Defenseless

Sheila Gregoire has a post about a twitter fight she and another Christian feminist (Julie Anne) had with a complementarian Southern Baptist pastor (Steve Camp).  Sheila and Julie Anne were defending an article denying headship and instead arguing for mutual submission in marriage.  Pastor Camp started off boldly, saying that the women were being emotional, and suggesting he should speak to their husbands instead.  In asking to speak to their husbands, Camp was no doubt making an allusion to 1 Cor 14:35 (ESV):

If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Julie Anne immediately sensed the weakness of a complementarian pastor making this allusion, because the verse is despised by complementarians.  When it comes to the topic of headship and submission, complementarians teach the opposite of 1 Cor 14:35, insisting that husbands must not instruct their wives.  In what appears to be a deleted tweet, Julie Anne reminded Pastor Camp of the complementarian rejection of 1 Cor 14:35, and Camp had no choice but to immediately concede the point:

Julie Ann: BTW, if a woman submits after you tell her to, it’s not true submission. Submission comes from the heart. It is not prodded by someone else. It is a natural response when someone is treated lovingly. If your wife (in general) is not submitting, look at self first.

PastorSJCamp: Straw man.

I’ve never once said in my entire life that a man should tell a woman to submit- ever.

Shiela’s daughter Rebecca joined the fray and confronted Pastor Camp by asking if he thought women were more easily deceived than men.  This was a brilliant strategy, because the complementarian position is that the Apostle Paul was not saying that women were more easily deceived in 1 Tim 2:14.

As Sheila accurately observed, Pastor Camp never managed to give a straight answer on the question:

At this point, my daughter Rebecca (@lifeasadare) jumped in, asking for a straight answer on one question: Does Steve Camp believe that women are more easily deceived than men, since he used that as an excuse to end a debate? The thread is quite illuminating–she keeps asking, he keeps dodging.

Elsewhere fellow complementarian Ron Henzel attempted to jump in and assist, but Julie Anne  effortlessly forced Henzel to concede that complementarians don’t believe in hierarchy:

Sheila took a different tack in her post, and brought in her husband Keith to explain that he is an egalitarian and rejects the very idea of headship and submission:

At one point, Pastor Camp made a comment that he was glad Sheila was going to “allow me to speak”. This strongly suggests to me that the mindset here is that if I, the husband, am not in charge than clearly she must be. It is a sad a terrible thought to me that some people see the world this way. Unfortunately, my life experience – including hateful commentary directed at me on Sheila’s blog – has taught me that there really are people out there who think like that.

For the record, Sheila and I are a team.

We both submit to God as the Bible teaches. We both submit to each other as the Bible teaches (Eph 5:21). We make decisions together and when we disagree we keep talking, praying and seeking God’s will until we figure it out. If we ever got to the point where we were truly at an impasse, my natural reaction would be to seek Godly counsel from friends, mentors, parents or a pastor. The idea that I would make the decision because “I am the man” is just not in our DNA. I see no Biblical problems with holding this view.

 in what universe is it okay for someone to say, “I’d rather hear your husband’s opinion on this as women are prone to be deceived.”? The thought of saying that would never cross my mind, nor any of the men I know. If a man were to speak like this to a female colleague at work, he would certainly be disciplined and perhaps fired – and appropriately so. But a pastor can say this publicly and no one blinks. This baffles me. And it needs to stop

Keith’s insistence that he and Sheila have an egalitarian marriage is a fantasy that only exists in Keith’s imagination.  As Sheila explains in her signature book, she and Keith practice Pastor Doug Wilson’s wife as despot model of marriage.  Sheila’s job is to give Keith lists of chores.  Keith then twirls around the house cleaning:

Often men feel superfluous at home, like they don’t even belong, because you manage everything. Make honest requests of him that allow him to help support you and feel involved in building your home…

If you want your husband to take responsibility for certain chores on his own, without being asked, you need to find a delegation method that conveys to him what needs to be done without threatening him…

My husband is motivated by lists. If I just tell him I would like him to help clean up after dinner, he doesn’t know what to do. But if there is a list of daily and weekly chores on the fridge, and he can see what is left to be done, he’s like a Tasmanian devil whirling around the house, cleaning.

More importantly, there is nothing Pastor Camp can say to rebut Keith’s endorsement of egalitarian marriage.  He is the one who asked for Sheila’s submissive husband to give his perspective on marriage roles.  Moreover, had it turned out that Keith was not submissive to Sheila, Pastor Camp would have to insist that Keith couldn’t weigh in on the topic in front of Sheila, since per complementarian theology husbands can’t instruct their wives on what the Bible says on the topic!

But Camp’s problems don’t stop there.  He pointed out that Sheila and Julie Anne were being emotional.  From the complementarian perspective saying such a thing is abuse.  Sheila understands this, and cleverly responded to him pointing out that she was being emotional with an emotional appeal to other women:

steve-camp-sexist-twitter-fight

Sheila then followed up with an appeal to women to rebel against their husbands and pastors if the men don’t toe the Christian feminist line.  She specifically invites the women in Pastor Camp’s congregation to rebel against him:

And now a word to my readers:

Steve Camp normally wouldn’t matter. He’s a pastor of a small church with very little influence.

But there are women in his congregation who need to know that they do not need to accept being spoken to like this.

And Steve Camp is part of the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC obviously has no problem with having their pastors go on Twitter like this. To me, this is part of a larger issue within the SBC, which I’ll be talking about tomorrow in solidarity with those who will be holding a rally asking the SBC to take abuse issues seriously.

Finally, please hear me on this:

If anyone ever tries to silence you because you’re a woman, telling you that you’re emotional, that you’re deceived, that only your husband’s opinion counts--you don’t have to take it.

It is okay to speak up. It’s okay to have opinions. You matter dearly to God, and He created you with your intellect, your giftings, your brain. You are not someone that is to be easily dismissed.

And when you do speak up–know that even if your circle thinks of women that way, most in our culture do not. Many, many men would stand up for you. Many, many women would, too. And if you are in a circle where pastors think it’s okay to speak like this about women–then quite frankly, get out.

How can Camp possibly respond to this?  Not only has Sheila called him abusive, but he can’t point out her rebellion because complementarians don’t believe feminism represents a rebellion by women.  Complementarians believe that feminism is a logical reaction to patriarchal tyranny.  Sheila called him a tyrant, and told the women in his congregation to rebel.  There is simply no way a complementarian pastor like Camp can argue against that.  If the women in Camp’s congregation take Sheila up on her invitation to rebel, the complementarian answer is for Camp to love and serve them so much that they no longer feel the need to rebel.  As fellow complementarian pastor Matt Chandler explains in his sermon Women’s Hurdles, if Sheila can tempt the women in Pastor Camp’s congregation into rebellion, Pastor Camp owes the women an immediate apology:

Really, men, here is a great way to gauge how you’re serving, loving, and practicing your headship.  If the most secularized feminist in the world showed up in your home and began to kind of coach your wife toward freedom and liberation from your tyranny, our wives should be so well cared for, so nourished, so sowed into and loved, they would say, “What you’re describing is actually tyranny. I love where I am. I am honored. I am encouraged. My man sacrifices so that I might grow in my gifts. He will oftentimes lay down his own desires in order to serve me more. My husband goes to bed tired at night. He pours into our children. He encourages me. All that comes out of his mouth, sans a couple of little times here and there, is him building me up in love.”

Men, here is a good opportunity. If you’re like, “Well, gosh, I don’t think she would say that at all,” then, men, I think on the way home, you should probably repent and confess before the Lord to your wife.

H/T OKRickety

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Headship, Pastor Doug Wilson, Pastor Matt Chandler, Pastor Steve Camp, Rebellion, Servant Leader, Sheila Gregoire, Southern Baptist Convention, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

143 Responses to Defenseless

  1. PokeSalad says:

    First! 😉

    Hoist by their own petard, they would be…..such is a traitor’s lot.

  2. I read the penultimate sentence as “I think on the way home, you should probably repent and confess before the Lord your wife.”

    After a double take, I re-read it correctly. But I think my first read more accurately reflected the intent of Pastor Shelia’s (pasto De Facto, if not De Jure).

  3. jbarruso says:

    Jesus went to the cross not because it made him happy but as OBEDIENCE to His Farher as submission to His Father’s will. This is the truest expression of faith. “Even unto death.” Respect and obedience even when we disagree. This is why the Lord provides us with hierarchy. To practice our faith! It couldn’t be more clear.

  4. Pingback: Defenseless | @the_arv

  5. Damn Crackers says:

    I’ve been following the Complimentarian position here at Dalrock for awhile, but do they start out their position from Eph. 5:21? “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

    Is this the main verse they use to excuse men submitting to their wives and vice versa? Do they have a point, or more than likely, does this verse refer to some other submission?

  6. Oscar says:

    If you want your husband to take responsibility for certain chores on his own, without being asked, you need to find a delegation method that conveys to him what needs to be done without threatening him… ~ Omaha Beach Sheila

    Who gets to delegate to whom? Does the superior delegate to the subordinate, or is it the other way around?

    If the most secularized feminist in the world showed up in your home and began to kind of coach your wife toward freedom and liberation from your tyranny, our wives should be so well cared for, so nourished, so sowed into and loved, they would say, “What you’re describing is actually tyranny. I love where I am. I am honored. I am encouraged. My man sacrifices so that I might grow in my gifts. He will oftentimes lay down his own desires in order to serve me more. My husband goes to bed tired at night. He pours into our children. He encourages me. All that comes out of his mouth, sans a couple of little times here and there, is him building me up in love.”

    Men, here is a good opportunity. If you’re like, “Well, gosh, I don’t think she would say that at all,” then, men, I think on the way home, you should probably repent and confess before the Lord to your wife. ~ Door Matt Chandler

    The Serpent entered the Garden and and coached Eve toward freedom and liberation from God’s tyranny, and Eve responded by believing the Serpent.

    So, I guess God needs to repent and confess before Eve. Right?

  7. David J. says:

    Steve Camp is a first or second generation Contemporary Christian Music artist who went on to become a pastor. He is one of the many in the SBC who is — rightly 🙂 — Calvinist in his theology. As a singer/songwriter, he was known for his boldness and outspokenness against compromise. Some viewed him as a successor to Keith Green in that regard. I don’t have time to read through the whole twitter exchange to see firsthand how he acquitted himself. I’d expect he’d have the right impulses; whether he expressed the truth well or lost his taste for the fight after it started, I can’t say.

  8. DR Smith says:

    You asked how can Pastor Camp respond? Simple…..make an over the top emotional apology to his entire congregation (preferable on video posted on You Tube) that he is very. very sorry that for all these years he has been wrong in his teachings and interpretation of the bible, and so has the SBC….he is renouncing the SBC and going back to literal interpretation of the bible, then call Shelia and her supports what they really are – feminists monsters and destroyers of Western society.

    This is the way to fight this kind of nonsense – declare those that support those kid of teachings as wrong, morally and ethically. He might lose a few current people form his church, but would likely add a bunch more…..

  9. Cane Caldo says:

    These women rhetorically beat the snot out of Camp because he disagrees with plain reading of the Scriptures, yet won’t admit his disagreement to himself. He lies to himself, and that’s his biggest problem.

  10. earl says:

    When you have no defense to what the actual Word of God says…you have to resort to attacking the messenger with insults, straw men, and false accusations.

  11. earl says:

    So none of what these women are saying is surprising…just remember what god they are submitting to.

  12. Gunner Q says:

    I tried fisking that article and couldn’t because I couldn’t identify a consistent difference between the two sides. As best I can figure, Camp argues that women should naturally do the submissive thing and Gregorie argues that she’s naturally doing the headship thing and what is Camp going to do about it? Uh… uh… Camp invokes husband! But Keith is happy to disobey Scripture as ordered to by wifey. Camp is checkmated.

    There are parallels between Camp losing this argument and a first-generation Communist pleading with the second generation to not abuse all the State power he’s consolidated for their use. They all think humans are naturally good.

    “Why are you selfishly using all the power and money I selflessly stole from the bourgeois for you?”

    “Fun and profit.”

    “But… but… you should follow my example!”

    “We are. It suited your purposes to rob the innocent then and it suits our purposes to rob the innocent now. But we are more honest than you.”

  13. Hmm says:

    Change the sexes and see how this reads:

    “If you want your wife to take responsibility for certain chores on her own, without being asked, you need to find a delegation method that conveys to her what needs to be done without threatening her…”

    Hmm…

  14. rocko says:

    And they wonder why godless heathens such as myself won’t return to Christianity

  15. earl says:

    And they wonder why godless heathens such as myself won’t return to Christianity

    Because that’s not Christianity…it’s basically Womenanity.

  16. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock, et. al.:

    How can Camp possibly respond to this?

    Maybe he could respond with the help of the text, that Sheila pretends to respect. It doesn’t hurt to have a guy like St. Paul backing you up in an argument. He was fairly clever.

    If Steve Camp is reading here, then he should fight back against these people. Every man has a duty to resist the mob, and the feminists are only emboldened when a man grovels and apologizes. They never forgive or forget, and neither should we.

    Boxer

  17. SirHamster says:

    The mewling weakness of the pastor in the face of rebellious women is contemptible. But there was no other outcome when he had unilaterally disarmed himself in advance.

    Stand firm on the Word, or stand not at all.

  18. Swanny River says:

    I’m surprised she is so easily convinced by her own logical fallacy of joining the bandwagon, that is, “….most in the culture do not.” She can’t see that she didn’t appeal to scripture? She must be a believer of global warming then, since 97% of scientists are in consensus regarding it.
    Then she goes on to attack his manhood, by pointing out what a small pecker, oops, “influence” he has.
    Well, she did have her husband speak for her, so I guess that will be enough in her mind to consider herself biblical.

  19. 447 says:

    As somebody who is not part of a formal church (and from the EU), this exchange causes me to ask myself this:
    Any half-way intelligent person KNOWS all those social conventions and how any discussion of sex roles plays out. Literally everybody – at least if you are involved in current social topics, like, at all…
    Why can’t he think even one step ahead?
    The feminist formula is the leftist formula is the communist formula of basic psy-ops:
    Bait with leftist statement –》use shame and provocation if bait is taken –》throw tantrums and shame till opposition is silenced.

    That works great…if you feel shame or can be made to feel shame over your position!
    How/why a man of god could feel shame over biblical positions is unclear to me.

    Replying with merciless taunting and/or simply standing your ground causes these people to fail and turn away, bolstering the exposure of YOUR point instead of theirs because all the screeching just announced your position to all of the intarwebz, making your position stronger and theirs weaker.

    Why doesn’t he act like that?
    Or will/can his church “fire” him? (In my country, preachers are set for life)

  20. earl says:

    Then she goes on to attack his manhood, by pointing out what a small pecker, oops, “influence” he has.

    The more I read about the sinisterness of feminism…the more I find it’s a combo of wimminz empowerment (the ‘goddess’ within, hence the Word of God has no place in there) and emasculation. Think about it…Smash the Patriarchy.

    You know you are on to something when her only retort is your small penis or threatening to crush your balls.

  21. DrTorch says:

    Steve Camp learned that the enemy really isn’t interested in compromise.

    What part of “like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour” does he not understand? Ok, maybe a lot of it b/c we don’t have to deal w/ feral lions much in the US. But seriously, that isn’t a hard metaphor to understand.

  22. PokeSalad says:

    Steve Camp is a first or second generation Contemporary Christian Music artist who went on to become a pastor. He is one of the many in the SBC who is — rightly 🙂 — Calvinist in his theology. As a singer/songwriter, he was known for his boldness and outspokenness against compromise.

    Well, most all singers/muscians like to pretend they are rebels, going against the prevailing wisdom, fighting ‘the Man,’ etc….whether secular or Christian…the more rebellious you seem, the more you make.

    Then if one becomes a pastor……you have become “the Man”…..and your bread is buttered from a much different audience….

  23. Oscar says:

    Cane Caldo,

    These women rhetorically beat the snot out of Camp because he disagrees with plain reading of the Scriptures, yet won’t admit his disagreement to himself. He lies to himself, and that’s his biggest problem.

    It’s tough to be consistent when you’re lying to yourself.

  24. Swanny River says:

    Half of my kingdom for Keith to write,”Honey, he is right, you are emotional and easily deceived and you should have talked to me first, but you are too into yourself to be vulnerable and pliable, like a helper should be.”

  25. Boxer says:

    Half of my kingdom for Keith to write,”Honey, he is right, you are emotional and easily deceived and you should have talked to me first, but you are too into yourself to be vulnerable and pliable, like a helper should be.”

    I honestly can’t blame him. The Gregoire’s primary home is Ontario — the feminist republic. The minute he disagrees with her majesty, she has an opening to accuse him of abuse, and he’ll be facing a long jail sentence and lifetime alimony.

    Steve Camp’s job is to make an example out of both these people.

    Incidentally, if it’s a twitter fight, then you guys should go over and publicize Dalrock’s excellent synopsis. I’d do it myself, but I have a lifetime suspension from that platform. lol

    Boxer

  26. Hazelshade says:

    @Hmm

    Lol! Good point.

    The quoted part of Chandler’s sermon prompts some reevaluation. Are secular feminists really leading the complementarians, or is it the other way around? Have we had it backwards?

    “If the most secularized feminist in the world showed up in your home and began to kind of coach your wife toward freedom and liberation from your tyranny, our wives…would say, ‘…My man sacrifices so that I might grow in my gifts. He will oftentimes lay down his own desires in order to serve me more.'”

    “SERVE ME MORE.” Complementarian women don’t need to be coached toward freedom and liberation from tyranny; they’re already tyrants themselves. Complementarians don’t need to be coached toward gynarchy and woman-worship; they’re already there. If anything complementarian women should be coaching the feminists toward the covert tactics of feminist rebellion. Complementarian women have done a better job leading men under the thrall of rebellion. For example these churchian “marriages” where the wife is the head. That’s a pretty good skin-suit they cut, there. Complementarians are harder to get through to than feminists re feminist rebellion because they have these practiced parries around the subject, e.g. countering 1 Cor 14:35 with Eph 5:21. Offensively and defensively, the complementarians are more advanced than the feminists.

  27. RichardP says:

    @Oscar said: Does the superior delegate to the subordinate, or is it the other way around?

    The answer to your question is yes.

    tl:dr – The CEO worth his wages is going to do whatever he can to enable his department heads to more effectively and efficiently help him carry out his vision / mission. He does this by soliciting feedback from his department heads and then acting on that feedback. In essence, doing what his department heads ask him to do. He is carrying out their requests – even tho he is still the CEO. Mutual submission does not negate the idea that only one of the group of two or more is the one whose vision / mission is being pursued.
    ———

    The CEO surrounds himself with folks who know more than him about production, accounting, finance, marketing, research, etc. In this situation, as in the situation God created with Adam and Eve, the issue is not about who is smarter. The issue is about whose vision we are supposed to be following and supporting. In business, as in marriage, the most successful CEO is the one who surrounds himself with folks who are smarter than the CEO in their particular area of expertise.

    So – any CEO worth his wages is going to, on many different occasions, go to each department head and say what do you need from me that will help you do your job better?. The department head will give the CEO a list of things he can do. A CEO who is worth his wages will then go away and do whatever the department head told him that he need – at least as far as his budget and other priorities will allow him.

    The CEO expresses his vision to his department heads. The department heads focus their efforts toward carrying out the CEO’s stated vision / mission. The things they give the CEO to do that will help them get their job done better / faster are things that will support the CEO’s vision, not the department heads’ visions. (Any department head that starts pursuing his own vision rather than that of the CEO will soon find himself sidelined at best, out of a job at worst.) That is the classic example of mutual submission – but it is within the context of helping the CEO carry out his vision / mission, and all involved recognize that, even if it remains unspoken.

    And so it is with the husband who wants to enable his wife to be most effective and efficient in helping him carry out his vision / mission. The husband worth his wages will be the one who understands the concept of mutual submission as expressed in the previous paragraph. He also understands the what can I do for you that will help you carry out your responsibilities more effectively and efficiently approach is an acknowledgment of the New Testament admonition to deal with his wife as the weaker vessel. No CEO or husband is going to excel in the pursuit of their vision by overloading their subordinate(s) to the point that they collapse.

  28. White guy says:

    Gent’s
    God gave women the uncanny ability to SEE a lack of congruence in men. (Probably because all woman speak in half truths daily with each other)

    As soon as they saw this ‘hole’/weakness in the mangina Camp, they pounced. The fool, he had the Word of God to back him up and he was too weak to even do that.

    (This comes from first hand knowledge, dealing with a rebellious wife as I unplugged from the matrix and I become more ‘red pilled’ i.e. more congruent with Scripture daily.)

  29. Jim says:

    Like I always say, cunts are gonna cunt. Put them in their place by force of law or they’ll do it to you…and they already have. You have no other choice.

    And they wonder why godless heathens such as myself won’t return to Christianity

    Like Earl said, this isn’t Christianity. It’s just feminism with the word “Christianity” slapped on it. All these worthless Churchists kept was the label.

  30. RichardP says:

    @DrTorch said: What part of “like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour” does he not understand?

    1. Satan can do nothing to any of us without permission from God. The harrassing of Job springs to mind, but there are other places that say as much also.

    2. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. (James 4:7)

    Given Points 1 and 2, the proper interpretation of your quote is to substitute the phrase pretending to be for the word like. That is:

    Satan goes about – pretending to be a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour [but] resist him and he will flee from you. (1 Peter 5:8 and James 4:7)

    If Satan could just do it to whomever and whenever he wants, he would not have needed to get God’s permission to afflict Job. He would have just done it. Think about that. The problem is not that Satan IS a roaring lion that can overpower us. The problem is that Satan can make us think he is such, and so we give in (think Eve). The proper verse to focus on is resist him and he will flee. The truth is, he cannot touch you without God’s permission. And if God has given Satan permission to touch you, for his own reasons, ain’t nothin you can do about it – as was the case with Job.

  31. Brian K says:

    So glad that I escaped pop American evangelicalism and landed in a denomination (the LCMS) the stands on the authority of God’s word, and rightly discerns law and Gospel. The ELCA has ruined the reputation of all Lutherans by ordaining women, gays, transgenders, and sign language using gorillas, by they are Lutherans in name only. Confessional Lutherans in the LCMS, WELS, and a few other branches, stand fast on 1 Timothy 2:12 and acknowledge that Paul was writing by the power of the Holy Spirit, and his words are God’s Word just as much as the red letters.

  32. ys says:

    Camp: I’m not as bad as you think.
    Harpies: He’s an abusive monster! The worst of the worst! Off with his head!

  33. feeriker says:

    Maybe he could respond with the help of the text, that Sheila pretends to respect. It doesn’t hurt to have a guy like St. Paul backing you up in an argument. He was fairly clever.

    Both christofeminists and complimentarians are almost undisguised in their contempt for Paul.

    Camp’s problem is the same as that of 99.9999 percent of all other Protestant pastors: they bow to the World and have NO FAITH WHATSOEVER in the God they profess to believe in to have their back when battling the forces of Satan..

  34. Bee says:

    Family Life weekend marriage seminars (Dennis Rainey’s organization) use a lot of different couples to lead and teach their seminars. One couple they use is Keith & Sheila Gregoire. These seminars cost money, they are not free to attend. Imagine paying money to listen to Keith & Sheila lecture you about marriage!

    https://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2011/11/live-blogging-familylifes-weekend-to-remember-conference/

  35. Gage says:

    “BTW, if a woman submits after you tell her to, it’s not true submission. Submission comes from the heart. It is not prodded by someone else. It is a natural response when someone is treated lovingly. If your wife (in general) is not submitting, look at self first.”

    When i read this from Julie Ann, i immediately thought of raising children and how using this same line of reasoning when raising kids would lead to absolute disaster. Children do not come out of the womb as perfectly obedient beings. In fact, they have a very disturbing and frustrating propensity to sin all the time. If i use Julie’s logic, then i could never overtly teach my kids obedience or to respect their elders (as two examples) because for me to point out that they are being disobedient or disrespectful would mean that any changes in behavior would not be from the heart. These behaviors apparently are only possible if i treat my children lovingly.

    What a load of BS! as a parent we constantly instruct our children on behaviors they dont naturally want to engage in. Over time, behaviors are learned and kids grow and change. The prayer is that there is genuine heart change at some point and these behaviors become permanent.

    Is it truly outlandish to approach a wife the same way with submission? Submission for women does not come naturally due to the events in Genesis. Are we to believe that if her lack of submission is never addressed, that she will change on her own? sure, she might, just as a kid might have a genuine heart change with poor parenting. Is that a chance you really want to take? i certainly dont. Calling out rebellion in a woman’s heart is a must if you want any change to occur. Julie is flat out wrong and completely ignores the sin nature of women which might, just might, cause them to not submit to even the most loving of husbands.

  36. feministhater says:

    Haha! Oh this is too good! You guys really want to get into bed with these witches? Haha! Fucking no! You cannot lead these pieces of shit, not even worth trying. Leave them alone, they’re beyond redemption at this point. They’re so full of themselves and they only reason for them to be so is because they have the all mighty STATE on their side; and fucking news flash pop tarts, all fucking women do, so, please, be my fucking guest and get married to them. Not my funeral anymore.

    RIchardP, if you are right it means God is driving evil. No way to escape that I’m afraid. Let your excuses commence.

  37. Cane Caldo says:

    I tweeted a link to this @pastorsjcamp, but I am not a big Twitter user; in fact I rarely open it at all. It would be good for him to read.

  38. Bart says:

    Once equal to a man, a woman becomes his superior.
    -Socrates

  39. earl says:

    I’d like to point out a few things Richard failed to address….

    Satan goes about – pretending to be a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour [but] resist him and he will flee from you. (1 Peter 5:8 and James 4:7)

    The word ‘pretend’ doesn’t appear in that verse. That’s how serious Peter tells us the devil is.

    Resist the devil and he will flee from you. (James 4:7)

    That’s not the whole verse…

    So submit yourselves to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

    Always be aware that God is the power that makes the devil flee.

  40. Oscar says:

    @ RichardP

    The CEO worth his wages is going to do whatever he can to enable his department heads to more effectively and efficiently help him carry out his vision / mission. He does this by soliciting feedback from his department heads and then acting on that feedback. In essence, doing what his department heads ask him to do. He is carrying out their requests

    What you’re describing isn’t delegation. Subordinates make requests to their superior. The superior has the right to grant or deny those requests. That is not delegation.

    The superior gives orders to his subordinates. Subordinates do not have the right to obey or disobey those orders unless those orders contradict a higher authority.

    They’re not the same thing.

  41. feministhater says:

    You gents just don’t get it. Women have all the power now. The only power men have left is to say ‘no’. That’s it. Stop trying to fix it, you can’t. Stop trying to appeal to women, to authority, to anything, you can’t. All you can do now is let the system fail. Don’t lift a finger for women, don’t help them, don’t care for them, let them feel the consequences of their own willful deception. When they cry out for help, walk away, if they’re in trouble, walk away, they’re not our problem anymore. Let God handle it.

    Or you can clean your rooms as I’m sure that will be helpful. Keep at it, someone has to keep this shit show afloat. Otherwise them bitches might be taught a real lesson, one with a real price, one that the almighty state cannot fix by taxing men.

  42. Robert What? says:

    I don’t get it: they reject the teachings of the Bible on almost everything. Why do they bother to call themselves Christians?

  43. Mr. Generic says:

    > Reference Eph. 5:21
    > Conveniently ignore Eph. 5:22-24

    Apparently “shameless cherry picking” is one of their “giftings”…

  44. Oscar says:

    @ Robert

    Because…

  45. Pingback: Defenseless | Reaction Times

  46. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    You gents just don’t get it. Women have all the power now. The only power men have left is to say ‘no’. That’s it. Stop trying to fix it, you can’t. Stop trying to appeal to women, to authority, to anything, you can’t. All you can do now is let the system fail. Don’t lift a finger for women, don’t help them, don’t care for them, let them feel the consequences of their own willful deception. When they cry out for help, walk away, if they’re in trouble, walk away, they’re not our problem anymore. Let God handle it.

    I think most of this is well stated and easily supported. Yet, there are a number of reasons why we shouldn’t “let God handle it…” Among them are:

    1. Feminists deserve being mocked and scoffed at.
    2. Mocking and scoffing at feminists is fun.
    3. A man has a duty to argue back, when he’s being attacked by feminist nutjobs.
    4. If she were alive today, The Virgin Mary wouldn’t be kooking out on Twitter, thus these so-called religious leaders have no obligation to treat Sheila Gregoire as though she was some contemporary archetype of that avatar.

    Or you can clean your rooms as I’m sure that will be helpful. Keep at it, someone has to keep this shit show afloat. Otherwise them bitches might be taught a real lesson, one with a real price, one that the almighty state cannot fix by taxing men.

    Men should clean their rooms because they’re men. Men should also resist when they’re attacked, and for the same reasons.

    These are just a few reasons why Steve Camp was in the right, and why we’re all justified in arguing with The Goddess Sheila (TM) and her mob of feminist headcases. Reason no. 1, above, is reason enough.

    Best,

    Boxer

  47. CSI says:

    Its odd how absolutely fixated these pseudo-feminists are on the importance of the husband doing household chores as the main means of keeping his wife happy and sexually available. If doing chores were that effective, then surely you’d see PUAs would be advocating it. “Bring her back to your house, do the dishes in front of her, she will be yours!”

  48. BillyS says:

    Steve Camp was definitely harsh on anyone who dared disagree with him (including Calvanistic idiocy). He ultimately got mad that his harsh judgmentalism was not something really wanted in their songs. (I have a few of his earlier albums, but he kept pushing it far too much in my view.)

    Keith Green was very talented as well, but his judgmentalism likely led to his hubris where he could fly in an overloaded plane that then crashed into a mountain. He left behind a widow who couldn’t be faithful to another husband, but who could divorce him and attempt to carry on Keith’s ministry without him. Not very good fruit there.

    If the Steve Camp is the same, it sounds like he is reaping some of what he sowed.

    ====

    Someone asked if preachers begin with Eph 5:21. Yes, quite unfortunately. Many completely neuter the following command by starting with the idea of mutual submission. I have seen this from many different areas of Christianity today. They do never manage to give a single example of how wives can submit, even with the idea of mutual submission, always focusing on how men can therefore submit to their wives.

    Those preachers annoy me probably more than Calvanists, because they destroy so many families creating unbiblical and unrealistic expectations in wives. Children are the great losers in this as well as the husbands, but they continue preaching their error, even if it is pointed out.

    One group that is quite ironic in this is those from the Calvary Chapel movement who regularly boast about how they are so much better than others because they teach “verse by verse” even though that very teaching leads them to an extreme error like this.

    No wonder Christians are losing the culture wars, though don’t even defend the most basic cultural foundation!

  49. BillyS says:

    While I agree with parts RichardP, the CEO is still clearly in charge and the company will conform to his will, not the other way around. He takes care of those below him, if he is smart, but he does not have them lead him.

  50. earl says:

    @CSI…

    Could it be perhaps that most feminists are lazy and doing things like the dishes takes away from their precious time about complaining how men are lazy and how they are still being oppressed by the patriarchy.

    It’s not like doing dishes or most household chores are labor intensive activities…they even invented something called a dishwasher.

  51. Boxer says:

    Could it be perhaps that most feminists are lazy and doing things like the dishes takes away from their precious time about complaining how men are lazy and how they are still being oppressed by the patriarchy.

    I think that’s right.

    A long time ago, Dalrock wrote a compelling article entitled something like “The Ugliness of Feminism.” Feminists are motivated to refusing to show love for others (including their own spouses and children) by a spirit of selfishness and miserliness.

    I think there’s something to this. Note Sheila’s complaint, even in the url she registered, that she occasionally has to vacuum. Vacuuming the floor is what every adult does, because adults like to keep their surroundings neat. For a feminist, such normal behavior is horribly demeaning. Feminists consider normal expressions of decency and love — for others and themselves — as demeaning, and when others expect normal behavior of them, it is abuse.

  52. earl says:

    I mean if they can’t even summon up the motivation to do something as simple as dish washing or taking out the garbage when its full…what makes you think they’ll put any effort when something really labor intensive like having sex.

  53. Paul says:

    Both the Sheila and Julie Ann article, as well as the article on Sheila’s blog are worth a close read. It is very revealing how opponents are painted evil, slandered, shamed, and silenced. It’s chillingly similar to common leftist tactics.

  54. Paul says:

    “You gents just don’t get it. Women have all the power now.”

    Only inasmuch men grant them that power. Many do.

  55. Paul says:

    It’s sad to see a respected institution as the SBC under full attack of feminism. It will probably go down.

  56. Novaseeker says:

    The egalitarians, and their complementarian twins, are really blind to some basic realities.

    The most fundamental one is this: women generally care more, a LOT more, about the details of daily domestic life than men do. So, when you have an “equal” partnership, where the person who “is engaged or who cares the most” makes the relevant decision in question, in fact what happens is that the woman makes almost all of the decisions, because she cares more about almost all of them. And for the ones where the husband cares more, she will generally insist on “equal decisionmaking” just so she can have a pole in the fire, because she cares a lot about that too (as you can see from Sheila Gregoire — she is fanatically obsessed with the idea of not being trodden upon), even if she doesn’t actually care about the particular decision in question which her husband cares more about than she does.

    Net/net in this scenario: the wife is the de facto leader in almost all decisions, and the equal partner in a few others, and the husband is the de facto leader in nothing, other than being a good workhorse and bringing home the cash for her to direct the spending. Because of these fundamental dynamics, egalitarianism is almost always woman leadership de facto, regardless of what it is “in theory”. It’s female headship in practice, cross-dressing as egalitarianism or, even more egregiously, complementarianism.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    Once again we see that complimentarianism is just conservative feminism; opposed to abortion and lesbian weddings, but otherwise completely on board with all of 1st & 2nd stage feminism, in full service to the Female Imperative. As the boomers such as Piper age out and their place is taken by Gen X’rs I expect the opposition to lesbianism to fade – see the ReVoice conference for example.

    Nova
    Sheila Gregoire — she is fanatically obsessed with the idea of not being trodden upon)

    Likely at least in part a result of her upbringing by an unmarried woman, aka “single mother” and no man ever taught her any alternative. The title of her blog is a major tell in this regard.

  58. Anonymous Reader says:

    Someone
    “You gents just don’t get it. Women have all the power now.”

    Paul
    Only inasmuch men grant them that power. Many do.

    Years ago “Welmer”, the author of the Spearhead blog described the day that a SWAT team came rolling up his driveway. His ex had told some big whopping lies to the cops about him and their children, and fortunately he was able to see SWAT coming, so he didn’t get shot dead in front of those children. “Welmer” didn’t grant the power of life and death to his ex, but somehow she managed to come very close to having it.

    Don’t be cocky.

  59. freebird says:

    The comments already posted pretty much cover it,I will try to come at this thing from a side angle with a blunt object to say what the others haven’t said but are aware of.
    Everything in The Bible is written to be discerned on at least three levels.
    One of the overall points Christ made was God should have authority over the spirit,as the State definitely has power over the corporeal body.
    The second point was the husband should be the spiritual leader of the family,headship and all.
    With responsibility comes authority.
    Now these rebellious gals are in constant contention for all the power,and use the threatpoint of The State as a blunt object to bludgeon the spouse into submission.
    Christ died on the cross to show The State can take our bodies (lives) but they cannot touch a soul rooted in proper Godly doctrine.
    It would seem the men are willing to sell their souls (to The Devil) to have their physical,emotional,and financial affairs left untouched by The Satanic Terrorists.
    On the women’s side,this constant drip-dripping of contention is the spirit of Jezebel,Or Satanic anti-christian Neo-dogma.
    Men just need to fully withdraw support from this soul destroying system.
    Tell the witches to GTFO or the Burnings at The Stake will begin again so as to show the Others this destroying doctrine will not be tolerated * and these things shall stop happening amongst you.

    Let the women set up the Covens in the existing churchian buildings,retreat faraway and make a New Following of God-following men and nothing could stop them.
    Lastly God does not direct Satanic activity.To say this is HERESY.
    Satan has The Power by pretending to be God and establishing himself above God,
    SAME AS THESE WOMEN ARE DOING WITH THE FAMILY HIERARCHY.
    That is why Satan was cast down (to earth,walking to and fro) and we all must pay the price,
    To be constantly tempted by evil as it is The Power of this world.
    Not to accept it to save our physical bodies, to reject it all costs, even torture to death,to save our souls by living as God directs.
    This is The Witness of The Christ.
    Those that lay down with dogs get fleas.
    It is time to RESIST the evil of this neo-marxist feminazi takeover of the churchian buildings and restore them to Patriarchal house of worship of God, and respect for God’s Head of the Household,man.

    You cannot pacify terrorists,non negotiation is the only path.

  60. Swanny River says:

    Boxer,
    @ 5;46 pm. That is remarkably insightful for someone who dates instead of doing the daily grind, with such women. How could you know my wife so well without meeting her? Just recently she said she despised my Saturday morning naps. They are like 20 minutes and she still won’t watch our son doing such a short time. Miserly is right.

  61. earl says:

    @Swanny…

    I think a worthwhile education every man should have before marriage is to know the wife’s fallen nature will seduce her to want to control the husband. Right there in Genesis 3.

    So it’s probably not about the naps…it’s about control.

    Beside I’m not married and I’ve seen how controlling wives try to be to their husbands.

  62. Swanny River says:

    I get the control aspect Earl, as soon as she said it, but it still stins me that someone could be so petty and miserly. My naps often come about 4 hours after I wake up, but only an hour after she does. What kind of wife despises a 20 minite nap?
    Apparently, as Boxer and Dalrock have written, the answer is a feminist one.

  63. freebird says:

    considering sleep deprivation is a torture technique,perhaps you should be asking yourself what kind of person enjoys torturing another?

    Not to be harsh Brother, whatever floats your boat.
    But…..if you can’t sleep when you need it,you’re not really the boss of you anymore are you?

  64. Sharkly says:

    On her blog Sheila responds to a post 😉

    Sheila Wray Gregoire on July 1, 2018 at 8:31 am
    Shame on you! Just shame on you.
    YOU are more concerned with doctrine and theology than you are with love. YOU would rather strain out a gnat but swallow a camel–looking for your exact interpretation of the Scripture rather than caring about what your actions and words show Jesus to be to a watching world. You are missing the entire point of Jesus’ life and ministry!
    Shame on you!

    Apparently, If your religion doesn’t suit the world, you must be wrong. Sheila now asks us to peddle a deceivingly sweet Gospel that omits any conviction, and makes every seeker feel good about their Feminist life choices. I could sort of see her point, if it didn’t gut Christianity, in the process. If it is up to humans to “save” people, then perhaps I’m a toxic testosterone fueled damning machine, dooming all I interact with to hell.(poor damned ones never had a chance /s) But if Gods word “shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please.” Then we’d better be preaching God’s word, and not some Feminist friendly claptrap that is powerless to save anybody, and demonstrably promotes the breakdown of families. Also, I’m curious how this fight with her fellow believer in front of the court of public opinion, is supposed to endear seekers to Christianity? Apparently my anonymously fighting with her is off-putting to seekers, but her publically fighting with Steve Camp is a “must”. Hypocrisy achieved!

    And yes, husbands ARE to submit. …
    As for submitting to Steve Camp, we were not the ones who began insulting. Steve was. And I must call this out in a public forum so that people like YOU can see it. This will no longer be tolerated. For far too long women have been told that we are not important, that we should take a back seat, that we should shut up. Well, that was not Jesus’ message. And the church is awakening so that we can actually speak up and be Jesus to a world that desperately needs Him, rather than a church that just creates patriarchy within its walls and doesn’t care two hoots about what’s going on outside. That’s not a real church anyway.

    LOL Apparently Sheila Wray Gregoire’s Christianity is not deep enough to allow her to submit to somebody who has insulted her. That’s pretty shallow!
    1 Peter 3:9 Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.
    That whole last half of 1 Peter 2 through 1 Peter 3 would be good for Sheila to absorb. We are all called to suffer unjustly, and Christ was the ultimate example of it.

    BTW I like her husband’s new full beard.

  65. jay says:

    rocko says:
    July 2, 2018 at 1:34 pm
    ”And they wonder why godless heathens such as myself won’t return to Christianity”

    God did not cease to exist nor did Jesus not rise from the dead simply because of this evil.

    “Wheels of justice grind slow but grind fine”

    ― Sun Tzu

  66. Boxer says:

    Dear Sharkly:

    You’re doing a good job making salient points. I wish I could join you. I got asked to leave the “Love Honor and Vacuum” blog in like 2013; and my policy is to always respect such wishes (at least when they come from private fora — twitter is a different story).

    Shame on you! Just shame on you. YOU are more concerned with doctrine and theology than you are with love. YOU would rather strain out a gnat but swallow a camel–looking for your exact interpretation of the Scripture rather than caring about what your actions and words show Jesus to be to a watching world. You are missing the entire point of Jesus’ life and ministry! Shame on you!

    Sheila has used this same strategy when confronted with outbursts she’s made on her blog for many years, right down to the selective capitalization. She’s now backed into a corner, so she paints you as a sadistic, satanic false teacher who is persecuting her. If/when people start questioning this tactic, she’ll do a 180, and claim that she was “just kidding” or people were taking her insane ramblings out of context. Then she’ll block you and tell you to get lost.

    Wait for it…

    Boxer

  67. earl says:

    You are missing the entire point of Jesus’ life and ministry!
    Shame on you!

    I wonder if she knows the entire point of Jesus’s life and ministry.

    I’d give her a hint…there’s some patriarchy involved.

  68. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Apparently, as Boxer and Dalrock have written, the answer is a feminist one.

    I wish I could take even a tiny bit of credit for that, but I can’t. I remember finding this essay, all those years ago, and being floored by the simple truth at its core.

    The ugliness of the feminist mind-frame towards cooking, cleaning, and caring for others is so profound that it is difficult to process. These women are so obsessed with not showing Christian love that they make it a priority not to serve their own families. Cooking, cleaning, and caring for their own husbands and children is a concept which is repulsive to them. Acts of service to others are in their twisted minds traps to be avoided, and many go so far as to order their entire lives around avoiding showing love to others, especially their families. These women are so gripped by miserliness they have made it a priority not to show love to their own children. When they find themselves unable to avoid an act of service and love to their families altogether, they first steel their hearts with resentment, turning their hearts to stone to avoid the feelings of selfless love they live in constant terror of developing.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/feminists-are-ugly/

    Instant internet classic.

    Boxer

  69. info says:

    @Jim
    Not Christianity but Soytianity.

  70. JudyBlumeSussman says:

    What amazes me is that anyone at all is interested in reenacting 1970s feminism with their erstwhile guides, the Gregoires.
    Judy Blume is 80 years old, today in 2018!!
    It’s as if you were getting really enthusiastic, in 2018, about wide ties and synthetic 3-piece suits in ochre.
    Where do the Gregoires find an audience that is THIS slow on the uptake? 45 years slow!
    Next week on Sheila and Keith’s Discotheque, Sheila convinces Keith to hyphenate their last name! (Cue funky title track, shot of his-and-her white Afro haircuts).

  71. seventiesjason says:

    Just speechless. this is happening all over the place at churches big and small…..here in “liberal” California and “the south” and Texas where evidently all the “real Christians” live in the USA.

    The AG church I attended on and off in Fresno for their men’s fellowship has now put three women on their “board” baceuse (sigh) “the men are refusing to step up and lead”

    Many of these men mind you are working two part time jobs in California to make ends meet……hard to step up when you’re a former gangster, half your life behind you, you did the time, found Christ…are detrermined to “be there” for your wife and kids…doing all you can to make ends meet….and still “you are refusing to step up and lead”

    If most pastors in the vein of Chandler and others across the spectrum actually had to work for a living, maybe there would be a tad more pushback from the pulpit.

    The local Salvation Army Corps in Santa Rosa wants to “reach out” to the community..and bring people to Jesus. No….no straight up primative Salvationism…no, no……they need to raise money and build a brand new church with a gym, and a hip new teen area, and every other community nuance to meet every need except saving the lost and bring repentance at the Mercy Seat.

    Protestantism is dead. The folks who are homeschooling and having a small convicted groups at home in study, prayer, and practice are the ones who are the remnant. They are the ones who will inject blood and fire back into this once world changing / impacting branch of Christianity

  72. seventiesjason says:

    @Judyblume

    LOL! Applause!!!! Exactly. “and later…Schneider wears a toolbelt while getting in touch with his sensitive side”

    but first a new episode of “Match Game 76”

  73. Sharkly says:

    Here is another quote from Sheila on the same blog post:

    Women are to submit to God; Sapphira submitted to Ananias and it got her killed.

    LOL! Don’t submit to your husbands ladies, it might be deadly! /S I replied to that rebellious nonsense with a scripture(Acts 5) based reply, but as Boxer hinted, she just deletes most posts that she doesn’t like. Sapphira was killed for lying to God. She did not submit to Ananias. Like with Sheila and Keith,(“We make decisions together“) The deception was something she and her husband agreed to. Either that or God not only killed her, but then lied about it in Acts to cover up His misogynist murder of an innocent woman. I’m going to trust God on this one, instead of Sheila.

    For what it is worth, Sheila’s post has cherry-picked quotes from an internet debate between her and Steve Camp, and she asks women and “White Knights” to join in on her side, based upon that portrayal. I can neither stand behind Steve or against him, not knowing the full story, and remain wise. However, I respect the man, and I stand behind his right to tell Sheila that she is emotional, easily deceived, uneducated, and request to speak with her husband instead. Her quote above illustrates that she is willfully ignorant of scriptures truth, likely due to an emotional rejection of it, causing her to be self-deceived, and in deep need of a knowledgeable husband’s spiritual correction. Keith should have called Steve up over his invitation and spoken with him privately about this. To so publically condemn you fellow Christian brother, without ever bothering to speak with him when he requested it, if that is what happened, seems a bit vindictive, willfully ignorant, and cowardly. I really hope I’m wrong about what happened. Either way it seems like this squabble is at best some churchians airing their dirty laundry before the world, or worse it is a Feminist assault on male leadership, because of a perceived disrespect for them and their heresy.

  74. feeriker says:

    Note Sheila’s complaint, even in the url she registered, that she occasionally has to vacuum

    It probably took dainty snowflake Sheila at least a month to figure out which end of the vacuum cleaner sucks up the dust and another month to figure out where the “O-N” switch on it was.

    How barbaric and traumatizing of her kitchen bitch husband to force her into a degrading traditional role!

  75. feeriker says:

    Women are to submit to God; Sapphira submitted to Ananias and it got her killed.

    This bitch has to be a comedy act, a satire along the lines of Dana Carvey’s Church Lady. I simply cannot imagine any adults within normal IQ range, no matter how weak their faith, mistaking this as serious Christianity.

  76. Paul says:

    @AR

    “Only inasmuch men grant them that power. Many do.”

    ” “Welmer” didn’t grant the power of life and death to his ex, but somehow she managed to come very close to having it. Don’t be cocky.”

    You only confirm my remark: because many men granted women such power by vote, it has become law, and that power is enforced.

  77. rhodigian says:

    Anyone who does ignore every Bible verse (s)he is offended by, is easily deceived.

    Is there anything difficult to understand?
    There is a team, which is the marriage, there is a captain, which is the husband.

  78. 447 says:

    Its odd how absolutely fixated these pseudo-feminists are on the importance of the husband doing household chores as the main means of keeping his wife happy and sexually available. If doing chores were that effective, then surely you’d see PUAs would be advocating it. “Bring her back to your house, do the dishes in front of her, she will be yours!”
    ———————————————————————————–
    Can confirm.
    The saying in PUA circles is “Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.”

    Effective means to make females behave, even freely give away the most intimate actions and emotions on a consistent basis(no matter whether at work, on the street or in bed):

    – ignoring them, doing a real-life action of any kind instead of caring for them (only computer games/porn is out, sorry guys)
    – big gap…
    – indirectly threatening to abandon them (indirectly is the important word here, aka “turn around, go away, do other stuff”)
    – having a slight dislike for them and their company (I said slight, not Supreme Gentlemen style!)
    – being verbally relaxed and funny about things, especially them and what they say
    – treating them by unspoken, fair and strict standarts

    What does not work:
    -logic, law
    -rational verbal actions
    -what would be best for everybody
    – what pays off in the long run
    -appeals to reason or authority (except when you are so personally powerful in their eyes you wouldn’t need to anyway)

  79. CSI says:

    @447, this is what in Redpill terminology is called “Holding Frame”.

    Funnily enough, when I read though Sheila’s latest article “Why Men Go Missing in Bed: Sometimes It’s the Relationship” she seem to advocate for Holding Frame too. She gives an example:

    “He decided to take a deep breath whenever he felt criticized by her, rather than just reacting or withdrawing. Once he stopped giving her so much power over his self-regard, she began to respect him a lot more. At that point, they were on their way to a better marriage.”

    A polite way of saying “he learnt to pass her shit tests”. I wonder if Sheila would be offended if you pointed out to her she seems to be advocating a lite version of Red Pill theory.

  80. pariah says:

    “Get down on your knees and beg!” demanded Sheila. Pastor Camp promptly absconded his position and dropped to the ground. “I’m not abusive, I swear,” he whimpered, “I’ve never told women to submit to their husbands.” “Then roll over like the dog you are,” Sheila began to grin, “go on now.” Pastor Camp twitched his head to the side; like instinct, he effortlessly rolled his body over onto his back, lifting his arms and legs into the air. Sheila laughed. “Good boy! Now take it like a man!” She planted her high-heeled shoe straight into his stomach. “Now you know better than to question my authority.”

  81. feministhater says:

    You only confirm my remark: because many men granted women such power by vote, it has become law, and that power is enforced.

    It’s called the state. The same state you want to give more socialist power to. The state you are told to submit yourself to so do so. The state says that women are not to submit to men. So render that to Caesar and shut the fuck up.

  82. Bee says:

    feeriker,

    “I simply cannot imagine any adults within normal IQ range, no matter how weak their faith, mistaking this as serious Christianity.”

    I am sorry to say but, Family Life chooses her and Keith teach and lead their weekend marriage seminars!

    Sad to report; Focus on the Family has featured her several times. Women are buying her books.

  83. Sharkly says:

    Dalrock,
    Thank you for addressing this topic. At Sheila’s site, most good points contrary to her points don’t get posted. A man(Steve Camp) is being attacked in an unfair manner, by Feminazi folks who claim he should not ever offend them. It also seems they are too easily offended by men being men. Pastors everywhere joke, mocking men from the pulpit, but they’re now, apparently, not allowed to stereotype women. Sheila says; “This will no longer be tolerated.” I believe a woman intent on following the Bible, could certainly endure some stereotyping, and some rudeness. But Sheila has declared that she and her ilk will not tolerate others who insult her. Should these petulant spiritual babies even be allowed on the internet, if they are so easily offended?

    1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
    19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
    20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
    21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
    22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
    23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
    24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
    25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
    3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
    2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
    3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
    4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
    5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
    6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

    Bonus points to any person who can find any part of the above passage that contradicts Sheila’s current vindictive public hissy fit(heresy fit) and/or her Feminazi beliefs.

    This below is from the absolute crap post that started Steve Camp arguing with Sheila.

    Male Tampering
    How did scripture go from that beautiful biblical picture of mutual submission to a one-way submission? …
    What if in the original language the word “submit” was never there but was added in by patriarchal translators? …
    Male leaders from Charles Haddon Spurgeon to John Wesley to Martin Luther to Augustine had awful opinions on women and what their roles in society should be. … Their attitudes demonstrate the patriarchal influence on their doctrine. Most Christians would not feel comfortable quoting a Clan member or White supremacist but feel totally comfortable quoting men who displayed blatant sexism.

    These Feminazi’s first call every English Bible’s translation into question, like Satan, they try to cast doubt on the reliability of the Bible as you and I have it. They imply that parts of the Bible that disagree with their Feminazi heresy, were likely made up by patriarchal translators, wholly devoted committees of them, from different generations, in every different English translation of the Bible. Then they say that the great reformers and great preachers of old, are like the KKK, and should not be quoted, because they(like Steve Camp) had awful opinions on women.

    I really can’t blame Steve Camp if he lost his cool with those Bible bashing banshees.
    In an epitome of hypocrisy Sheila Wray Gregoire throws doubt on the Bible, while protecting her idolatrous “Buddy Christ”.
    Sheila says: Paul, I have made it very clear that I do not allow comments that show Christ in a bad light. I have so many seekers on this blog that I do let one or two comments from a person through but then stop, because I do not want to give the impression that Christians are misogynists, which all too many commenters sound like.

    Got that? She publicly proclaims the Holy Bible is a book full of misogynist lies, but her Buddy Christ, whom she now sees as a Feminist, cannot be rendered in any other light, without likely depleting the kingdom of heaven of souls. LOL Sheila’s cognitive dissonance is epic!

    James 3:8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;
    3:18 And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

    Matthew 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. 25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

    For my closing statement, I’d like to combine a quote from Sheila and a few words of my own:
    If they will know us by our love, Sheila, you should delete and apologize for your personal harassment of Steve Camp!

  84. Magneto2975 says:

    I like this advice from Colonel Jessup:

  85. greyghost says:

    Pastor Camp is getting what he has coming to him. He literally sold his soul to the devil and put his faith in pussy and not God. He deserves all that rebellious skank giving him. (publicly too) His only defense of the undefendable would be to post up complementarianism is not Christianity, started working on a CDL and quit the church business. On the way out the door reminded Kieth that he was a cucked out soyboy.

  86. Scott says:

    Niova:

    The egalitarians, and their complementarian twins, are really blind to some basic realities.

    The most fundamental one is this: women generally care more, a LOT more, about the details of daily domestic life than men do. So, when you have an “equal” partnership, where the person who “is engaged or who cares the most” makes the relevant decision in question, in fact what happens is that the woman makes almost all of the decisions, because she cares more about almost all of them. And for the ones where the husband cares more, she will generally insist on “equal decisionmaking” just so she can have a pole in the fire, because she cares a lot about that too (as you can see from Sheila Gregoire — she is fanatically obsessed with the idea of not being trodden upon), even if she doesn’t actually care about the particular decision in question which her husband cares more about than she does.

    Net/net in this scenario: the wife is the de facto leader in almost all decisions, and the equal partner in a few others, and the husband is the de facto leader in nothing, other than being a good workhorse and bringing home the cash for her to direct the spending. Because of these fundamental dynamics, egalitarianism is almost always woman leadership de facto, regardless of what it is “in theory”. It’s female headship in practice, cross-dressing as egalitarianism or, even more egregiously, complementarianism.

    What I am most fond of in your writing is this ability to distill the obvious (or what SHOULD be the obvious) in a working model that makes me think “man, why didn’t I think of that?”

    This is great stuff and can be easily tested. For even in my own marriage, which is a work in progress toward something like Christian hierarchy, it does a pretty good job of describing the underlying dynamic. I pretty regularly consult with Mychael about big, financial moves. Or even stuff like “I think I will move the tractor from the workshop to the garage.” And 99% of the time, she glazes over with disinterest and I realize I didn’t need to have that conversation at all. She just wants me to make those decisions behind the scenes, and not consider her. She trusts that I have the ball on that stuff. In fact, she has even said so several times. Kind of like “you know, that stuff is totally up to you. You’re the husband,” But my blue-pill conditioning makes it instinctive for me to run everything by her.

    Now, consider what would happen if I came home one day and said “I think we should put that chair over there, and I brought home a painting of a wheelbarrow with flowers growing in it that I want to put right here. Also, I bought a new counter spray that I think smells better than the one you use.” She would think I had been replaced by some other man who looks exactly like me.

    I could push the issue. I could make it a directive, but Mychael would be put off by it.

    And here’s the thing. She has put a lot of thought into the aesthetic of our house. There are masculine items in prominent places (my officers sabre, a 1851 army revolver, a Henry repeater and my cav stetson are displayed in a most imposing way above the fireplace.) These things she does, “because a man lives here.” Telling her that I want to change something about the decor would hurt her feelings after all the work she has put into making it a place of comfort for me. I totally get that.

    So it’s kind of none of my business to be involved in decorating. But there are two things going on:

    1. I don’t “care” that much about it.
    2. She goes out of her way to make sure my presence is felt in the home even when I am not physically there.

    But the remnant of what you write about is just under the surface. We have to overtly and deliberately combat it in order for things to feel differently in our home.

  87. 447 says:

    @CSI:

    This is why women (as soon as they get it) love PUA and hate red pill.
    The Sheilas of this world want a good, submissive dog-saviour-ATM who magically transforms into a raging, testosterone-fueled Psychopath (or vampire, serial killer, werewolf Etc.) in the bedroom, BUT ONLY THERE.

    The important criteria to watch out for is the sole focus on the bedroom/sexual act, simultaneously excluding all other areas of life – if you analyse it this way, feminists argue for PUA all the time.

    It is the equivalent of mens’ groups stating that women should always remain thin, be submissive and sexually available at 16 to every man always just for asking, because [[[reasons!!!]]]…the difference is that nobody would be so foolish to believe this for a second and everybody would immediatly go “Ahhhh yes, lol, your dick would like that, wouldn’t he?” and nobody would take that seriously.

    That’s why the hate for laws (or the bible) and red pill (truly masculine men) can coexist without any mental effort together with feminism and demand for PUA-escapades solely in the bedroom/seduction settings.

    It also explains why many full-blowns sluts auto-reject if you progress from PUA to red pill:
    The guy who neither foolishly “falls in love with her” nor “is afraid of her” is just too overwhelming to them: They are used to miserly control and weak men – even “proud”, certified sluts (who call themselves openly so and admit proudly to being “difficult bitches”) transform into fearful, useless baby-girls if you approach them with that mindset and casually-matter-of-factly 🙄 suggest to “have a nice time, no strings, you don’t have to be afraid I will propose the next morning”.

    Executive summary: Sheila has been banged out by more 447s or 389s or whatever than the number of grovelling, cuckistan articles written by her “husband”. Easy fish to catch, you would just have to be very light on the “yeah whatever fuck you”-attitude.

  88. 447 says:

    We have to overtly and deliberately combat it in order for things to feel differently in our home.
    ——————————
    Soothing confirmation:
    Doing that and stating that openly, yet casually and without coming across as hateful, will increase, not decrease, the number of women interested in committed, even proper relations to such men.

    Young single Christian men, take note and heed the call.
    (And stop doing what your church-guys-n-gals tell you to, please … because it is cringey and painful to watch and leads nowhere except betaville)

  89. Lost Patrol says:

    My reaction to ‘Sheila’s husband’ types is always instant and complete revulsion. Not a very loving attitude, I know. Can’t seem to shake it. But I like to watch a good nature documentary once in awhile, and I see that hyenas live just like this, so I guess there is precedent within the created order of things.

    Lions don’t live at all like that though. So take your pick.

    Francis Quarles, English poet writing in the early 1600s:

    “Ill thrives the hapless family that shows
    A cock that’s silent, and a hen that crows:
    I know not which live most unnatural lives,
    Obeying husbands or commanding wives.”

  90. earl says:

    ‘Women are to submit to God; Sapphira submitted to Ananias and it got her killed.’

    As Sharkly pointed out…she was being rebellious to God through the lie which got her killed. Lying is the sinful activity, not submitting to your husband.

    I’d ask Shelia though what she thinks about what Peter said about Sarah.

  91. PokeSalad says:

    2. She goes out of her way to make sure my presence is felt in the home even when I am not physically there.

    This is a great point. How many wives actually ensure that their husbands’ presence is seen/felt ALL through the house, and not just in the “man cave?”

    “Man Cave” = servants’ quarters.

  92. Jeffrey Banner says:

    This is why there are books like Reverend Chumley Froth Tetley’s CHURCHIAN CHICKS AND PULPIT PARROTS. Because Mademoiselle Gregoire’s sh#t tests are not going to stop until Christian pastors grow their testicles back and go back to boldly defending the WHOLE counsel of God, even the parts that Jezebel and Ahabic spirits find objectionable like I Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:14.
    Because if your pastor won’t stand up to them, and your congregation of manginas won’t stand up to them, then the next best thing is, you might as well laugh about it.

  93. Scott says:

    Poke Salad

    Interesting you bring that up.

    She says the whole house is my cave. There’s no place I have to retreat to for that.

  94. BillyS says:

    Paul,

    Only inasmuch men grant them that power. Many do.

    I didn’t grant my ex any power, she took it with the backing power of the State. It is forced on many of us.

  95. Damn Crackers says:

    @greyghost – “He literally sold his soul to the devil and put his faith in pussy and not God.”

    I like that. We should make bumper stickers that say, “Worship the Lord, not pussy!”

    Seriously, does Eph. 5:21 excuse all these feminist/complementarian men and women? Don’t they look at the rest of the chapter?

  96. Hose_B says:

    So I had to go and peruse the love honor and vacuum blog…………. one post started about a woman asking about crime shows her non Christian husband watches that have nudity or sexuality scenes in them. She explains how if nudity or sexuality appears in the show, she loses desire for him and then rejects him that night. During the rambling comments, Sheila somehow starts plugging tv shows she approves of.
    Suggest something like, “you do your thing until 9:30, and I’ll do my thing, and then we’ll watch an episode of a comedy together.” Watch something short but funny, like Brooklyn 99 or The Office or Kim’s Convenience (I don’t know if you Americans get that on Netflix, but it is seriously amazingly funny. It’s Canadian, but Best. Show. Ever.)

    Later on in the thread someone compliments Kim’s convenience and Sheila responds….(emphasis mine).
    Sheila Wray Gregoire on June 18, 2018 at 10:43 am
    Oh, my gosh, you will totally get addicted. It’s amazing. I want to be the biggest evangelist for Kim’s Convenience. 🙂 By the way, this is set around the corner from where I used to walk to get groceries when my kids were babies. 🙂

    Really odd statement………….but then I had to go see the show. Maybe it’s amazing……..typical sitcom centered around Mr. Kim and his family who are Korean Christians that run a convenience store. There is a female “pastor” spotlighted and a huge plug for “eat pray love” and Melissa Gilbert.
    But you know……maybe we should all be the biggest evangelist for shows like this. I mean the main characters call themselves CHRISTIAN!!

  97. Hose_B says:

    @damncrackers
    Don’t they look at the rest of the chapter?

    No. And they don’t want you to either. They cherry pick the scriptures to illustrate the point they want to make. Like statistics. Your (and more importantly your wife’s) job is to LISTEN and internalize the message. Do not read on your own. Do not test the spirit. Have faith in your pastor. He/she is telling you the REAL truth in the Bible.

    Don’t you know anything?? /sarc

  98. earl says:

    I wonder if the wife was already withholding sex from the husband and uses the tv show as an excuse for her rebellion.

    This is why men should worship the Lord and not pussy. The Lord is certainly not as controlling to men as the typical western female. The Lord puts boundaries in place for our benefit.

  99. earl says:

    It appears whenever you test Shelia’s spirit you get a pretty good look at what it is.

  100. earl says:

    “I know not which live most unnatural lives,
    Obeying husbands or commanding wives.”

    All I know is you can’t have one without the other.

    And that’s also why beta males are part of the feminine fantasy…she needs her men that she can control just as much as the one’s she cant control.

  101. OKRickety says:

    Seriously, does Eph. 5:21 excuse all these feminist/complementarian men and women? Don’t they look at the rest of the chapter?

    The last time I checked, the Bible has no verse saying “Husbands, submit to your wives.” However, churchians read the Bible with blinders on, courtesy of the majority view of the Western world today, ignoring the multiple instances of Scripture telling wives to submit to their husbands. Instead, they focus on the mutual submission of Eph. 5:21, treating it as a biblical Equal Rights Amendment that supersedes all other Scripture.

    They also seem to ignore the comparison of a marriage relationship to that of Christ and the Church. At least I have no idea how they could argue that a husband should submit to his wife, when the idea that Christ should submit to the Church is patently ridiculous.

  102. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    BTW, if a woman submits after you tell her to, it’s not true submission. Submission comes from the heart. It is not prodded by someone else.

    It’s not like Christ ever teaches the church to submit or obey! Oh wait He does! Maybe the the gal is just deceived.

  103. Hose_B says:

    @DamnCrackers
    Re “I’m sorry” campaign.

    The problem with this is that many “Christians” do use the Bible to cover hate. Those who commit acts of violence on clinics or parades or gays or who ever………so in one respect I get their point.

    HOWEVER, they suggest that Jesus would APPROVE of the LGBTQ community, when what he would actually say is “Go and sin no more”
    The serpent is crafty. Split “Christians” into two groups, one that cherry picks scripture and hates and one that cherry picks scripture and accepts anything. Neither is he is Christlike.

  104. feeriker says:

    Seriously, does Eph. 5:21 excuse all these feminist/complementarian men and women? Don’t they look at the rest of the chapter?

    I’m hoping to live to see the day when a preacher delivers a sermon in which he presents the verses preceding and following the verse(s) on which he is focusing his message, specifically for the purpose of providing proper context. I’m sure I stand a greater chance of striking oil in my backyard, because:

    1. churchian attention spans are such that eyes would glaze over during an extended Scripture reading, and

    2. putting Scripture into proper context, especially where it concerns relationships between men and women/husbands and wives is very “bad for business.”

    I

  105. Anonymous Reader says:

    447

    The Sheilas of this world want a good, submissive dog-saviour-ATM who magically transforms into a raging, testosterone-fueled Psychopath (or vampire, serial killer, werewolf Etc.) in the bedroom, BUT ONLY THERE.

    This can be summed up in two words: “Fried Ice”. It is a feature of the female human, who very much want to have cake and eat it, too.

    Ms. Gregoire et al’s argumentation can be reduced to a pretty simple position: “The BIble doesn’t say that!” which is in the Christian context semantically equivalent to “God didn’t say that!” which isn’t all that far from this question:

    “Did God really say that?”

    If I recall correctly, that’s a rather famous question.

  106. Oscar says:

    @ feeriker

    “I’m hoping to live to see the day when a preacher delivers a sermon in which he presents the verses preceding and following the verse(s) on which he is focusing his message, specifically for the purpose of providing proper context.”

    Request granted.

    http://www.calvary-tricities.org/media/audio/old-testament

    http://www.calvary-tricities.org/media/audio/new-testament-1

  107. earl says:

    “Did God really say that?”

    And a famous entity said it. Perhaps Shelia is familiar with this entity…I seem to recall some titles applied to this entity are ‘A murderer from the beginning’ and ‘the father of lies’.

  108. sipcode says:

    His shepherds:

    “Wherefore, hear the Word of the Lord, ye scornful men THAT RULE HIS PEOPLE which is in Jerusalem …ye have said ‘We have MADE A COVENANT WITH DEATH, and WITH HELL ARE WE IN AGREEMENT …for we have MADE LIES OUR REFUGE, and UNDER FALSEHOODS HAVE WE HID OURSELVES’ ” Isaiah 28:14-15.

    These are the leaders of the church —pastors, authors, seminaries, counselors– that you have been following for decades …with your itchy ears. I’m guilty of listening, too.

    Each man must return to the word FOR HIMSELF and as for he and his house he will then serve the Lord..

  109. sipcode says:

    While God is at odds with His shepherds, the healing of the church begins with:

    “Women, shut the fuck up.”

    This cannot be said enough times or with too much emphasis.

  110. Anon says:

    For those who need a visual reference of Sheila Gregoire :

    Keep this in mind as well :

  111. feeriker says:

    “The Sheilas of this world want a good, submissive dog-saviour-ATM who magically transforms into a raging, testosterone-fueled Psychopath (or vampire, serial killer, werewolf Etc.) in the bedroom, BUT ONLY THERE and ONLY on command, when SHE wants it and only for as long as she wants it..”

    Fixed, for extra clarification.

  112. feeriker says:

    Oscar says:
    July 3, 2018 at 12:02 pm

    Thanks, Oscar. Now if only that could be replicated in several tens of thousands of churches around the world.

  113. feeriker says:

    “Women, shut the fuck up.”

    This cannot be said enough times or with too much emphasis.

    Very true. Of course the day is soon coming when uttering such a command will be considered assault and will earn a man a pair of steel bracelets and a vacation in the Hotel Graybar.

  114. Robert says:

    Having had six blog posts (and countless comments) written about me on Sheila’s blog and a couple blog posts written about me on Julie Anne’s blog I can say I am very aware of their teaching. If they had to choose between Christ and feminism, they would undoubtedly choose feminism. In our modern world and church, sadly, we don’t have to technically choose as they are packaged as mostly the same in the vast majority of churches. What is scary, and why I don’t ignore them completely, is that most women just cannot see it until pointed out to them. I had to point it out to Lori Alexander and also several local moms, who aside from my wife, are as biblical women as you’ll find- submissive wives, homeschooling moms-they just cannot see it until it is pointed out to them and then they cannot believe they did not see it before. That is why their teaching is scary, because women lap it up, even the ones who if they could see would deny it. It’s packaged to do just that.

  115. Always Be Closing says:

    In the world of Ms. Gregoire…..what sort of men would consider signing up for marriage?

  116. ChristianCool says:

    I am trying to explain this article to a Christian male friend who is new to The Red Pill and new to understanding of Christian relationship dynamics. He has been hearing about the SBC meeting last month that enacted several changes to formerly traditional Christian churches of the Baptist persuasion (Baptists are viewed as one of the most traditional, long-existing Christian denominations in America).

    I am explaining the 3 systems of Christian relationships models between men-women-children as a “cycle of misery” of sorts. Here is the cycle, as I see it, in a nutshell:

    Traditional, Biblically-based Patriarchal Christianity (Headship) has been slowly been supplanted by –> Complimentarians who promote a semi-Feminist system of relations between men and women to placate feminist Christian women and Christian beta males –> FemiNazi Christians attack Complimentarians anyway, because they see weakness and know that because Complimentarians deny the existence of Feminist Christianity, they are powerless to resist Feminist push –> Complimentarians are tarred and feathered online and look like fools, and yet continue to maintain their foothold in Christian mainstream today –> both ideologies are countered by traditional Christians (headship, which in turn –> is mocked online as “outdated”, “abusive”, and “misogynist” by Complimentarian Betas and Christian FemiNazis.

    It is a never-ending cycle, as this “cultural revolution” of sorts, slowly unfolds inside the Christian churches, even as members fail to see it happening.

    Clearly, the only BIBLICALLY-based version is Patriarchal Christianity (Male Headship), since that is and has been the standard for the last 2,000 years, until the FemiNazis began to infiltrate and poison Christian women. Male Headship Christianity is clearly based on Biblical text, no “wild interpretations” of verses are needed.

    But like with everything else in the Western world today, even common sense Christian-based relationship traditions such as Male Headship that have worked for thousands of years are under attack. The system of family, marriage, and courtship that enabled Western societies to rise to the top of civilizations worldwide, is now being toppled for a by Marxist failed ideology, disguised as Christian Feminism (or any pretty names they put on that pig). No wonder the Western world is shaken to its core: the foundation of society, the family, is itself under relentless attack.

    **To simplify and summarize my understanding of the 3 systems of male-female relationships (to include, but not limited to courtship/dating, marriage, duties, family structure, and etc):

    *Complimentarians: diagnose the right problems in male-female relationships, but cannot provide the right cure, because of their own dogmatic and stubborn ideology. Created and promoted a flawed Christianity-like system of relations (courtship, family, marriage, etc) between men and women, where men are on-par or inferior to the women in his life. Well-intentioned, but misguided, this system creates a Beta Male factory of weak men. This system is often supported by pastoral staff and taught openly in many churches and it enables a man’s women (and his children) to run roughshod over men. A man’s authority is questioned, mocked, and undermined. This in turn creates women/wives who are angry and miserable to be “stuck in a marriage” with a Beta cuck. This system leads to men becoming depressed, disconnected, and weakened; lead to higher divorce rates in Christian homes; higher incidence of female adultery; and to raise the next generation of Christian kids that will be Beta cucks boys and Christian Feminists girls.

    As my old pastor likes to say: “the pathway to Hell is paved by good people with good intentions”. Complimentarism is the cornerstone of that road for sure!

    *Feminist/FemiNazi “Christians” (in parenthesis, because the Christianity and Feminism are naturally incompatible): Their social theories (blaming the patriarchy, feminist supremacy, etc) methods mirror radical secular feminism in its attack-mob mentality. FemiNazi Christians attack everyone whom disagrees with them by setting-up marches, petitions, and online mobs to intimidate and demand “drastic changes” to well-established Christian doctrines. They disguise their intentions by pretending to be less militant and in a “more polite” manner than regular FemiNazis, since they need to “be Christ-like”. 🙄 They actively seek confrontations online, actively attempt to poison Christian couples, and slowly become pervasive in our Christian culture, from “Christian” movies like “Fireproof” to strong-arming radical changes in the former conservative (now Complimentarian) groups, such as the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). They are taking the Beta male system set-up by Complimentarians and pushing Beta males into Gamma-level pathetic and weak men, just as secular feminism has done.

    They seem to support leftist causes, such as open border, unlimited “refugee” immigration, massive welfare system (social justice), and other leftist themes. This is a Marxist socio-political version of Christianity, with the Feminist twist to it.

    *Masculine Patriarchal Christians (male headship): This is the traditional, Biblically-based version of Christian relationships, where the man/husband/boyfriend/father takes charge of the relationship and is the head of the relationship/couple/family. This entails some duties and obligations by the man and the woman (gender-roles), but provides the relationship with stability, durability, and guidance. This Biblical system has been largely supplanted even in Conservative traditional Christian denominations in America today initially by the Complimentarists and now by the FemiNazi Christians.

    Am I understanding and summarizing this mess correctly? Missing or forgetting anything? ❓ I am trying to help explain this to a friend in a simple, coherent way to a friend who just read Dalrock’s OP piece and has many questions! 🙂 Thanks!

  117. earl says:

    ‘putting Scripture into proper context, especially where it concerns relationships between men and women/husbands and wives is very “bad for business.”

    Which is odd some churches are run more like a business…because Christ had zeal to drive the moneychangers out of his Father’s house.

  118. ChristianCool says:

    @ feeriker

    Beautiful teeth comparison! 😆 lol The piranha fish sure show their teeth when they devour these who fall into its domain!! I saw this in the southern Brazil-Paraguay Border, where the river is filled with piranha fish!

    (I lived in Brazil ages 12-16 (my family worked for U.S. Consulate there)! The piranha fish are as nasty and vicious as any feminist you meet today!

    No to change subject topics here, since I am trying to explain the Complimentarian – Christian Feminist – Traditional Christian (headship) dynamics to a friend (see my post above)….. but to comment on @ sipcode comment above:

    I work with this Beta, almost-Gamma attorney from time to time. He is a vegetarian, non-religious, he is hard-left, he gets pushed around by women, dates land-whales on a regular basis, he is still single, he still pines for this one woman who has cucked him before and dumped him like rotten milk on a sink, he complains about women all the time at work, and everything else you can expect from a 44 year old beta male soy-boy. 🙄

    Recently Beta lawyer managed to yet again start dating a “large and in charge” type (named Amanda). Feminist and bossy, she called him out loudly at him in front of everyone during a company event open to employees and spouses only. Oh yeah, she is from Commiefornia, of course.

    Anyway, 2 weeks ago he had been bitchin’ to me about how Amanda treats him, now she has sneaked moved into his house and he hates it, she is there 4-5 days a week at his place, and he doesn’t know what to do. Despite all this, Beta Lawyer (“BL”) still wants to keep seeing this woman, but he cannot “take her shit anymore”. Beta to his core.

    I told him to close all windows and doors (to muffle noise and avoid neighbors from calling the cops) get really pissed off at her, yell “shut the FUCK up Noooooooooow!” and storm out the door and slam door. Do not call, do not apologize, and do not text her back, no matter how much she tries. He said he could never do that, that is “abuse” and all sorts of Beta excuses.

    Well, just yesterday (Monday), he stayed at his own house with Amanda because she was complaining about “not spending enough time together” and etc, so he used one of 2 personal days he has per year to placate her. Did she thank him? Nah, she acted like a demonic bitch the whole time, treated him worse then ever.

    Because of how hot it had been last few days, all of windows and doors were closed, so he may have lucked out there and avoided a cop visit. He said around 1pm, she would not shut up, she kept poking him and yelling at him and whatnot.

    BL dude just LOST IT, he started yelling at her, and smacking the table over and over again, “shuuuuuuuuuut uuuuuuuuup. Arrrrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhh” (primal screams of rage). He just lost it, it happened naturally for this guy after months of non-stop abuse. Guess he had less of his beloved soy milk that morning! lol 😉

    He was only wearing sandals, shorts, and tank-top shirt and he lost his shit and ran outside and just started walking away. He walked for about 2 hours straight to his brother’s house, so he could cool down”. Around 7pm Monday night, BL had his brother drive him back to his house.

    Monday night, when he walked in, bitch had prepared dinner and she own her own sucked his d!ck afterwards, for the first time in the 4 or 5 months they have been together.

    He just told me this morning (Tuesday) “what website did you learn that telling a broad to shut up would work”? I told him “Cheateau Heartiste”. I sent him this link: https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-42283.html

    He has spent the whole morning reading it from his work computer.

    There is a lesson in that story….. somewhere…. I am sure! 😀 lol

  119. OKRickety says:

    ChristianCool,

    I’m not an expert on the Christian relationship dynamics, but, in case it matters, it is “complementarianism”, not “complimentarianism”. That is, making the relationship complete, not complimenting or praising each other.

  120. stickdude90 says:

    @ feeriker

    “I’m hoping to live to see the day when a preacher delivers a sermon in which he presents the verses preceding and following the verse(s) on which he is focusing his message, specifically for the purpose of providing proper context.”

    Request granted.

    http://www.calvary-tricities.org/media/audio/old-testament

    http://www.calvary-tricities.org/media/audio/new-testament-1

    Small world we live in. I was actually married in this church a long time (and several building moves) ago. We even went on a trip to Israel with Pastor Steve and his wife and some others from the church.

  121. Paul says:

    @FH: “It’s called the state. The same state you want to give more socialist power to.”

    Bloody heck, don’t twist my words!

  122. Paul says:

    @BillyS: “I didn’t grant my ex any power, she took it with the backing power of the State. It is forced on many of us.”

    I just repeat what I stated earlier: many men granted women such power by vote, it has become law, and that power is enforced. Like it or not, eventually it was a majority of men who enabled these laws.

  123. Oscar says:

    @ stickdude90

    I don’t live in the Tri Cities anymore, and I only attended Calvary Chapel for about a year the last time I lived in the area, but I still listen to Pastor Steve’s sermons while preparing for our family bible studies, because they’re that good.

  124. Oscar says:

    @ feeriker

    “Thanks, Oscar. Now if only that could be replicated in several tens of thousands of churches around the world.”

    From what I understand, Calvary Chapel started that way, and the two I’ve attended still preach that way. They start with Genesis 1:1, and preach all the way through Revelation 22:21. Then they start over with Genesis 1:1.

    I think that’s the best way to preach. The congregation hears the entire Word. All of it. And the pastor doesn’t get to skip the passages he doesn’t like, or ride the ones he prefers like hobby horses.

    It doesn’t eliminate errors, of course. Humans will be human. But it sure reduces errors.

  125. Sharkly says:

    ChristianCool,

    I’m new to this too, but I think you’re missing the Egalitarians, like Keith and Sheila, who are a step further beyond the Complementarians. Women and men aren’t just different yet complement each other, like the Complementarians believe, the Egalitarians believe men and women are only slightly and inconsequentially different, yet equal in every functional way. You really have to ignore or deny a lot of evidence, and also God’s word, to believe that. Maybe I’m wrong about that, and somebody has information better explaining it. But that is my thought.

  126. freebird says:

    “Women are to submit to God; Sapphira submitted to Ananias and it got her killed.”

    Rejecting what the scripture says is not “submitting to God.”
    Moreover: rejecting the entire Spirit of the Patriarchal Religion itself is not “submitting to God,”
    At least not the Christian God.
    No,this is unimpeded narcissism manifesting. This personality type will not consider anything that is not self-promoting or in blatant self-interest.
    ————————————————————————————————
    I was in a Lutheran church to donate blood a few days ago,the woman volunteer there at the desk was gushing about how good the temporary pastor was.
    But he couldn’t stay because he was from the area.Against The Rules.
    She further stated the next “pastor” was likely to be female,as “less and less men are entering
    (word for church school,starts with an “s’)
    Just like %98 of K-12 teachers are now female because the women waged WAR on the male teachers,and men NEVER fight back against women,so it will go in the churches.

    Since men will not fight, it best they retreat and ghost.
    Let someone else pay for the single mothers and trips to Ethiopia and Haiti.
    (While the homeland is destroyed by rabid feminazism.)
    Men simply do not belong in the churches or in marriage anymore.
    As the one fellow who quoted Isaiah noted, they have indeed embraced a culture and spirit of death.
    It’s either fight or leave, but for God’s sake enough of this whimpering and arguing.
    No quarter must be given for the Spirit of Anti-Christ
    Especially for your SONS for God’s sake they are bing neutered and driven insane,wantint\g to self-mutilated the man-parts away just so the attacks from “females” will stop.
    This shit has to end,and I mean by any means available, “legal” or not.

  127. freebird says:

    “Seminary” the word I could not remember.
    Sounds like a male institution ,yes,”Seminal.”
    I guess the fems will have to change the name of that, it is SO offensive to call
    church school, “Seminary,” ICK.
    How about “bortionary”
    wicka wicka wicka witch

  128. BillyS says:

    Oscar,

    I don’t think I have heard a single Calvary Chapel preacher (and I listen to several on their radio station) preach something other than mutual submission. Verse-by-verse is only good if you learn where to separate things, such as commands in the church and commands in marriage.

    Their afternoon call in show has generally good ideas, until a woman calls in and makes mention of abuse (emotional is all I have heard) and they go on a rant about how a woman does not have to be a punching bag. Disagreeing with her is just like punching her in their eyes I guess.

    I wish someone could set them straight, but I don’t hold out much hope for them. Few preachers really want to learn.

  129. Oscar says:

    Billy,

    “I don’t think I have heard a single Calvary Chapel preacher (and I listen to several on their radio station) preach something other than mutual submission.”

    Like I said, reading through the entire Bible doesn’t eliminate errors, but it does reduce errors.

  130. feeriker says:

    I wish someone could set them straight, but I don’t hold out much hope for them. Few preachers really want to learn.

    As I said upthread, truth, where Christian marriage is concerned, has the effect of making collection plates lose weight. “Bad for business,” given that it’s ear-massaged women and their gelded husbands who keep said receptacles filled.

  131. BillyS says:

    It goes beyond that feeriker. I have found that pastors and associate pastors think they have it all figured out. Only the pastor or perhaps someone over him can give any input and that seems quite rare. Most fail at listening to their audience, even in a good way.

  132. pb says:

    Re: mutual submission

    Is there any reason to think that the social customs of that time allowed men and women who were not related or married to one another to otherwise fraternize? That is to say, should mutual submission be not applied to marriage as John Paul II attempts to do, as if it were applicable to mixed-sex Christian interaction in general, but rather to Christian male-male interaction and Christian female-female interaction, and not Christian female-male interaction?

  133. I found a picture of an egalitarian (or maybe a Calls-It-Complimentarian) marriage: Actor Richard Attenboro presiding as the Rev. Dr. Doolittle.

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YED_Ly6Cfko/TYNSdOFPA_I/AAAAAAAAAsE/EM5Y1OWInqM/s1600/Pushmi-Pullyu%2Bstill%2Bfrom%2Bmusical.bmp

  134. There are only two camps His Kingdom (under His rule) or Hell. We’re getting the previews now.

  135. ray says:

    feeriker — “Women are to submit to God; Sapphira submitted to Ananias and it got her killed.
    This bitch has to be a comedy act, a satire along the lines of Dana Carvey’s Church Lady. I simply cannot imagine any adults within normal IQ range, no matter how weak their faith, mistaking this as serious Christianity.”

    I can. They’ll believe anything that furthers their empowerment and self-interest. It’s human nature.

    And that’s really the sub-text of this OP, and this general series of (excellent) posts. That Sheila Gregoire and Company ARE the norm in modern American Protestantism. All they are doing now is formalizing and consolidating power in a ‘churches’ they long ago colonized, embedded in a female-dominant culture.

    These collective feminine assaults are the pre-cursers to yet more attacks on fatherhood and masculinity, because Sheila’s mentality is not only tolerated in the West, but embraced by the legions of castrated churches and ‘pastors’.

    A woman — not a man — rides the Beast System, even as Babylon-the-Great is always characterized as female. A ‘woman’ controls and rules over it. This means a collectivized aspect of the feminine, but also likely a specific demonette. Probly the same spiritual entity that possessed Jezebel, Athaliah, and other females in Scripture.

    This will not end well, and I expect to see to it.

  136. BillyS says:

    pb,

    Is there any reason to think that the social customs of that time allowed men and women who were not related or married to one another to otherwise fraternize? That is to say, should mutual submission be not applied to marriage as John Paul II attempts to do, as if it were applicable to mixed-sex Christian interaction in general, but rather to Christian male-male interaction and Christian female-female interaction, and not Christian female-male interaction?

    Read the verses before that. The idea is that those in the church should submit to each other. The idea is that no members should expect others to serve them. Applying it to marriage completely neuters Eph 5:22, for it is meaningless to tell wives to submit to their husbands if they are already supposed to mutually submit to each other. Should parents now mutually submit to their children and owners to slaves? Those are covered next.

    Too many need to learn how to properly divide the Word of God.

  137. feeriker says:

    Too many need to learn how to properly divide the Word of God.

    People need to start actually READING the Word first. Getting them to even do that on a consistent, regular basis is uphill battle enough, one that I don’t expect to see won in the foreseeable future.

  138. MKT says:

    I’ve never listened to his music (I despise most CCM), but Camp is pretty solid in his beliefs. On Twitter, he’s definitely a good guy in the SBC and Evangelical world. He’s probably considered extreme right by many. He even got threatened with law enforcement if he showed up to Revoice. This is a conference that’s about to be held in a PCA presbyterian church with SBC involvement. Basically it says LGBTers can identify as such, celebrate the lifestyle, have lifelong partnerships, etc. as long as they stay celibate (yeah, right). Camp simply said he wanted to show up with an open Bible. They considered this taunting or harassment or something.

    The feminists (Sheila, Julie Anne), LGBT crowd and race hustlers are working together in the conservative denominations under the banner of “intersectionality.” Call them what they are (cultural Marxists) and you’ll get labeled a misogynistic racist in a heartbeat.

  139. BillyS says:

    Feeriker,

    People need to start actually READING the Word first. Getting them to even do that on a consistent, regular basis is uphill battle enough, one that I don’t expect to see won in the foreseeable future.

    True. Reading these verses would show that Eph 5:21 was the end of a previous thought/sentence rather than part of Eph 5:22. Though ignoring that, as many do, would make reading it meaningless as verse 21 would seem to override verse 22 just reading those in order.

    People still need to learn the entirety of what is said, in the context of all the Scriptures, not just their pet ideas. It is clear that can be ignored since so many who do really read it all still differ so much in their views.

  140. pb says:

    “Read the verses before that. The idea is that those in the church should submit to each other. The idea is that no members should expect others to serve them. Applying it to marriage completely neuters Eph 5:22, for it is meaningless to tell wives to submit to their husbands if they are already supposed to mutually submit to each other. Should parents now mutually submit to their children and owners to slaves? Those are covered next.”

    Wasn’t looking for a refutation of the new interpretation of Eph 5:22 but clarification on 5:20. How was mutual submission to be applied to intersex relations as governed by the norms of St. Paul’s time? If intersex relations between those who were not related were practically non-existent, then any attempts to read 5:22 in light of 5:20 would already fail.

  141. 447 says:

    @feeriker, 3 July:

    I agree strongly.
    The hallmark of late stage feminism (terminal stage, like we have in the West now) is the demand of men to follow the lead of the wife everywhere, except in isolated sexual scenes, where his remaining maleness is needed as sexual lubricant.
    Yet exactly THIS very fact shows the completeness of femijine control – that the evil caveman might be teporarily unleashed for pleasure, because hd will surely shamble back in his cage on command.

    So far the fantasy – in reality, such men
    -lose all libido (even if they don’t know why)
    – turn to other sexual outlets (porn/hookers/hook-ups)
    -turn to asexual compensation (extremly time-intensive/spergy hobbies come to mind, today mostly digital stuff like games)

    A minority will do the bio-alpha, yet immoral thing and leave, hurt or coerce the woman.

    All these negative effects have ONE root in common:
    They arise from Wives (christian world) or girlfriends/LTRs (secular world) not doing their one friggin’ duty – even though it would cause themselves pleasure and emotional gain!

  142. 447 says:

    Sorry for double posting:
    Just checked out some Sheila emo-porn aka her videos.
    She has it.
    Thousand cock stare.
    Anyone else seeing it?

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

w

Connecting to %s

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