note:

    1. Deborah was the people’s pick for Judge. God’s pick was Barak. It was Barak, not Deborah, who led the Israeli army to victory.

    2. She was the wife of Lappidoth which meant he had authority to overrule her decisions. Although the Bible never said he actually did overrule her judging, the fact is Deborah could never have been the highest authority in Israel.

  83. Anonymous Reader says:

    By the way, “abdicating their responsibility” is woman-speak for “men not doing it the way a woman would”. Just another example of female-centric emotionalism plus solipsism.

  84. DrTorch says:

    Deborah was the people’s pick for Judge. God’s pick was Barak. It was Barak, not Deborah, who led the Israeli army to victory.

    Yes, worth noting that while a woman did get credit for defeating Sisera* (as an individual not his army) that woman was NOT Deborah.

    Deborah has never been a strong analogy for women to assume leadership in the Church.

    *Also worth noting is that Jael killed Sisera using guile. All’s fair in love and war, so I’m not criticizing, but again we see that the woman’s success is not with skills that translate into a long-term leader. Using this story as a justification for why women should be leaders in the Christian church is a parody of sound, sober reasoning.

  85. seventiesjason says:

    Frank K. I actually know a nun here in Fresno. She is with “Catholic Charities” here. She doesn’t wear a habit but she does cover hear head tastefully, and she is a licensed counselor focusing on addictions (drugs / alcohol). She provides counseling for many of the downtrodden that come to Catholic Charities for help. She and I a few years back were cleaning an alley here downtown full of excrement, needles, and other unsavory items. She’s got a heart for Christ for sure. She is my age, was “called” when she was about 29. Lives a very quiet, devout life.

    We joked here and there that a Catholic nun, and Salvationist doing His work together would have been unthinkable in our parents or grandparents generation. Nice lady. Quite attractive too. Wasn’t looking a “lust” sense but pretty. She told me that the “order” she out of is in the LA area. Very few nuns left today

  86. Gunner Q says:

    “Also worth noting is that Jael killed Sisera using guile. All’s fair in love and war, ”

    In point of fact, she betrayed her husband by murdering his ally in his home, in his sleep. God punished Barak’s reliance on women by tapping female treachery. It worked out for Barak AND was a not-so-subtle example of why one doesn’t rely upon a woman for war & leadership.

  87. Oscar says:

    @ Gunner

    The Book of Judges doesn’t say that Deborah was the people’s pick for judge. Besides, only God can make someone a prophet.

    Judges 4:1 Then the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord, after Ehud died. 2 And the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor; and the commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth-hagoyim. 3 The sons of Israel cried to the Lord; for he had nine hundred iron chariots, and he oppressed the sons of Israel severely for twenty years.

    4 Now Deborah, a [a]prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 She used to [b]sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment. 6 Now she sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali, and said to him, “[c]Behold, the Lord, the God of Israel, has commanded, ‘Go and march to Mount Tabor, and take with you ten thousand men from the sons of Naphtali and from the sons of Zebulun. 7 I will draw out to you Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his [d]many troops to the river Kishon, and I will give him into your hand.’” 8 Then Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” 9 She said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the honor shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh. 10 Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali together to Kedesh, and ten thousand men went up [e]with him; Deborah also went up with him.

  88. Gunner Q says:

    Oscar @ 4:14 pm:
    “The Book of Judges doesn’t say that Deborah was the people’s pick for judge. Besides, only God can make someone a prophet.”

    She was God’s pick for prophetess… but NOT for judge. As you quote:

    “Now Deborah, a [a]prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 She used to [b]sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment.” Emphasis mine. She stayed put and people came to her with their problems.

    Also, 1 Samuel 12:11: “Then the Lord sent [Gideon], Barak, Jephthah and Samuel, and he delivered you from the hands of your enemies all around you, so that you lived in safety.” Not Deborah.

  89. sipcode says:

    Men need to get used to saying again to women “Shut the fuck up.” But that may not be strong enough wording for those practicing witchcraft.

  90. Boxer says:

    Men need to get used to saying again to women “Shut the fuck up.” But that may not be strong enough wording for those practicing witchcraft.

    That’s a good point. Remember that the most dangerous form of witchcraft is not goony moonlit dances in the name of the devil. Much more destructive are wimminz like this boring old fruitbat in the video, who are committed to acting like wimminz: bearing false witness against men, blurring traditional gender roles, playing the victim, and manipulating others with provocative sexual allusions.

    http://salem.lib.virginia.edu/home.html

    A quick trip through these historical archives will give you an idea as to the actual definition of “witch,” and it’s a lot more expansive than kooks who cast impotent spells or bilk the gullible by selling potions.

  91. JDG says:

    unless a man cooks, cleans, supports his wife’s goals
    he is not worthy of being a husband

    I am SOOOOOO unworthy. Me and the wife appear to have it exactly backwards. The feminists are gonna scream when they find out.

  92. Frank K says:

    I actually know a nun here in Fresno. She is with “Catholic Charities” here. She doesn’t wear a habit but she does cover hear head tastefully

    She’s not a “nun”, she’s a “sister”, Nuns live in a cloister (an abbey or a convent), sisters do not. Nun’s wear habits, sisters do not. Nuns also tend to be far more conservative than sisters.

  93. JDG says:

    The Holy Spirit doesn’t speak to men. Men must rely on women for corrections from the Holy Spirit.

    We once had a guy try to teach this stuff at a Men’s group at the church I attend. I called him on that BS then and there in front of everybody. He was biblically unprepared to defend his position.

    My two cents: use the Bible. It always defends itself. If your opponent doesn’t accept God’s Word as authoritative, ask them on what authority are their assertions based and why should you accept their source over that of the Bible.

  94. Scott says:

    My two cents: use the Bible. It always defends itself. If your opponent doesn’t accept God’s Word as authoritative, ask them on what authority are their assertions based and why should you accept their source over that of the Bible.

    Eventually, they will argue that the part you are using either lacks context or is “cultural.”

  95. Hazelshade says:

    Rather than cite scripture on where men are specifically holding women back, McGreevy launches into a metaphor about a highway. Sounds pretty of-the-world to me.

    Pastor Bayly is right about St. Paul. He probably wouldn’t be welcome in this “PCA”. Do women cover their heads in that acronym, I wonder?

  96. Oscar says:

    @ Gunner Q says:
    June 7, 2018 at 4:36 pm

    Judges 4 says that “the sons of Israel came up to her [Deborah] for judgment.” It doesn’t say that they chose her to be their judge. If God set a person over you as a judge, you would naturally go up to that person for judgment.

  97. earl says:

    ‘Eventually, they will argue that the part you are using either lacks context or is “cultural.”

    Yes, be prepared for this run around as an arguement. A book I’m reading about feminism getting into the church was the outlandish idea that Jesus actually wanted a ‘feminist’ type church but the oppressive apostles under the patriarchal construct of the time forced it to be like it is now.

    Go back to the Bible though…they have no proof of their myth.

  98. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    Eventually, they will argue that the part you are using either lacks context or is “cultural.”

    Where does the “actually, the correct translation from Hebrew is….” fit in?

  99. BillyS says:

    Boxer,

    With respect, she’s like 50+ years old. I don’t think there’s anything in the New Testament that prohibits an old granny (with no little children) from teaching school, or otherwise bringing in dough to help the household. I think the real problem lies in the fact that she’s not adjuncting in the art department at her community college. She’s pretending to teach Christian priests how to ply their trade, at a religious seminary.

    She was the one saying she was a homemaker, but also a professor, which is why I asked. Those are not compatible even if the latter is valid. (Debatable at a religious school, but that is not the issue I was raising.)

    You can’t be working outside the home and fully focused on building the home.

  100. BillyS says:

    The Scriptures don’t put down Deborah for her actions/role (as a judge), so I won’t. She did chastise a man for being too cowardly to act on God’s Word and that seems quite just. Men who won’t act on what God has said, especially when their people are threatened, are idiots.

    And we have plenty of idiots today, though few women wanting to stay in their role.

    Anyone fuzzy on this might want to read the Scriptures in this area a bit more.

  101. BillyS says:

    Gunner Q,

    That is a stretch. People would naturally come to a judge God appointed and all we can read points that way.

    Nothing indicates Barak was ever meant to be a judge. He was a wimpy military leader. Note that he didn’t dispute what she said, but was too afraid to go alone. I may not agree with Calvin on a lot, but what MKT posted above seems right. Exceptions prove the rule, they don’t eliminate it.

  102. Hmm says:

    Precious Moments Jael:

    You’ll probably not find her image at the Precious Moments Chapel in Carthage, MO.

  103. Nerock says:

    You’ve got to give them credit, their rhetoric and propaganda is well constructed.

    I was struck by how frequently she referred to her or other women’s feelings:

    “I became aware of women who felt like they were relegated”
    “I started talking to women who felt hurt”
    “I’d always felt so affirmed”
    “I’ve always felts heart, like I had a place at the table”
    “I realize not all women have felt that way”
    “Let me tell you how that makes me feel as a woman”
    “It feels like I’m driving down the road”
    “But that’s the way you feel when someone’s holding you back”
    “I want to help him but I feel like he’s in my way, because he’s afraid”

    This video deserves the full Dalrock treatment. My favorite line is, ““If we wanted to usurp what we believe to be the complementarian pattern of scripture, we wouldn’t be in the PCA.” Actually, that’s exactly where you’d be!

  104. Jim says:

    And the cunt-worshiping stupidity only gets worse…

  105. RichardP says:

    @Splashman – thanks for the compliment.

    You said: Any woman who embarks on her own mission/agenda is in rebellion to God.

    We need to be careful with that one. God created Eve to be a help for her husband, not a help for everyman. If you want to jump to Paul in the New Testament, he told the wife to submit to her husband, not to everyman, in everything.

    I don’t think it is a law of God that everyone born must get married. And Paul said himself that, if you could handle it, it was good to stay unmarried. Even if Paul was only speaking to men, the implication is that for every man who chose to not marry, there would be a woman left without a husband (assuming a roughly equal split between male and female).

    Christ’s attentions are to his bride, the church, not to everywoman. And everywoman has no claim on Christ as her bridegroom – unless she stops being everywoman and becomes part of his bride, the church.

    Practical implication: throughout history, there has alway been a segment of women without husbands. Perhaps those women stayed under the authority of their fathers until they died, and then under the authority of any brothers. But what of the women who had no brothers? Consider Naomi and Ruth – who demonstrated that they were capable of having a mission and setting an agenda, by getting back home from a foreign land, by gleaning in the field in order to survive, by hatching a plan to snare the guy for a husband.

    I don’t think we can legitimately say any woman who embarks on her own mission/agenda is in rebellion to God. Any wife, maybe. But not any woman.

  106. JDG says:

    Eventually, they will argue that the part you are using either lacks context or is “cultural.”

    They usually go there right away, but the Bible provides both context and cultural relevance or, more likely, irrelevance.

  107. info says:

    @JDG
    They play word games with greek words like “Kephale” as meaning figureheadship and “Exousia” as being true authority.

    So do not be surprised.

  108. Sharkly says:

    BillyS says: He was a wimpy military leader. Note that he didn’t dispute what she said, but was too afraid to go alone.

    Judges 4:8 Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.”

    I have a different theory. I think he was testing her to see if he was being tricked and was being sent to his death, or if she really was being truthful about victory, to the point that she would go herself. He didn’t need a single Kick-ass woman to help fight off the army of Sisera.

    I’ve had a similar situation before. After I dismantled, repaired, and reassembled a business jet the test pilot asked me to go along and assist with in-flight tests on the initial test flight. Sometimes in a situation like that there would only be the required pilots on the initial test flight. When I asked why I was necessary on the initial flight, the test pilot confided to me that he would not fly the plane unless he knew I was confident enough in my own work, and the work of the other people I oversaw, to be onboard myself. So I had the opportunity to literally stand behind my work, and perform the cabin pressurization/outflow valve and oxygen system tests on the initial test flight while the pilots were strapped in up front. The pilot was not afraid to fly the airplane, so long as I was not afraid to be onboard.

  109. rocko says:

    @anonymous_ng
    I know I’m a bit late to the fray, but regarding the link you posted, I have input, specifically questions 5 and 6. And this is from my experience in a failed engagement.

    “Do you like my mother”
    The writer actually describes my experience mother in law perfectly. While I did generally get along well with her, her intrusion was unbelievable. For one, the adult daughters in the family couldn’t go out without a chaperone. Bear in mind these were adult women, not teens girls so any attempt at courtship was awkward. And I had to haul the whole family around and pay for everything. And even if I did the right thing and married her, I wouldn’t have been away to get a job out of town because her family wouldn’t have allowed it are all, especially since her mother was too attached to her grandsons. Very toxic.

    “Will you stand up to your mother.”
    My mother never did like my ex and it was clear why. My ex was constantly testing me and trying to conspire to guilt me to do what she wanted, often with her family as backup. And here’s the difference, gender equality be damned. Apparently, you have to defend your woman against your mother, even if your woman is being a bitch and needs to be put in her place. But you can’t go against her mother. Oh no. Even if her mother interferes in everything you do. And they wonder why men don’t want to marry.

  110. Original Laura says:

    Anonymous Reader said, “I’ve been told by aging Boomers that back in their day the average was probably 3 to 5 sexual partners per girl prior to marrying. ”

    The Boomers supposedly range from those born in 1946 to those born as late as 1963/1964. But the youngest boomers have very little in common with the eldest. In my area of the country, the older boomers would have attended segregated schools for a number of years, had school prayers at the start of the school day, etc. Those born in the 60s dealt with minorities from Day One of kindergarten. The textbooks from the mid 40s are VERY different from those of the early 60s. Much more of a social justice orientation in the 60s textbooks, and the dumbing down of standards was already obvious.

    From my own experience, I would say that in the mid 70s, it would have been difficult for most college girls attending schools in the South or Midwest to get access to birth control at a college clinic and be confident that their parents would not find out, but by 1980 or so, “in loco parentis” was gone, and the college clinics would have given out birth control and tested for STDs without notifying the parents.

    The age differences in the boomers, as well as the regional differences and rural vs. urban differences in moral standards makes it very difficult to determine what the premarital “average” might have been. Among my friends, most remained virgins until marriage, or had sex with their fiancé prior to marriage and they were generally married by age 22 or thereabouts. But the girls born in the early 60s were much more promiscuous than the ones born in the 50s in my part of the world. I don’t doubt that the sexual revolution started MUCH earlier on the East and West coasts than it did in flyover country, but for large portions of the South and Midwest, it wasn’t the sixties that were swinging — the swinging didn’t start until the seventies.

  111. ray says:

    seventiesjason — “She and I a few years back were cleaning an alley here downtown full of excrement, needles, and other unsavory items.”

    Doing Father’s business, in the practical ways that Jeshua emphasized.

    Contrast with the ‘pastors’ that Dalrock fries, who merely talk about Father and Christ, knowing neither.

  112. info says:

    @BillyS @Oscar @GunnerQ
    All male judges were military leaders. In the case of Deborah God split the role so that she is a mother figure a surprisingly feminine role(Judges 5:7) settling disputes whilst Barak led the army and fought in battle.

    And given the roles outlined by Paul by inspiration of the Holy spirit. There is no longer room for figures like Deborah to come into role of Authority if that was the case in Judges.

  113. Opus says:

    Speaking as a Boomer: I attended a segregated school; there were no girls and no Roman Catholics. Never saw a coloured person until I was in my teens. Hated the Scots, Welsh and Irish, of course which was as diverse as we then needed to venture. “Ah bliss it was in that dawn to believe” wrote the poet Wordsworth but perhaps he had something else in mind.

  114. Opus says:

    Bliss in that dawn to be alive.

  115. JDG says:

    @JDG
    They play word games with greek words like “Kephale” as meaning figure headship and “Exousia” as being true authority.

    Yeah that one was tried a lot. It turns out that there are several known instances in ancient literature where Kephale was used to mean literal authority like a general over an army. The Bible also provides the meaning for “kephale” (which includes authority over) in the context of marriage roles. One example is Eph 5:23: “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.” Kephale is used in reference to the husband and to Christ.

    For those who want more information, detailed scholarly research was done on this subject:
    https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/kephale_grudem.pdf

  116. Lost Patrol says:

    OT:

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-more-young-men-are-bathed-in-femininity-the-more-toxic-masculinity-you-will-see/

    We take a young man and kick his father out of his life, send him to school where he has mostly women teachers, barrage him with negative messages about masculinity, then turn him loose at college where we treat him like a guilty-until-proven-innocent rapist, and after all that, we blame “masculinity” when he goes off the rails despite the fact that he spent a lifetime bathed in femininity.

  117. bdash 77 says:

    I guess this is where church leaders get their advice from
    http://www.davidgsmithphd.com/

    men only goal in life is to mentor other women and raise them up…

  118. BillyS says:

    info,

    All male judges were military leaders.

    Not true. Samson was not any kind of leader. Perhaps he should have been, but he was not. I would have to reread through all of them to evaluate the others.

    And given the roles outlined by Paul by inspiration of the Holy spirit. There is no longer room for figures like Deborah to come into role of Authority if that was the case in Judges.

    God can do whatever He wants. His universe, His authority. Though the exception would still prove the rule as I noted. Women should not generally be in leadership or teaching general Biblical concepts for the reasons noted in the Epistles and the principles noted about the Creation.

    Though I wonder how many here take Paul’s commands seriously, but ignore the details Written about Creation….

    Sharkly,

    I have a different theory. I think he was testing her to see if he was being tricked and was being sent to his death, or if she really was being truthful about victory, to the point that she would go herself. He didn’t need a single Kick-ass woman to help fight off the army of Sisera.

    You can have whatever theory you want, but the text clearly implies he was a wimp. (His glory for winning would go to a woman is what is written.) I think I will stick with the plain meaning rather than forcing my preconceptions on what is written.

    A word from God’s authority is more trustworthy than one from a mechanic.

    rocko,

    I could never get my mother to get close to my wife. I suspect she saw in my ex the same errors that caused my mother to divorce my dad and ultimately keep her life from where it could be. They were far more alike than I realized until the divorce.

    My ex also left to live near and take care of her mother, so that is a major flaw in his questions. The mother was more important than her husband.

    ray,

    While I honor Jason’s service, doing the job a society and its government should do is not something those in the church are called to do. We should be helping the people, not being a trash cleanup operation, especially when that trash is caused by horrid government policies.

    (Unless Jason was really referring to people of course.)

  119. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: (in my best movie trailer voice, which is pretty damned good) “Jennifer.. Garner… IS….. semi-WOKE…. PUNISHER!”

  120. Damn Crackers says:

    @Oscar – Ha ha! The “Cunisher” movie, Peppermint, is getting in trouble already for being racist:

    https://www.thelily.com/the-trailer-for-jennifer-garners-new-movie-peppermint-stirs-up-hate-at-a-delicate-time/

    The left eats its own again!

  121. Joe says:

    Hmm… “Death Wish” redo with a women acting like a man.
    This is the narrative once again.

  122. Oscar says:

    @ Damn Crackers

    Yeah, that’s why it’s only semi-Woke Punisher. If it was fully Woke Punisher, she’d have laid waste to rednecks in trucks with MAGA bumper stickers preventing illegal immigrants from crossing their ranch lands in New Mexico.

  123. ray says:

    Billy S —
    ‘While I honor Jason’s service, doing the job a society and its government should do is not something those in the church are called to do. We should be helping the people, not being a trash cleanup operation, especially when that trash is caused by horrid government policies.’

    Yeah I hear all the enlightened pastors preaching pretty abstractions about which they do absolutely squadoosh. Shepherding the impoverished, visiting the incarcerated, all the things He talked about at the Mount, practical things, are as much the Church’s business as Scriptural guidance.

    Instead of claiming it was Somebody Else’s Problem — like you — and waiting for The Gubbermint, seventiesjason and friend did the HUMBLE work before them, making the limited improvement they could. The command to caretake this planet, and the feeding/clothing the poorest and powerless among us, has not been rescinded. These two church members WERE called, and promptly performed.

  124. seventiesjason says:

    Ray….people can have their own opinions. I took my Soldiers Covenant seriously. Like a marriage vow. Sadly, when the bride (my local Corps) cannot or will not hold themselves on a sense of urgency for the community and people we serve? Well, just call yourself the “salvation church that does nice things for people”

    Sister Lauren (the nun’s proper title) I met in 2013? She was talking with a “bum” on the street, she was kneeing beside him, just talking to him. I was in civilian dress on my skateboard, and I waited. she started to pray for him, I walked quietly over and placed my hands on him and prayed as well. That is how we met.

    The was an alley between an abandoned car dealership and a slumlord property…may twenty-thirty yards long. It was full of broken furniture, trash, and human waste. It was near Catholic Charities and our local Corps. We were talking about how it stank, and soon larger rats would be showing up. We took a walk through it and decided “something just had to be done” and the local children and animlas could get hurt or sick from the excrement and needles.

    That Saturday we met up, brooms, proper protective equipment. She pushed the dumpster from Catholic Charities over, and I went and pushed the dumpster from our Corps over. we shoveled, picked up, swept, swept, got buckets full of disinfectant, scrubbed with long handled bristle brushes. We hauled bucket load after bucket load of water to rinse. Long day. Went to her small rented studio, and she cooked me dinner. It was a wonderful day of fellowship. Something I want in a wife. This kind of attitude.

    Anyway, we talked about how “in these times….the end times” we Protestants and Catholics who are doers of His calll agrred that we should “know” some folks from other denoms and traditions to see who indeed is “ready” and “willing” for His use.

    It was an enjoyable day. Have not seen her in about six months. Will drop in to see her before I move for sure!

  125. Gunner Q says:

    info @ 4:04 am:
    “All male judges were military leaders. In the case of Deborah God split the role so that she is a mother figure a surprisingly feminine role(Judges 5:7) settling disputes whilst Barak led the army and fought in battle.”

    Judges 5:7 does not support the idea that God split the role. “Feminine leader” remains a Christian oxymoron.

    BillyS @ 8:09 am:
    “We should be helping the people, not being a trash cleanup operation”

    Preventing disease with good sanitation is better than praying for the sick.

  126. Anonymous Reader says:

    Joe
    Hmm… “Death Wish” redo with a women acting like a man.
    This is the narrative once again.

    It’s been the narrative for years, but now it’s standard. At some point it will become a cliche.
    I believe this all started with the character of Ripley in the first Alien movie. It is interesting to watch that movie and Terminator back to back[1], compare Sarah with Ripley and see which is more believable. it’s not about money, either. Plenty of money to be made with movies that aren’t all “girl power” all the time. There is an agenda.

    [1 The first Terminator, not any of the dumb sequels.

  127. seventiesjason says:

    Come on! “Aliens” was actually a good story. Ripley gets rescued when locked in the lab, and she was grateful. Saw it in the theaters back when it came out. It was a good story. Even in the clip below, Ripley tells Hudson that “we need you”
    Not “I” or “this little girl needs you”

  128. Sharkly says:

    BillyS says: You can have whatever theory you want, but the text clearly implies he was a wimp. (His glory for winning would go to a woman is what is written.) I think I will stick with the plain meaning rather than forcing my preconceptions on what is written.

    I said my idea was a theory. You said he was a wimp, and “was too afraid to go alone.”

    I wasn’t forcing anything into the Bible. However you are forcing your feminist idea that women are brave and men are cowards, into the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible say that Barak was a coward, or afraid. You see a clear implication where I don’t. I see a man who rose to be a leader of an army that fought in hand to hand combat. That usually does not happen to a coward, anymore than a cowardly man would one day wake up to find himself working as test pilot. I read my Bible and find Barak given as an example of faith, not as an object of Feminist ridicule.

    Hebrews 11:29 By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. 31 By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies. 32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

    1 Samuel 12:10 And they cried out to the Lord and said, ‘We have sinned, because we have forsaken the Lord and have served the Baals and the Ashtaroth. But now deliver us out of the hand of our enemies, that we may serve you.’ 11 And the Lord sent Jerubbaal and Barak and Jephthah and Samuel and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies on every side, and you lived in safety.
    No mention of Jael or Deborah in those verses. The glory may have gone to a woman, but God gives Barak due credit for his faith, and never calls him a wimp. Just you and the Feminist preachers I’ve heard my whole life call him that. I think he was just being a wise leader, protecting his men’s lives, by making sure the woman was telling him the whole truth, and not working for the enemy, by seeing if she would come along, thereby backing up her words with her life.

    Judges 4:16 And Barak pursued the chariots and the army to Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not a man was left.
    Chasing down and slaughtering better equipped foes does not sound like the act of a coward to me.

    Judges 5:15 the princes of Issachar came with Deborah, and Issachar faithful to Barak; into the valley they rushed at his heels.
    That verse implies Barak was able to inspire faithfulness in his men, and even led the charge! With the others rushing at his heels.

    I won’t listen to a keyboard warrior call this heroic man of faith a wimp, just because it pleases the Feminists to emasculate all our male heroes.

    Barak was in fact protecting the women of Israel, not the other way around.

    Judges 5:28
    “Out of the window she peered,
    the mother of Sisera wailed through the lattice:
    ‘Why is his chariot so long in coming?
    Why tarry the hoofbeats of his chariots?’
    29
    Her wisest princesses answer,
    indeed, she answers herself,
    30
    ‘Have they not found and divided the spoil?—
    A womb or two for every man;
    spoil of dyed materials for Sisera,
    spoil of dyed materials embroidered,
    two pieces of dyed work embroidered for the neck as spoil?’

    If Barak had not been faithful and led the charge against Sisera, more than likely the women of Israel would have been raped, but the Feminists inclination is to make a wimp out of him despite his demonstrated valor.

    I don’t fault you for your view. It was what I was always taught. But after the Red Pill, I see things differently, and I now know not to believe a word those hirelings told me. Watch out for those who emasculate the men of the Bible, always double check that sort of stuff, and then triple check it.

  129. American says:

    I don’t want to be a complimentarian nor do I want women to be. I want everyone to accept biblical masculine patriarchy. In fact, I insist.

  130. Boxer says:

    Dear Sharkly:

    If Barak had not been faithful and led the charge against Sisera, more than likely the women of Israel would have been raped, but the Feminists inclination is to make a wimp out of him despite his demonstrated valor.

    Thanks for this article. It’s the best exegesis of this story I’ve ever seen (and I’ve never been too familiar with the details).

    Happy Father’s Day!

    Boxer

  131. Marquessrajah of the Khyberbury says:

    Although I am curious as to what are some ideas to stop this god complex women have?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdah

    The revival of purdah in modern times is sometimes perceived as a statement for progressive gender relations. Some women wear veils and head coverings as a symbol for protection and freedom of mobility. They perceive purdah as an empowerment tool, to exercise their rights to access public space for education and economic independence. For instance, in rural Bangladeshi villages, women who wear the burkha were found to have higher social participation and visibility, which overall contributes to an increase in women’s status.

    [ahem] Lzolozolololoolollolzlloozolololzlolololzlololzlzlzzzl111!!!

    Seriously, as you know, you are asking to change woman’s god-given nature.

    Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.

    Protip: Next time, don’t listen to her.

  132. Sharkly says:

    Thanks Boxer!
    I was not familiar with the story either except from Feminist hirelings telling me that wimpy Barak was afraid to go into Battle without a brave woman leader to lead the scared man-child to the battle.
    So I went to my handy tool:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Barak&qs_version=ESV
    And foud out that Barak was only mentioned in Judges 4-5, 1 Samuel 12, and Hebrews 11
    Then I read those passages and saw the whole story.

    I had always sensed as a child that there was something repellant and off about the feminist version of the story that the hirelings preached. They seemed gleeful to spin this narative of a cowardly general needing to be reprimanded and babysat by an empowered lady Judge. And I felt they often went overboard in their gratuitous pandering to the womenfolk, while making me hot under the collar that they were bashing males and claiming crap like “the average mom is braver than a General, that’s why God doesn’t have men give birth, because they’re not up to the task”. Even as a child I sensed that snake was up there blowing sunshine up the ladies dresses, and doing it at my expense. The Bible said Barak told Deborah “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” The story didn’t go on for half an hour running down men and claiming women are superior like the Feminist pulpiteer. The concept of a frightened General seemed phony. And if he was so scared at the head of an army of 10,000 armed men, how in the heck was one lady coming along going to make him feel so much safer. The story never made sense and I hated it, and how it was used in churches to make fools of all men.
    But after I just read the whole story myself, I realized Barak was most likely testing Deborah. He didn’t need her to come along. He just wanted to be positive that she wasn’t afraid to come along herself, because, if she was afraid, then he would know he and his army were being set up, and Deborah would not want to be killed by them when they found that out. If she really believed God had promised them a victory, she would not be afraid to go along and be there to watch from behind Israel’s lines.
    Barak was given as an example of Faith in Hebrews 11:29-34. And Faith is the source of most courage.

    “Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me.” He added, after a pause, looking me full in the face: “That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave.” ~Stonewall Jackson

    Men of God are not to be cowards, and cowards can only pretend to be Godly when they’re not scared out of it.

    Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

    Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. ~ C.S. Lewis

    Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all others. ~ Winston Churchill

    Few women are very courageous today, and that is why thier virtue is so easily abandoned in any situation. Because of a lack of courage peoples “fixed morals” collapse into “situational ethics”. The less courage a person has, the less influence it will take to get them to abandon their morals. My theory is; if you were to have a person honestly rate the importance to them of each of their moral beliefs on a scale of 1 to 10, and then you were to rate their courage acurately on a scale of 1 to 10 you could multiply those two numbers together and get a 1-100 number representing how hard it would likely be to get that person to violate that particular moral belief, or how likely they are to keep true to their conviction at different levels of pressure or temptation.
    Wouldn’t it be nice to have a printout before you “Man up” and marry that whore. She won’t fool around on you with a 7 or an 8, but 9’s and 10’s are beyond her resistance level, so don’t leave her alone with Chad, but it is fine to let her visit with Melvin. That kind of thing would be handy to have computed. If I put more pressure on her than X amount, she will begin to lie to me. Maybe somebody needs to make a formula workbook if somebody hasn’t already.
    Anyhow, hirelings preach about Barak and Deborah wrong because they lack the courage to stand up for men against the Feminism of the world. The church is led by cowards who will lapse in their less valued morals in secret at the least temptation or pressure, and their most firmly held beliefs are even up for grabs with enough temptation or pressure. I wouldn’t mind if our church leaders had feet of clay, but they’ve got brains of clay and hearts of clay also. So they are never any good even before they fall. Folks, you have to just read the Bible for yourselves! These hirelings can’t be trusted with eternal matters. Also be of good courage! And be a good example of courage for your kids, and teach them to be courageous so that they can stand up against the world and be a pure light in the darkness. Keep the faith.

  133. RichardP says:

    @Sharkly:

    1. I didn’t realize you could search on keywords at Bible Gateway. Thanks for the nice example.

    2. In all fairness, you made the whole Barak story visible through use of the Internet. The hirelings didn’t have that in your youth, and so perhaps were preaching/teaching without benefit of the whole story, the one we can read at your link. However, Nave’s Topical Bible was first published in 1896. My copy published in 1962 has Barak as an entry and has all of your Barak references except for 1 Samuel. You’d think that folks wouldn’t dare preach without having thoroughly researched whatever it is they want to say. But can you fault those who don’t use a Topical Reference Bible or other research if they don’t know it exists?

    3. Your story re. Barak here highlights a universal problem – folks can only tell what they know, whether it be from the Bible or a culture’s oral history. And no one person can know everything. That leads to the unfortunate circumstance of not knowing what we don’t know. The fact that no one person can know everything should make folks a bit humble when they relate any information, whether scriptural or social oral history, etc. And that fact is also probably part of what is behind the admonition in 1 John 4:1 to believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. You don’t know what you don’t know, others don’t know what they don’t know – so trust, but verify.

    4. To repeat: Can we fault those who don’t use a Topical Reference Bible or other research if they don’t know it exists? That is one of the problems with those who insist that the meaning in the Bible is plain, and even the simplest man can understand it. You have demonstrated the reality that many don’t know: often, the meaning is most accurately derived by reading in sequence all of the verses in the Bible that pertain to the topic being considered. But how does the simple man find all of those verses when they lack the appropriate research and study tools? The point is, they don’t. But that doesn’t stop them from preaching/teaching. Should we stop them, because they are spreading disinformation? At what point of knowledge should one be allowed to preach/teach (e.g., only a Pope?), knowing that no one person can know all that there is to know?

    Do we think that God understood that this problem exists, and said Go ye into all the world … anyway?

  134. info says:

    @BillyS
    Every male judge was a soldier at the very least. And every one of them judged Israel.

    Judges 15:20
    Samson judged Israel for twenty years during the period when the Philistines dominated the land.

  135. info says:

    @BillyS
    ”Women should not generally be in leadership or teaching general Biblical concepts for the reasons noted in the Epistles and the principles noted about the Creation.”

    That exception is the camel’s nose under the tent in the modern day. Women claiming inspiration from God like Deborah.

    No woman from God in the modern church would be “called to preach and exercise authority over men”

  136. That was fantastic. I didn’t read a single positive comment.

    Now while the questions aren’t necessarily bad, the author is so detached from the current reality it makes the whole thing start looking like a sad parody.

  137. Sharkly says:

    I finally tried to watch the video in Dalrock’s original post. I never listen to female preaching. I will listen to females teach about other secular subjects, but not about the Bible, God, or Christian living. I got abut 3.5 minutes in, and had to shut it off. Sorry, I just couldn’t make myself listen to any more of it. I tried!

    RichardP Says: Should we stop them, because they are spreading disinformation? At what point of knowledge should one be allowed to preach/teach (e.g., only a Pope?), knowing that no one person can know all that there is to know?

    1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
    3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
    4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
    5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
    6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
    7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

    I had a pastor try to tell me I was wrong for wanting to “rule” in my home. I had to school that novice that if he didn’t “rule” and rule well, he didn’t belong in his job. I swear it was like nobody had ever pointed that verse out to him.
    I guess the “not a novice” is a judgement call. But I’d say The teacher should be one of the more knowledgeable members of the group. So it is relative to the group he is teaching. If you find you know more about the Bible than most of those around you, start teaching them what you know.

    Also for a deacon and a deacon’s wife they are to be grave. and the Pastor/bishop/overseer is to conduct himself “with all gravity”. Nowhere do I find that the pastor should be attempting to be a comedian. That is not grave behavior, and they belittle their office with their clowning.

  138. DrTorch says:

    Nowhere do I find that the pastor should be attempting to be a comedian. That is not grave behavior, and they belittle their office with their clowning.

    Eccl 7:2 Better to go to the house of mourning
    Than to go to the house of feasting,
    For that is the end of all men;
    And the living will take it to heart.

    3 Sorrow is better than laughter,
    For by a sad countenance the heart is made [b]better.

    4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning,
    But the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.

    Some years ago now, the small church we were attending hired a youth pastor, whose style was overtly that of a buffoon and comedian. I opposed the hire, but wasn’t an official member so couldn’t vote on it. Don’t think my vote would have mattered anyway. For some reason the pastor (whom I liked a lot, and who was an excellent expositional teacher) really liked the guy and wanted him.

    Well the guy certainly was a clown, by his own admission, and the youth group had lots of get-aways w/ silly antics like watermelon helmets. I didn’t let my step-son go to these things. If it was purely social, sure I was fine by that, I wanted him to have fun w/ his friends. But if it was silliness which was purported to be teaching, I didn’t want that b/c he was going to get the wrong idea about what serious study and service to God really meant.

    Anyway, my step son resents me, apparently being silly in everything is very important. But he’s been successful w/ the disciplines I taught him. On the flip side, the pastor’s daughter got pregnant at 15 y.o. So the goofy youth pastor and his empathetic wife didn’t work out all that well.

  139. Oscar says:

    @ RichardP

    “Do we think that God understood that this problem exists, and said Go ye into all the world … anyway?”

    Well, God is omniscient, and Jesus sent them before the Bible was even done being written, much less compiled, much less arranged into topical study tools, so, yes.

  140. justdoit says:

    @Joe, I was going to say Jennifer Garner-Bronson. Hyphenation is important!

  141. James says:

    Just to add to the discussion on whether Barak was afraid to go into battle without Deborah or was merely testing her, I was thinking that Hebrews 11 (the “faith chapter” as were told it was called) does not highlight any of the sins or wrondgoing of those it gives as examples of faith.

    Barak, Samson and David are mentioned together in the passage that says “who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice…escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.”

    This can’t be used to say that Samson never sinned or gave his strength to a woman, and that really, he was just testing her, or that he wasn’t behaving badly at that time in his life. This passage can’t be used to say that David didn’t do some pretty bad things during parts of his life. And in and of itself, I don’t see how this would be a way of covering for Barak in the situation with Deborah, especially since David and Samson are on the same list and it can’t be done with them. These verses merely omit mentioning anything these men had ever done wrong in this case.

    Anyone have any thoughts on this?

  142. James says:

    If anything, Hebrews 11 is saying that these men’s “weakness was turned to strength,” and that they “became powerful” in battle. It implies that they were weak at one time, though I don’t know who specifically each part applies to, although the overall list given is “Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets.”

  143. DrTorch says:

    James- Your points are valid. Barak displayed faith- he acted in obedience to the Lord, despite the situation looking dire. Doesn’t mean he was sinless. Abraham is cited in Heb 11, even though he got scared and turned over Sarah to a foreign ruler.

  144. BillyS says:

    James,

    Your comment makes sense. Taking Hebrews to mean the one written about was perfect is not wise. Remember it talks of “righteous Lot” as well, which is definitely a mental stretch from what we read in Genesis.

    You correctly note David had some really bad sins, especially in relation to Uriah, but God still calls David a man after God’s own heart, which means that God can decide what to look at and what to ignore.

    Barak still acted, which was what Hebrews covered. Even action that takes some effort is action. Noting him being human and perhaps wimpy does not negate that he still acted. Over-exalting him just to demote Deborah and fight against modern error (of women in ministry) is not wise.

  145. BillyS says:

    As far as I know, Joseph is the only significant one the Scriptures don’t mention anything bad about (other than Jesus of course) and a sign of his own pride even comes through from his early life, though it is not directly pointed out, unlike other “heroes of the faith.”

  146. MKT says:

    Late to the game here, but I found out this woman was a “voting member” on a PCA study committee on women serving in ministry. So while not ordained, it appears she can help craft and vote on policies/recommendations that ordained men are supposed to follow–or at least “prayerfully consider” or something..

    http://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Women-Serving-in-Min.-of-Ch.-Study-Committee-Report-with-admended-recommendations.pdf

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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