Mad Dog Chandler on Toxic Masculinity.

The #metoo era is dangerous because the rules of what is permissable are very quickly changing.  This is especially dangerous for complementarians because complementarians earn their living in the margins of what feminists are trying to destroy.  This June we saw Dr. Paige Patterson rejected and discredited in the complementarian world because of past statements he made in support of 1 Cor 7 and 1 Pet 3.  Those statements were on the extreme edge of acceptable complementarian thought when he made them, but in 2018 they are entirely unacceptable.  This has left complementarian leaders scrambling to signal that they aren’t like Dr. Patterson.  Just last week we witnessed Pastor Doug Wilson engage in a major rewrite of 1 Cor 7.

The problem for complementarians is they have to live in the margins of feminism, because their whole point of existence is to serve as feminism’s loyal opposition.  This forces complementarians to engage in a series of ridiculous contortions as feminists continue to advance their agenda.  Complementarians can’t blame feminist rebellion, or even (for the most part) feminism itself for the radical changes we are observing, because they are terrified of angering the feminist Christian women who surround them.  Thus when women insisted on entering all areas of our armed forces in the name of equality, complementarians were forced to pretend that women were reluctantly filling roles that men were refusing to fill.

One way complementarians were able to resolve the inherent conflict in their position just a few years ago was to engage in what I’ve referred to as cartoonish chivalry.  Cartoonish chivalry involved a caricature of manhood that was carefully crafted to not offend the feminists in the pews. For example, see Pastor Chandler’s 2014 sermon A Beautiful Design (Part 3)–Man’s Purpose.   Pastor Chandler explained that it wasn’t leadership that made men different, because women are designed to lead as men are.

When I was trying to draw up a sentence on the unique responsibility of men, I wanted to, as best I could, stay away from the word lead. I’ll tell you why. I think men do lead, and they do lead in a unique way. I also know women who can lead and who do lead. In fact, I’ve come across some women who are bosses. Do you know what I’m saying? I mean, they get stuff done. They lead. They put together teams. They help those teams function rightly, and they lead out.So saying that a man leads as a kind of attribute of manhood that is not true about women would be incorrect.

What made men different back in 2014 was men’s cartoonish hyper-macho love for violence in the protection of women.  Anything less, and you aren’t a real man:

As a single man, you image headship with borrowed authority by serving and
protecting women as sisters.  Let me unpack that. I have an older sister and a younger sister. Here was a frequent conversation my daddy had with me. “Buddy, at school, you look out for your sisters. If some other guy is messing with your sisters, I want you to tell a teacher. If that teacher will not listen, I want you to punch them in their face and keep punching and keep punching and keep punching until an adult drags you off of that little boy. When they drag you off, what I want you to do is be like, ‘Get off me! Get off me!’ You go back at them until they… There needs to be a healthy kind of fear of you when it comes to your sisters. You protect them.”

Our masculinity comes out in the fight, not in peacetime but in fight. Again, it’s why the lazy men are so destructive to human flourishing. They want it to be fair. It’s not fair. You don’t want fair. You haven’t been designed for it. Think of the movies we like to watch. We want the fight. We want our lives to matter. We want to lay it down. We love Saving Private Ryan, everybody getting shot up on the beach. We want to run up on that beach with them. It’s in us.

Brothers, you’ve been called to this. Anything less than this is outside of design and purpose.

But this was back in 2014.  What was loved by complementarian women back then is now seen as toxic masculinity.  This means that the definition of the timeless essence of manhood must yet again be changed.  As Pastor Chandler explained in his February 2018 sermon Manhood Restored, the new timeless essence of manhood involves rejecting violence and machismo in all forms, and getting in touch with your feelings:

What we’re talking about today is extremely important, and I think it comes at a time in our culture where there are two predominate false narratives that are killing us. The first false narrative is what I’ll call the machismo narrative. If you’re my age or older, I would almost guarantee you grew up with this. Here’s what I wrote: “Machismo severs the emotions and sets up sexual conquest and athletic prowess as measures of masculinity.”

If you grew up with a dad who was like, “Quit crying! Suck it up! Be a man! Men don’t act like that. Quit acting like your sister,” all of that is machismo nonsense. Brothers, anybody grow up in that house? “Quit crying. Quit feeling what you feel. Men don’t feel; we do.” It’s machismo. It’s ridiculous. It’s toxic to the male soul, destroys human flourishing, and teaches that brute force and violence, as well as misogyny, are masculine. It’s a lie. It’s killing us.

Our dads aren’t evil men. They had given themselves over to a picture of masculinity that’s very, very popular and yet wrong. “Suck it up. Don’t feel. Quit crying. Men don’t cry.” Gosh, that cuts out Jesus. It cuts out King David. If you would like to go one-on-one with King David, manly man, all my cash is on him. It ain’t a lot, but I’m going to win. I’m going to double it up, even though the odds are not going to be in your favor. The dude killed a bear and a lion with his hands. I know you CrossFit, but my guess is you’re going to get yourself lit up.

This is one of those false narratives. When men embrace this narrative, you get Harvey Weinstein.

Brothers, quit being so hard on yourself. God knows. Love is the motivating force. If you want to say this phrase to your boys, “Be a man,” you’d better not be talking about their emotions. You’d better not be talking about their hobbies. You’d better not be talking about their feelings. You’d better not be talking about that stuff.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in #MeToo, Acts 29, Cartoonish Chivalry, Complementarian, Disrespecting Respectability, Dr. Paige Patterson, Feminists, Manliness, Pastor Doug Wilson, Pastor Matt Chandler, Turning a blind eye, Weak men screwing feminism up, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

130 Responses to Mad Dog Chandler on Toxic Masculinity.

  1. Lexet Blog says:

    Are these phonies secretly gay? I really wonder. It’s sad how these guys get into ministry, peddle false doctrines, yet are upheld by ministries such as family life and focus. Seriously- look into their other doctrines. Chandler is a weirdo.

  2. Pingback: Mad Dog Chandler on Toxic Masculinity. | @the_arv

  3. SnapperTrx says:

    Hey! Remember that one chapter in the bible, I think in the book of Nothere were God told the men of Israel to drop their weapons and stop being so manly, but instead to get in touch with their feelings so that the nations in opposition to them would see how masculine they were and invite them in for tea? And how the men of Israel approached the cities of their enemies, weeping and telling them how hard it was to be a man so that their enemies took great pity on them and said “Lo, here is a nation of men who suffer a great burden in that their fathers demanded of them manliness and machismo, which they have rejected for true manliness with their tears and the wringing of their hands. Because of their great feelings, let us befriend them and we will in no way conquer them!”

    Neither do I.

  4. earl says:

    Complementarians can’t blame feminist rebellion, or even (for the most part) feminism itself for the radical changes we are observing, because they are terrified of angering the feminist Christian women who surround them.

    They fear the anger of the harpies and forget about God?

  5. feministhater says:

    What is he now? Simpering Dog Chandler?

  6. Chuck B says:

    Suck it up and be a man = Harvey Weinstein?

    How??? Is there any chance he has any logic to support this, or is he mindlessly parroting names he heard on cable network news?

  7. jazzdrive3 says:

    Straw man nonsense. I’m sure there are some dad’s like that, but come on.

    Also, what would he make of the apostle Paul telling the church to “act like men?” 1 Corinthians 16:13. And men should deal with their emotions differently than woman do.

    Whenever someone uses the phrase “human flourishing” in a sermon, I know they’ve gone soft.

  8. Wood Chipper says:

    It’s been noted here before, but it is difficult just to get past Chandler’s bizarrely, flamboyant mannerisms.

  9. Gage says:

    What do you expect an effeminate man to say? he can only speak what he knows from experience and it does not look like he has any experience with real masculinity. Everything about Matt screams out sissy boy.

    Why is it that preachers in American churches are so devoid of testosterone? They have no muscular definition, no stage presence, and they all dress in that same stupid style of jeans with an untucked button down. The Jesus they purport to know, worked with his hands as a carpenter and was strong enough and violent enough to clear out the temple of all the money changers. He was the epitome of masculinity and yet we are somehow supposed to believe that Jesus would have us be the exact opposite of how He was and become simpering, emotional manginas?

  10. earl says:

    Why is it that preachers in American churches are so devoid of testosterone?

    Perhaps if you attack masculinity enough…God is merciful enough to take it from them?

    Besides one of the similiarties of King David and Jesus is that they acknowledged their Lord and Father often…especially in the biggest of challenges.

  11. 7817 says:

    “Mad Dog” Chandler, hilarious title if you watch his mannerisms on the youtube video.

  12. “When you embrace this narrative, you get Harvey Weinstein.”

    Wait, what?

  13. JRob says:

    This toad and his ilk are the plant managers of the Beta Factories….er, “churches.” Each unit gets a t-shirt with “Welcome” silkscreened on the back when he leaves the assembly line.

  14. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Complementarians can’t blame feminist rebellion, or even (for the most part) feminism itself for the radical changes we are observing, because they are terrified of angering the feminist Christian women who surround them.

    This pretty much nails who Chandler really is — but it’s not just something that’s true of his his “complemetrianism,” it’s pretty much how his entire religious faith works. He just recently wrote another book called “Take Heart” about how the practice of Christianity is dwindling in the modern west. But don’t think that means that Chandler has any interest in changing that trajectory. The first line from the book’s blurb on Amazon pretty much says it all:

    Christendom is dead. And that’s a good thing.

    Which, funnily enough, also sounds like something that Russell Moore has been saying since his recent “Onward” book:

    The American Protestant majority is is over and to that I say, “good riddance.”

    These guys may be the the first generation of Christian pastors I’m aware of to make a point of publicly saying that their country would be a better place if only there were fewer Christians in it. Which then leads to another question: If they really believe this then are they hypocrites, liars, or something even worse since they also happen to make their living in a job where the chief responsibility is to create more Christians?

  15. 8 in the Gate says:

    Not that it is a litmus test, but I have never heard a speaker use the word “misogyny” that wasn’t carrying water for a feminist position of some sort.

  16. The flock in his church is mostly in Texas (where “real” men are) and will defend him to the hilt. The women love his wife…the guys think he’s a real “guys guy” and the men who attend his church always talk about havin’ a beer and being bros….which means to me “watching football” after the service during season….manhood in Christianity means “football” today. Not playing. Watching.

    They find “players” who come and “call them out” and “protect” the (cough) virginal, saintly, holy, amazing women there……

    Real bold. A church full of real men, and guys…….but yet….yet…….their is a marriage problem there. You see, men at this church and the other satellite campuses are still not “manning up” and marrying all these hot, beautiful, amazing, holy women.

    I wonder why? I have a few theories. You all probably do too! The skinny jeans, baseball cap and beard guys are obviously not “attractive” to the women. The “real” men they claim they attract by the numbers probably are not showing up (these men have no need for today’s church. It offers them zilch. The players and Chad’s don’t go, and why should they? Who “witnesses” to them, and can convince them of Christ? A 26 year old hipster with a backwards baseball-cap and stubble beard and an ironic tee-shirt cannot tell Chad convincingly about Christ when the hipster himself is lukewarm and views church as a social club.

    And call it a hunch, but the “hot” women at this church probably “aint that hot” and more than a few are seeing Chad, or are wanting to date Chad the rest of the week anyway 🙂

  17. earl says:

    Who “witnesses” to them, and can convince them of Christ?

    Do these churches even talk about Christ at any point. Do the remind the congregation of Him in between the man bashings and woman worshiping?

  18. MKT says:

    I’ve never followed Chandler, but apparently he’s getting worse in every possible way–becoming more of an SJW every day, getting into weird theology, etc. Despite his flaws, some say he was quite a good preacher at one time.
    http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/07/25/matt-chandlers-prophecy-on-tbn-right-where-it-belongs/

  19. Jesus in these churches is secondary……oh yeah, they all “love Him more than anything” but people come for the pastor, the show….the “ministry” which consists of sending “brave, holy, mighty women of God” overseas to missions “men too, but not as many because they won’t man-up”

    These churches forget the trailer park across the railroad tracks on the toxic waste dump in their own cities / regions…..those dirty people don’t need Jesus…….leave them for the Salvation Army, and cinderblcok storefront churches……we want attract the “cool” kids….also we want the “FAMILIES” that come here to FEEL safe. We want the collection plate filled! We need a “new” building despite ours only being a few years old………we need a hip new teen room……and a bigger light show.

    They are the protestants that believe “once saved, always saved” no matter what. Lie? Sin daily. Nope, you’re still going to heaven because ‘jesus is in your heart’ doesn’t matter “devil is a liar”

    Church therefore has to be a social club. Like all showboating, supper clubs, and community rooms….the entertainment reeks of the tackiness of the 1970’s…….and sadly….regretfully if Chandler retires…..this church will fade…….because people come to see him, not have an encounter with God the Holy Ghost.

    Look at Driscoll’s Seattle empire. The SECOND he was removed, the who “rotten mess” caved in, bankruptcy and selling of property and spinning off of assets. People came to see him, not be conformed to Christ.

    A sad state, and it is what Protestantism has become……breaks my heart

  20. Boxer says:

    Look at Driscoll’s Seattle empire. The SECOND he was removed, the who “rotten mess” caved in, bankruptcy and selling of property and spinning off of assets. People came to see him, not be conformed to Christ.

    Old Driscoll is truly a sad case of what’s wrong – not just with the Christian church, but with society generally. Incidentally, he’s back, now operating under the radar, in a wealthy Phoenix suburb. He is close friends with another scumbag, named Annie Lobert, who operates a church called “Hookers for Christ” (not joking) in Las Vegas. Watch for old Driscoll to reappear at some point. He’s already working on his comeback.

  21. My father was a hard-hat, Union man…but he wasn’t dumb, or a yob. The old man was actually an intellectual. He read, a lot. He didn’t have to punch people in the mouth and bust out four letter words to prove his manhood. It was in his work. Building furniture. His jobs that he supervised all over northern New York State. He camped. Hunted (something I just never got into). He didn’t need a grip of other guys around him to validate who he was. He never took a hand to my mother (though my mother probably deserved it a few times). I only had two, three lickins’ in my life….and he “didn’t need god”

    His mother died in childbirth when he was about 15. He blamed god for this, and every priest / pastor he ever met explained it being “god’s will” for that to happen, or some other explanation that my father could not comprehend……”well, this sin, or such and such…..just read this verse, it will eb okay.”

    When I brought him to Christ, I told him the truth. I said “I don’t know why” and some things in this life we will have answered when the roll is called. He also saw the example in me, of a changed and turned-around life. It was “walking deeper” and it took time. When he asked me that he wanted “Jesus” as his Lord, he did it without me prodding or begging him. The “knocking” on his heart and convinced him.

    I ramble…….the best and finest example of a man was and is Christ. As I recall, he wasn’t a warrior king on a horse or a chariot. He didn’t have a harem. He didn’t stay in the finest places, while his disciples “did the work” and he could speak truth without fear. Christ never said what a man “should” look like physically nor did shun some and allow others

  22. Anon says:

    Thus when women insisted on entering all areas of our armed forces in the name of equality, complementarians were forced to pretend that women were reluctantly filling roles that men were refusing to fill.

    This bit continues to astound. The mental malpractice required to believe such a thing is truly astonishing.

    If a society is even starting to lose a war against another society, the women of the losing society quickly SWITCH SIDES without any remorse whatsoever. The notion that women will ‘fight for their country when men will not’ is one of the most bogus myths imaginable.

  23. feeriker says:

    Are these phonies secretly gay?

    I’m not so sure about the “secretly” part. Any “man” as overtly hostiles to masculinity as Chandler has so me very OBVIOUS issues

  24. Oscar says:

    We love Saving Private Ryan, everybody getting shot up on the beach. We want to run up on that beach with them. It’s in us. ~ Mad Dog Chandler

    When you embrace this narrative, you get Harvey Weinstein. ~ Mad Dog Chandler

    Some of us have actually been to war. More than once, even. Neither Mad Dog nor Harvey Weinstein ever wore body armor, nor would they. They’re both cowards, only of different stripes.

  25. Ron Tomlinson says:

    >“Quit crying. Quit feeling what you feel. Men don’t feel; we do.” It’s machismo. It’s ridiculous. It’s toxic to the male soul, destroys human flourishing

    Telling a boy to stop crying can be for reasons other than machismo. Rather like footballers who exaggerate their injuries to try to manipulate the referee into declaring a ‘foul’, some boys exaggerate their crying in an attempt to garner undue sympathy, e.g. from their mothers. The good father will nip this sort of behaviour in the bud.

  26. OKRickety says:

    If anyone happens to be interested in a transcript of Chandler’s message, it is available at Manhood Restored.

    Chandler does confirm the difference between the sermons on Mother’s Day and Father’s Day at 23:30 in the video. He says:

    ‘Have you ever noticed that on Mother’s Day…? Mother’s Day sermons are always like, “Moms, you guys are so great. Where would we be without you guys? The whole world would fall apart if moms weren’t being moms.” Dads always get a different message. They’re like, “What’s wrong with you? Why are you the way you are? We don’t have any flowers for you today. Good God! Act like a man.” We always get this kind of drive-by shaming.’

    Also, he does specifically avoid egalitarianism at 6:25 in the video where he says:

    ‘The other false narrative (this one is predominately if you’re 30 and under) is that there is no difference, there is no distinction between the man and the woman. There’s nothing for the man that’s not also for the woman. It flattens out gender, makes it fluid, and teaches there’s nothing distinct a man is called to and nothing distinct a woman is called to. It’s just that we’re humans and we’ve been called to act Christianly wherever we go.’

  27. and then he “gives” sermons like that on Fathers Day

  28. David J. says:

    Thank God I’m a member of a church that just preaches the Bible, straight up — every service, every week. No attempts to add psychobabble or sociology. No sugar-coating anyone’s sins, but also no limitations on God’s grace to us sinners, via Christ’s righteousness, without which none of us could ever be reconciled with God. I didn’t grow up in this denomination but fortunately my (second) wife has, and her non-feminist theology of marriage is the result of both her church history and her Dutch Reformed (large) family tree.

  29. feeriker says:

    Any “man” as overtly hostile to masculinity as Chandler has to have very OBVIOUS issues.”

    Damned autocorrect!

  30. Oscar says:

    @ Jason

    … the best and finest example of a man was and is Christ. As I recall, he wasn’t a warrior king on a horse or a chariot.

    No, but he will be.

    Isaiah 63:1 Who is this who comes from Edom,
    With garments of glowing colors from Bozrah,
    This One who is majestic in His apparel,
    Marching in the greatness of His strength?
    “It is I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save.”
    2 Why is Your apparel red,
    And Your garments like the one who treads in the wine press?
    3 “I have trodden the wine trough alone,
    And from the peoples there was no man with Me.
    I also trod them in My anger
    And trampled them in My wrath;
    And their lifeblood is sprinkled on My garments,
    And I stained all My raiment.
    4 “For the day of vengeance was in My heart,
    And My year of redemption has come.
    5 “I looked, and there was no one to help,
    And I was astonished and there was no one to uphold;
    So My own arm brought salvation to Me,
    And My wrath upheld Me.
    6 “I trod down the peoples in My anger
    And made them drunk in My wrath,
    And I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.”

    Revelation 19 11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

    17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, “Come, assemble for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great.”

    19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.

  31. Yes, I know Oscar…but when He walked as a man in flesh……He was not of this is my point 😉

  32. Oscar says:

    Jason,

    I got your point. My point is that your statement ignores a major part of Christ’s character and position – that of avenging, conquering king and judge – and that ignoring that part of Christ’s character is a major blind spot in the Church today. So let’s not contribute to it.

  33. David J. says:

    Plus, He’s still “a man in flesh,” though it’s a glorified body.

  34. Damn Crackers says:

    “Jesus wept. So, of course you can wear your ‘Nasty Pig” t-shirt at the leather bar.”

  35. Pingback: Mad Dog Chandler on Toxic Masculinity. | Reaction Times

  36. So given their exigesis of 1 Cor 7 I’m taking it that when the Bible tells us not to kill or commit adultery it’s really suggesting that these are legitimate choices in any of the potential ways a postmodernist might see fit.

  37. Dave says:

    Adam was already a man before Eve was created. His purpose was to exercise dominion over God’s creation on earth, and he was doing just that, even before Eve existed.
    A man does not need to “serve” a woman in order to be a man.
    Chandler is an ignorant and foolish false teacher.

  38. JudyBlumeSussman says:

    “Human flourishing”? Well, the term often comes up as a translation of eudaimonia, associated with Aristotle. So it’s not immediately suspect like the term “humanism.”
    But in a Chandler sermon, everything is suspect.

  39. earl says:

    Since the mention of gay or possible gay pastors came up…I recently saw this story about how Stalin infiltrated the church seminaries with homosexuals.

    ‘Episcopal Sodomy: Communist Homosexual Infiltrators’

    https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/news-episcopal-sodomy-communist-homosexual-infiltrators

    ‘Stalin, soon after he came to power, ordered his cronies to invade Catholic seminaries … with young men that had neither faith nor morals. Now … the ideal cases: homosexual. Obviously, you don’t suppose that someone … well, it’s much more complicated, you know, to have an affair with a woman. But if you’re a homosexual, and then it was a tragic mission … . [Dodd] declared publicly — I repeat, publicly — that in the course of the 20 years of activities for the Communists, she recruited some 1,100 young men.’

  40. MKT says:

    “Whenever someone uses the phrase “human flourishing” in a sermon, I know they’ve gone soft.”

    Yep. “Flourishing” is a favorite buzzword among hipster SJW evangelicals. The ones sympathetic towards LGBTQ stuff use it all the time.

    And of course, who else but privileged, straight white males prevent other from flourishing? I ask in jest.

  41. Boxer says:

    Yep. “Flourishing” is a favorite buzzword among hipster SJW evangelicals. The ones sympathetic towards LGBTQ stuff use it all the time.

    Yeah, like St. Thomas Aquinas. Total fag, right?

    And of course, who else but privileged, straight white males prevent other from flourishing? I ask in jest.

    Stawp Poasting

  42. MKT says:

    “Yeah, like St. Thomas Aquinas. Total fag, right?”

    I imagine the circumstances and context were a bit different 8 centuries ago. Right, math prof?

  43. Frank K says:

    because they are terrified of angering the feminist Christian women who surround them.

    Feminist Christian Women. An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

  44. Jack Russell says:

    Feminists do not like the bible as it convicts them. They know deep down that this is so, which is why they think certain verses need “re-writing”. Not going to change God’s word and forbidden in the bible.. It will be easier for Hugh Hefner on Judgement Day than many of these Complentarians and Feminazis.

  45. seventiesjason says:

    Chandler was also the one who told men a year or so ago………”that men, if they do not go to bed exhausted every night somehow is failing in the home / not a real Christian man / failing God.” He alsostated in this ssame sermon that “a man should come from work and have a serving towel over his arm for his wife and children”

    I almost took a dump in my trousers when I first heard that.

    He’s saying this with his very animated gestures, and his light prancing around the stage. Thunderous applause of course from the flock……

  46. seventiesjason says:

    Men……a real protestant pastor…..Mr. Leonard Ravenhill. Thank you England.

  47. Sharkly says:

    @seventiesjason,
    Christ never said what a man “should” look like physically nor did shun some and allow others
    C’mon you know better than that. don’t make me waste the time showing you from scripture that God does care about your appearance, and he does shun many, even for eternity.
    God doesn’t want you to be tattooed, pierced, have long hair, dress like a woman, or in any other way dishonor your body, His temple. A morbidly obese glutton is not OK with Him. God also finds Homosexuals to be an abomination, and tells us to shun folks who claim to be Christians while refusing to turn from their sins. Why did you even say that?

  48. Patrick says:

    If Protestant preachers aren’t going to wear a collar and other attire reflecting the Christian calendar, they should at least put on a suit and tie and look professional

  49. Sharkly says:

    Dalrock,
    Thank you for pointing out that “2018 Matt Candler” is now calling out the already effeminate “2014 Matt Chandler” as an overly-macho false teaching misogynist in the mold of Harvey Weinstein.
    That is just too funny!

    I feel the gift of prophecy coming upon me. Wait for it… I think “2020 Matt Chandler” will soon condemn “2018 Matt Chandler as a false teacher, so if you want to save yourself the misleading, just stay away from him and his teaching.

  50. Sharkly says:

    I was just joking of course, I am not a prophet, as far as I know, but if Matt Chandler tells you his previous teaching was false, why be a fool and listen to him now? Neither version of him is preaching God’s version of manhood. Chandler’s always just forcing his new beliefs into churchianity. His church is just trying to keep up with the persuasions of the world. Sad!

  51. BillyS says:

    Jesus had short hair? And didn’t wear a robe? What were they gambling for if not a robe, which is more like a dress than pants.

  52. ray says:

    The horror. The horror.

  53. ray says:

    seventiesjason — “These churches forget the trailer park across the railroad tracks on the toxic waste dump in their own cities / regions…..those dirty people don’t need Jesus”

    Yeah I noticed that too. A lot.

    Never see these folks with the street people, the crazies, the redneck trailer-trashkins, and the Assorted Whatnot. Perhaps they’re too busy thinking up clever things to say about the Father they don’t actually know? Or composing sermons pandering to their females while dissing their brethren betters?

    If you look in the Bible (which I mayhap these experts don’t much) Zechariah reports at length concerning Joshua the final priest, and his ‘filthiness’. But, I guess he doesn’t measure-up to the standards of manhood vested in Chandler and Co.

  54. Sharkly says:

    BillyS,
    I should probably have just ignored your comment, but here is a reply.
    1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
    I’m pretty sure Paul, whom Jesus appeared to, would not have written that if Jesus had long hair. Your “hippie Jesus” images are apparently not as accurate as you think.
    Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
    Again, your crossdressing “robe, which is more like a dress ” Jesus is only a wishful figment of your demasculinized imagination. While your god may have a tampon up inside of them, mine is masculine. Sorry if I’m being too toxic for you with my talk of divine masculinity. Did I insult your favorite pastor by calling him effeminate, or something? Why do you insult my God by suggesting he would have long hair or wear clothes “like a dress”. How about You and Matt Chandler go have a good cry, about men like me, and get it all out. And then stop with the unfounded feminine blasphemies. LOL Maybe your god isn’t the only one having their time of the month.
    God’s entirely masculine, Father, Son, & Spirit, and men are created in God’s image. Deal with it!
    And pre-emptively I’ll just say God does not claim to be a mother hen either.

  55. info says:

    How did soy get a foot in the door. Answer is bridal mysticism:
    From Leon J.Podles a Catholic writer:

    A monk who renounced the world, he set in motion the Crusades, whose effects are still felt in the geopolitics of Europe and the Middle East. A celibate, he introduced into Western spirituality
    an eroticism that developed into spiritualities he would have condemned. Hence, Bernard was, at the same time, the instigator of religious war and the propagator of a spirituality that cultivated the affections,including the affection of eros, cleaving, if only in a small way, masculine and feminine spirituality. How men responded to his teaching I will discuss later. But Bernard’s use of erotic language to describe the relationship of the soul and God was very appealing to women.

    Of Juliana of Mount-Cornillon, a thirteenth-century biographer wrote, “Since the writings of blessed Bernard seemed to her so full of mighty flame and sweeter than honey and the honeycomb, she read and embraced them with very much devotion, honouring this saint with the privilege of an immense love. Her whole mind was absorbed with his teaching: she took pains to learn it by heart, and fix in her memory, once and for all, more than twenty of the sermons in the last part of his commentary on the Song, there where he seems to have outstripped all human knowledge.” 2

    The use of erotic language to describe the relation of the believer to
    God was not unprecedented, but Bernard, for reasons that will become
    clear, did not choose to acknowledge his intellectual debts. Bernard claimed
    that “if a love relationship is the special and outstanding characteristic of
    bride and groom it is not unfitting to call the soul that loves God a bride.”
    Realizing that this application needed defense, Bernard explained that
    although none of us will dare arrogate for his own soul the
    title of bride of the Lord, nevertheless we are members of the
    Church which rightly boasts of this title and of the reality that
    it signifies, and hence may justifiably assume a share in this
    honor. For what all of us simultaneously possess in full and
    perfect manner, that each single one of us undoubtedly possesses by participation. Thank you, Lord Jesus, for your kindness in uniting us to the Church you so dearly love, not merely that we
    may be endowed with the gift of faith, but that like brides we may be one with you in an embrace that is sweet, chaste, and eternal.

    Having established the principle for the use of such language, Bernard
    then elaborated. He referred to himself as [b]“a woman” [/b]5 and advised his
    monks to be “[b]mothers[/b]”—to “let your bosoms expand with milk, not swell
    with passion” 6 —to emphasize their paradoxical status and worldly weak-
    ness.

    Bridal mysticism has its patristic precedent in Origen, whose het-
    erodoxy makes him a dubious authority. Probably for this reason, Bernard neglected to acknowledge the source of his ideas in Origen. Origen’s Commentary on the Song of Songs was “the first great work of Christian mysticism.” 8 Following rabbinical tradition that saw the bride as Israel,Origen saw the Bride as “the Church” 9 or “the whole rational creation” and also (with no explanation for the extension) as the individual soul.One suspects unexamined Platonic assumptions.

    The individualism of this interpretation was contrary to the original
    image of the community as bride discussed in the previous chapter. Yet
    Origen was very influential, and the ecclesiological interpretation of the
    Song slowly gave way to the individual interpretation in which the soul
    of the Christian is the bride: “the individual soul of the mystic takes the
    place of the Church collective.”
    Origen recognized the dangers of sensuality in his interpretation: “Do
    not suffer an interpretation that has to do with the flesh and the passions
    to carry you away.”The Song of Songs for Origen is about “the soul that
    seeks nothing bodily, nothing material, but is aflame with the single love
    of the Word.” The soul as the bride of God is an allegory in Origen and
    Bernard, but the allegory cannot be extended to the individual soul precise-
    ly because it is individual. In the New Testament, the bride is the Church.
    Even worse, this allegory was taken up into the increasing humanization
    of the relationship of the Christian and Christ, and the individual Chris-
    tian person, body and soul, came to be seen as the bride of Christ. Thus,
    sensuality and spirituality joined hands.

    Female mystics took the language to heart, and developed “the sensual imagery” in the Song of Songs “much more openly than … in the official interpretation.” As Barbara Newman
    points out, “women with a talent for sublimation need not even give up their eroticism. Beginning in the twelfth centtury and increasingly thereafter, the brides of Christ were not only allowed but encouraged to engage in a rich, imaginative playing-out of their privileged relationship with
    God. Christ as a suffering, almost naked young man, was an object of the devotion of holy women.” [b]This bridal status of holy women gave them an added cachet in the male imagination. As Abelard wrote to Heloise, she began to outrank him “on the day she became the bride of his lord while he remained a mere servant.” [/b]

  56. info says:

    Find the rest of the texts here:
    http://podles.org/church-impotent.htm

  57. info says:

    Feminized Christianity:

    The Aristotelian analysis of masculinity and femininity provided medieval theologians with a philosophical explanation for the relative greater resistance men showed to Christianity, as well as a basis for the clerical cautions against women taking on masculine roles: If a woman were to become masculine, she would lose her emptiness and her openness to the Spirit.” This Aristotelianism continues as the received,“traditional” explanation of the roles of men and women in Christianity.

    Karl Barth, accepting the Aristotelian formulation of masculinity as
    initiative and femininity as reception, stated: “As a living member of the
    church, man and all other superiors and subordinates in the community
    have no other option but to follow the example of women, occupying
    in relation to Jesus Christ the precise position which she must occupy
    and maintain in relation to man.”

    Of Mary, George T. Montague says, “she is response and instrument.”PeterToon writes[b] “it is femininity rather than masculinity which symbolizes the right attitude of the whole person before God” [b]because God wants from both men and women “a feminine response—that of humble reception of his initiative of grace and ready and willing submission to his gracious and
    perfect will.” Femininity is obedience, and active, assertive masculinity is
    an obstacle to grace. This notion has been such a commonplace that few
    questioned it before modern feminism.

    Mary’s obedience to Christ, not Christ’s obedience to the Father (from which Mary’s obedience draws its whole meaning), takes on a new prominence as a model for Christians. The early Dominicans attempted to preserve the peace of the community by softening rough masculine aggressiveness. The common good was founded “most of all on the monks’ attempts to model their own orientation to the masculine Christ according to Mary’s example of yielding, willing acquiescence.”

    St. Catherine of Siena heavily influenced the medieval Dominican Giovanni Dominici. He was characterized by “a lifelong identification with women’s viewpoints: he was exceptionally close to his mother and most of his recorded spiritual counsel was written for nuns or laywomen.”

    St. Dominic’s warnings had not been heeded, and we see a man dissatisfied with his own masculinity, who wants to become, in a spiritual sense, a woman.Masculinity in this view is an obstacle to union with God. The logical consequence is that Christian men must renounce their masculinity.

  58. Pingback: Men and the effete pastorate. – Dark Brightness

  59. Dave says:

    Feminist Christian Women. An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

    It’s easier to find a holy devil, or an airconditioned compartment in hell.

  60. pariah says:

    Jason, Leonard Ravenhill was a great preacher. If only more preachers were like him.

  61. Magneto2975 says:

    That’s funny. The “dude” in the video is an effeminate man trying to explain masculinity, and failing at it badly. Isn’t he embarrassed to have posted that?

  62. AnonS says:

    “Never see these folks with the street people, the crazies, the redneck trailer-trashkins, and the Assorted Whatnot.”

    That is because street people are degenerates that refuse to repent and submit. They are serfs with no master. All civilizations have had either slaves, an untouchable caste, or serfs. There are people that display they can’t manage their own lives, and they are too dangerous to have around children.

  63. BillyS says:

    How long is long Sharkly?

    Long is a relative term, not necessarily a fixed one. I am going to focus on other things. Nice use of insults. I said nothing about a tampon and you know where you can stick it yourself. Only one place if you are a man, though I suppose you could try a couple of other locations.

    My God is far more masculine than yours. He is not worried about men’s current views on fashion.

    You did not make your case Biblically, so you had to resort to ad-homenim attacks. Really sharp of you!

  64. BillyS says:

    And Sharkly, your hair is almost certainly longer than mine, since I shave it every day. I guess you are the abomination….

  65. OKRickety says:

    seventiesjason said: “Men……a real protestant pastor…..Mr. Leonard Ravenhill. Thank you England.”

    While knowing nothing of Ravenhill’s sermons, it reminds me that I strongly question the greatness  of the English preachers of the 19th and 20th centuries. The supposed spiritual revival of those days seem highly questionable when you find statements like this: “England has the lowest percentage of the population attending church in 2015 (4.7%)”. I wonder if those revivals were actually only entertainment spectacles popular with the public, without any significant truly spiritual impact. In other words, much like many of today’s popular churches.

  66. AnonS says:

    “I wonder if those revivals were actually only entertainment spectacles popular with the public, without any significant truly spiritual impact. In other words, much like many of today’s popular churches.”

    Was thinking the same, couldn’t finish the Ravenhill video without eye rolling all the emotionalism. “All of these great lowly men are speaking directly from God, but never expect them to talk beyond what they know and challenge the status quo too much.” Emotions only take you so far; the same emotions will overtime prevent them from ever confronting sins. Emotional high = godly has been an evangelical standard for a long time.

  67. BillyS says:

    Each generation needs its own revival. A people falls astray without a continual dedication to God and His ways.

    They changed things for a while, but people went back to their old ways and that led to the expected results.

  68. earl says:

    There was no better example of this than the Israelites.

    It seemed like it wasn’t no more than 5 minutes after they were freed from Egyptian slavery by God that they started complaining.

  69. BillyS says:

    And look at how they didn’t circumcise anyone in the wilderness. That amazes me. They lost that even though Moses had taught them that requirement (from God) and was still with them.

    They also only celebrated the Passover rarely, according to other places. I can’t find a single time they really had a Year of Jubilee, even though it is also part of The Law.

    That amazes me. Thus I am not surprised when even Christians struggle with things today.

  70. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @seventiesjason
    “Men……a real protestant pastor…..Mr. Leonard Ravenhill. Thank you England.”

    Is it possible that he may have been a red pill man as well? I saw some quotes from him a while back and couldn’t help but notice that they were the kind of things that today you would probably only hear said on an online MGTOW forum:

    “Would we send our daughters off to have sex if it would benefit our country? Yet, we send our sons off to kill when we think it would benefit our country!”

    “Some women will spend thirty minutes to an hour preparing for church externally (putting on special clothes and makeup, etc.). What would happen if we all spent the same amount of time preparing internally for church – with prayer and meditation?”

    “The Church right now has more fashion than passion, is more pathetic than prophetic, is more superficial than supernatural.”

  71. MKT says:

    “While knowing nothing of Ravenhill’s sermons, it reminds me that I strongly question the greatness of the English preachers of the 19th and 20th centuries. The supposed spiritual revival of those days seem highly questionable”

    I only know of Ravehill’s name, so I won’t comment on him. But I agree with what you’re saying The U.S. had a similar revivalist era. One thing that changed was the hymns. They went from God-centered hymns men could comfortably sing (like “Holy, Holy, Holy” and “Immortal Invisible”) to softer, feminized songs about personal journeys, walking and talking with God in gardens, etc. And now most churches (even some quite good ones) sing almost exclusively emotional, 3-chord “Jesus is My Boyfriend” stuff that makes my stomach churn. I think you can trace much of that back to revivalism.

  72. Stryker7200 says:

    Dalrock – if you are interested in getting to know Matt a little more check out his series called Mingling of Souls on RightNow media.

    We recently went through it in my adult bible class. My wife and I ended up laughing after a lot of the videos each week on the way home from church.

    In this series Matt covers Song of Solomon. Among other things Matt goes into detail about the following things:

    1). Don’t grope your wife. You have to be invited for any physical interaction. Lol

    2). Matt AMOGs a lot

    3). Matt runs a young man out of his church for not being a Christian but wanting to marry a Christian woman for her values and morals. Major white knighting here.

    4). Constantly talks about negative attributes men have and the only thing ever wrong with women is their lack of self-respect. I was almost questioning if Matt believes that women have moral agency.

    5). Teaches than men should by completely physically exhausted every night before bed or they are not serving their wives appropriately.

    6). Teaches that it is expected for a wife to overwhelmed by the daily mundane tasks of raising children and taking care of a household. The husband should come home from work and finish his wife’s work in caring for the kids and house every day. I felt like asking him if he thinks a proverbs 31 wife exist anywhere in the world, because if so their should be some husbands that don’t have to do this.

    There are many more points I could touch on but it really gave me a clear view of Chandler and his ilk. The bad part is that Matt teaches some good stuff too, it is just SUPER blue pilled and like you are pointing out, complementarian drivel when it comes to anything marriage or relationship related.

    Also, there is a Q&A with Matt’s wife. Very humorous. She is asked by a single woman what she can do to find a husband without being a pursuer. Matt’s wife talks for 5 minutes basically saying nothing and finally concluding woman just need to focus on being a Christian and be themselves. Total BS advice in regards to the question asked. It is plain both Chandlers fear women over the Lord.

  73. OKRickety says:

    BillyS,

    “Each generation needs its own revival. A people falls astray without a continual dedication to God and His ways.”

    The individual, with the assistance of church and family, should be continually dedicating themselves to God and His ways, thus negating the need for revival. However, that does not seem to happen, and thus revival seems to be necessary.

  74. ray says:

    seventiesjason — “I ramble…….the best and finest example of a man was and is Christ. As I recall, he wasn’t a warrior king on a horse or a chariot.”

    He isn’t just the greatest warrior-king. He is the only warrior-king. David is courageous and wonderful, and so is Joshua, but neither is the King.

    He stuck mostly to spiritual warfare last time, because He wanted to show the world His astonishing love, and that He is always the Lamb. But He is far more than meekness and humility before Father.

    This time, He is coming in wrath and war, and so are His friends. All of them. The advance forces already are here.

  75. rugby11 says:

    Found this interesting

  76. Hmm says:

    On older hymns that make me cringe: “In the Garden” by Charles Martin from 1912 is right at the top of my list:

    I come to the garden alone
    While the dew is still on the roses
    And the voice I hear falling on my ear
    The Son of God discloses.

    Refrain:
    And He walks with me, and He talks with me,
    And He tells me I am His own;
    And the joy we share as we tarry there,
    None other has ever known.

    He speaks, and the sound of His voice,
    Is so sweet the birds hush their singing,
    And the melody that He gave to me
    Within my heart is ringing.

    Refrain

    I’d stay in the garden with Him
    Though the night around me be falling,
    But He bids me go; through the voice of woe
    His voice to me is calling.

    Refrain
    _____
    Jesus was truly the author’s boyfriend. And note the pious lie: “the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known”. Yeah, right. Like no two people have ever felt the same way in Jesus’ presence.

    And of course, you want to make it an all-nighter, but sad Jesus tells you to go…

  77. ray says:

    AnonS — “Never see these folks with the street people, the crazies, the redneck trailer-trashkins, and the Assorted Whatnot.”

    “That is because street people are degenerates that refuse to repent and submit.”

    We are all degenerates that need to repent and submit. Well, I mean everybody except you of course, AnonS!

    I’m been homeless, and both a ‘street’ and ‘wilderness’ person many times.

    You might want to read the Sermon on the Mount again, there, o holy one. Or, read it for the first time.

  78. Damn Crackers says:

    The OT prophets would be considered the biggest anti-semites today, rivaling the Nazis, considering what they said about their wayward brethren.

  79. MKT says:

    Hmmm, that’s what I’m talking about. And most praise songs now are much worse. And people wonder why men aren’t more willing to participate and lead in most churches today. Imagine if a guy said “The first thing I’m going to do is get rid of this girlie garbage we call music and replace it with something much better.”

  80. feeriker says:

    Never see these folks with the street people, the crazies, the redneck trailer-trashkins, and the Assorted Whatnot. Perhaps they’re too busy thinking up clever things to say about the Father they don’t actually know? Or composing sermons pandering to their females while dissing their brethren betters?

    Make American street people and redneck trailer trash as exotic as the diffferent-skins on other continents who give “Christian” women the ‘gina tingles, and such people and their environs will be FLOODED with “missionaries” in no time at all. /SARC

  81. Damn Crackers says:

    @Hmmm – It gets a lot worse:

  82. nothanks says:

    And these fags wonder why no men want to go to church.

  83. (((GiantTree))) says:

    Why are American Christian pastors like this? By comparison the leaders of other faiths are very masculine and aware they are what give the men the strength to protect and preserve their nations. Rabbi Blessing Soldiers Before Battle

    Russian Soldiers Receive Communion

    Buddhist Monk Ashin Wirathu Puts Feminist in Her Place

  84. Dalrock says:

    @OKRickety

    Chandler does confirm the difference between the sermons on Mother’s Day and Father’s Day at 23:30 in the video.

    I saw the Father’s Day reference in the text but hadn’t decided what to make of it. Your referencing the time in the video was helpful, but I still am not sure what his real message is there. When I read the text you quoted my first take was that this was in line with the overall woke theme of the sermon; that shaming on Father’s Day creates toxic masculinity. But then as he continues he seems to be saying that men deserve to be shamed on Father’s Day:

    Sometimes in the Bible… Like, moms, have you ever exasperated your children to anger? Any mom
    go, “No, no, no. I have exasperated…” Why didn’t the Bible tell you guys not to exasperate your kids?
    It’s on us. It’s “Fathers, don’t do this.” He creates distinction, and it’s not something that is unequal
    or unjust; it’s God’s good design.

    After watching the video of that segment a few times, I’m still not sure. Which way do you read it?

  85. ys says:

    Have yet to read the typically helpful wall of comments, but seriously, Mad Dog Matthew…how can he be so dishonest with himself? He is a liar, and so are those like him.
    I am about a decade younger than Chandler, but my whole life spent in vague, Midwestern, American Evangelicalism has been: “Real men cry, anti-machismo, get in touch with your feelings men.” For him to act like this is a new revolutionary thought from him is not only dishonest, but he must think his audience is really, really stupid and has poor memories.

  86. Gunner Q says:

    (((GiantTree))) @ 1:01 pm:
    “Why are American Christian pastors like this? By comparison the leaders of other faiths are very masculine and aware they are what give the men the strength to protect and preserve their nations.”

    The Russian priest is serving God. The Rabbi is serving his nation. Don’t confuse the two contexts. I assure you, there is no shortage of “support the troops” fervor in these cucked-up American pastors.

    Never use Christianity as a means to an end. Either Christ is the end of Christianity or you’re committing the exact same mistake as these clergy you denounce.

  87. Opus says:

    I have a recording of In the Garden rendered most excellently by a certain E. Presley of Tennessee. I am no expert on hymns but if I am correct it was the non-conformists at the beginning of the Nineteenth century who started hymn writing whilst the Anglicans were still using Psalmody. Eventually the Anglicans realised they were missing a trick and thus the great age of hymn writing was the latter part of the Nineteenth century and hymn writing was an easy source of valuable income for composers – my teacher detested Sullivan’s Onward Xtian Soldiers because Sullivan uses the bass of the first phrase as the melody of the second phrase and vice versa – though I always think that shows Sir Arthur’s contrapuntal adeptness. When I was in the united States I heard a lot of Xtian Rock and always felt that it sounded like Elton John on a rather uninspired day.

  88. Opus says:

    The devil tends to have all the best tunes.

  89. MKT says:

    “thus the great age of hymn writing was the latter part of the Nineteenth century and hymn writing was an easy source of valuable income for composers ”

    It may have been “great” for composers’ wallets, but it was terrible for the church. Somewhere in the mid-1800s, hymnody took a really bad turn (with a few exceptions).
    https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/american-revivalist-hymnody/

  90. feeriker says:

    For [Chandler] to act like this is a new revolutionary thought from him is not only dishonest, but he must think his audience is really, really stupid and has poor memories.

    He’s right, if that’s what he truly thinks of his congregation. Anyone who has ever spent any time at all in an American evangelical church, especially in the Mid-West or the South, knows that there is no greater collection of acerebral people anywhere else on the planet. The only reason why Matt hasn’t completely fleeced the rubes who sit and gobble up his drivel every Sunday is because he lacks either sufficient imagination or a sufficiently sociopathic mindset to be a completely amoral douchebag.

  91. AnonS says:

    @ray
    “I’m been homeless, and both a ‘street’ and ‘wilderness’ person many times.

    You might want to read the Sermon on the Mount again, there, o holy one. Or, read it for the first time.”

    It isn’t where someone lives, it is their ability to live an orderly life and problem solve or if they are too traumatized and dysfunctional. There are smart people living in cars and tiny cabins, the question is are they able to delay gratification for the future or not? Do they have children out of wedlock, are they on drugs, are they able to save money, do the women have borderline personality disorder, how much crime, do they create a low trust or high trust environment?

    Cancer needs surgeons and dysfunction needs more intervention then a Church service could provide.

    Blessed are the poor in spirit
    -Addicts and toxic people are not poor in spirit
    Blessed are those who mourn,
    -Addicts and toxic people only mourn their own losses
    Blessed are the meek,
    -Addicts and toxic people are prideful
    Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
    -Addicts and toxic people do not hunger and thirst for righteousness.
    Blessed are the merciful,
    -Addicts and toxic people are not merciful.
    Blessed are the pure in heart,
    -Addicts and toxic people are not pure in heart, they commit more crime.
    Blessed are the peacemakers,
    -Addicts and toxic people cause strife with welfare.
    Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
    -Addicts and toxic people want forced access to functional people
    “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.”
    -Functional people becoming dysfunctional tears down society.

  92. Opus says:

    I would also like to mention that I always enjoyed sitting down on a Sunday evening to watch the BBC’s Hymn’s of Praise but largely because it was all lost on my girlfriend who was Spanish and she said that all English Hymns sounded exactly the same – which is precisely what my Mother said about Bagpipes. Spanish Hymns sound to me profoundly indecent with their dance rhythms. What would my Gf have made of a Lutheran Chorale?

  93. AnonS says:

    “For [Chandler] to act like this is a new revolutionary thought from him is not only dishonest, but he must think his audience is really, really stupid and has poor memories.”

    It isn’t limited to the Mid-West or South. Ask any random girl an hour after a sermon what the sermon actual taught and all you will get is that “they really got a lot out of it” and it was “impactful” or you’ll find that the lesson every single week is to “trust Jesus for my life more”.

  94. Boxer says:

    Buddhist Monk Ashin Wirathu Puts Feminist in Her Place

    I could make a case for open borders after watching that man speak the truth.

  95. Boxer says:

    And these fags wonder why no men want to go to church.

    There are still good Christian congregations. One just has to shop around. The old boy who says mass for me is a very solid guy. After three years I’ve come to know what I can expect from him, and it’s the brutal truth, told adamantly, but with compassion.

    If you live in a small town or an overly feminist area, then you have no excuse not to get together with other solid people, and study the texts on your own.

  96. Lost Patrol says:

    “This means that the definition of the timeless essence of manhood must yet again be changed.”

    I tried to find some background for Pastor Chandler that would make him seem credible to me as an agent for changing the essence of manhood (again). I thought one would want a wide base of experience living like the men that need to be defined, or redefined; before publicly lecturing on the topic. I was looking for some time as a roughneck, deckhand, roustabout on a roofing or brush clearing crew, even as a summer job. Perhaps a salesman, or an intern with a development team, feeling the commensurate pressures for numbers and speed. Maybe a short order cook or a stint working the car wash. Something that we the masses could use to relate with the pastor man to man.

    Here’s what I found but maybe I missed something. He played high school football. He worked as a janitor at a Christian school before being hired to his first pastoral job at the age of 18. Since then apparently, he has come up through the ranks as a clergyman. Also, he’s quite tall.

    This is not much common ground with the men he’s preaching to. Why are they soaking this up? He is telling men to respect, revere, serve, and pedestalize women; and he’s telling it to the very men that would never think of doing anything else. He’s telling the least offensive men in society to be less offensive in their masculinity. He’s kicking an obedient dog instead of praising it. Weird stuff.

  97. ray says:

    AnonS —

    I’m sure the King appreciates your line-on-line ‘interpretation’ of His words. Heck, with you around we really didn’t need Him, eh?

    All them other Lowlife Degenerates polluting the world . . . but fear not! one man amongst them all sails far, far above The Rabble: that man is AnonS!!

  98. OKRickety says:

    Dalrock,

    “… my first take was that this was in line with the overall woke theme of the sermon; that shaming on Father’s Day creates toxic masculinity. But then as he continues he seems to be saying that men deserve to be shamed on Father’s Day:
    […]

    After watching the video of that segment a few times, I’m still not sure. Which way do you read it?”

    I kind of think both are true, but the emphasis seems to be on shaming men. I just put a related comment on your next post here.

  99. dpmonahan says:

    A year ago I would have laughed this off as paranoia. After “Uncle Ted” I’m not so sure.

  100. “From Sharkly: “C’mon you know better than that. don’t make me waste the time showing you from scripture that God does care about your appearance, and he does shun many, even for eternity.
    God doesn’t want you to be tattooed, pierced, have long hair, dress like a woman, or in any other way dishonor your body, His temple. A morbidly obese glutton is not OK with Him. God also finds Homosexuals to be an abomination, and tells us to shun folks who claim to be Christians while refusing to turn from their sins. Why did you even say that?”

    He doesn’t care if you are disabled. He doesn’t care if you are 6’5″ or 4’4″. He doesn’t care if you wear a collar and tie to work or if you have a script-patch name-tag at your job. He doesn’t care if you are some muscle-bound outdoor laborer or if you work in a department store. He doesn’t care if your hair is long, or short, or if you are balding. He doesn’t care if your eyes are blue, brown or if you are physically blind. He doesn’t care if you have a dad bod or if you are skinny skater-rat with a 29″ waist. He doesn’t care if your voice might be a step too high or made of sandpaper and glue. He doesn’t care if you are married or not. He doesn’t care if you are a natural leader or someone who isn’t.

    That is what I meant Sharkly. Sorry I didn’t clairify

  101. Chandler’s my height. Taller guys like myself sometimes and not intentionally I might add….have used their height to intimidate people. I have been accused of that (at IBM)

    He’s my build as well. He’s a few years younger than me…three or four I think

    He met his wife I think when he was working at a church camp, and was was quite a bit younger than him………when you’re 22, and the girl is 16 or thereabouts or around that give or take a year….that is world of difference. Did they wait? Were they holy? I have no idea. I’ll assume they did.

    Not my style of preaching…the usual run of the mill middle line non-denominational churchianity that has way more women than men

  102. earl says:

    A year ago I would have laughed this off as paranoia. After “Uncle Ted” I’m not so sure.

    I would have too…then again a lot of these corrupt clergy seem to be in the bigger cities. I lived in one for a while where the Archbishop resigned in part because he had a secret gay lover. But I have mostly lived my life in the cornfields and to this point I’m not sure if it as widespread there.

    Ted’s the tip of the iceberg in the US anyway…there’s something called #CatholicMeToo that’s starting to come to the forefront. Seems a lot of perv priests and bishops had a good network to get away with their filth and nobody believed the victims.

  103. stickdude90 says:

    Taller guys like myself sometimes and not intentionally I might add….have used their height to intimidate people. I have been accused of that (at IBM)

    Admit it. It’s fun standing right behind a really short person and startling them when they turn around and see your chest. 🙂

    Or is that just me?

  104. earl says:

    It makes me wonder how much the homo communinsts played a part in ‘the Spirit of Vatican II’. From the looks of it…a lot.

    If you read the document none of the stuff they’re implimenting was ever in the document. A lot of ‘the spirit of Vatican II’ if you look at it has more of a Marxist feel to it.

  105. earl says:

    And of note this is different from the child molestation cases…this was stuff done to adult college students and seminarians.

  106. seventiesjason says:

    Earl…..gonna defend the Catholic tradition on some of these allegations. I remember in the 1980’s suddenly you started to hear about all these terrible things priests did 20, 30, 50 years prior to little boys / children. Huge lawsuits. Suddnely payouts. Lawsuits. And “settling out of court” which is not suppose to mean guilt….but it was assumed at that. I was not a follower of Catholicism or even a Christian…but somewhere in the 1990’s Pope John Paul made some statement to the likes of “there have been travesties and things done by leaders in our faith” forgive me for knowing verbatim his words or that statement exactly….

    Then it just quieted down for a spell.

    Suddenly it was just culturally assumed that if a man is a priest in the Catholic faith “he’s a molester”

    Were some of these folks tellin’ the truth? Sure. Many probably were. Does it equate millions upon millions of dollars of a payout?? No. The Cathoilc church until the 1970’s was one of the “richest organizations on the planet” and it still has a treasury. A treasury that vampires, lawyers, metooer’s, looters with the muscle of law, and anyone who can show tears about the horrid abuse they had and get a payout.

    Okay….should justice be served? Yes. Should these priests be defrocked? Jailtime. Yes. Can it be proved??????? Okay, in some cases…yes it can. Many it was not. It was an allegation. Church settles out of court…….Now my second point…..will all that money make the past abuse go away, or the psychological damage from it? What is abuse “worth”? What if it was a family member who committed the abuse and he’s dirt poor living in a trailer park? If it was that case…would these people speak out? Probably not. Now, it could be argued the church has a “special responsibility” well, so does every other person. SO onme judge orders one case of 5 million. Another judge gives a similar case another part of the USA only 1 million. Was the 5 million dollar abuse worse than the one million? Also…..some of the folks who did get a payout 30 years ago are now broke, and they are coming back “wanting” more. Are these people who forgiving, or ever moving on?

    I wish I had a good answer. I don’t. Some of this to me anyway is “oh, someone is getting a payout, well so am I”

  107. seventiesjason says:

    stickdude……once I did straight stand down a shorter than average guy. I was even a little surprised how quickly he backed down. It was in a business meeting at IBM, he was talking about deadlines and the like and changed mine.He stood up, walked over to my chair and was yelling at me. I properly protested. He told me to ‘take it like a man’ and that ‘i always deliver, and this wasn’t a big deal’

    I then stood up, got close and looked down at him. Way down. I was a full foot and half taller than him

    Suddenly he “didn’t mean it like that” and I had my original deadline reinstated. He was a jerk, even if he was my height. He still would have been a jerk.

  108. Sharkly says:

    seventiesjason,
    That is what I meant Sharkly. Sorry I didn’t clairify
    Thanks, I agree mostly, but from your list, I still believe the Bible specifically says that God does care about the length of our hair, and whether or not we are married, and I can provide verses about those things if need be. God cares about more than you think. He is not like the detached concept of the deists. My God knows how many hairs are growing on my shaved head, because he cares to know, obviously more so than even I care to know. Obviously we should care more about our character, beliefs, rectitude, obedience, and our prerequisites for forgiveness, which we can chose, and is used to determine our eternal destiny, than we should care about aspects of our own creation, over which God presided, but we had little or no control. We just should not ignore things that God has made specific mention of in His book to us. If God says that a man should not have long hair, I believe it. If God says that he treats virgins differently from their married counterparts, and expects different things from them, I believe Him. I won’t be disregarding the Bible just because you say that God doesn’t care if I’m married or not. It makes a difference to God, He has revealed that to us in His word, and so I will try to act accordingly regardless of you claiming He doesn’t care. I may seem to be splitting hairs, but you might try to be more explicit in what you write, since those who don’t know the Bible might be take what you say literally.

  109. seventiesjason says:

    He has instructions for people who are married, and ones who are not Sharkly. But he does not say one must be married or “thou will be shut out from the Kingdom”

    He does not say you must cut your hair every two weeks (which I do) and men in that time did have longer hair…not like a hippie per say…..but hair was longer. Barbering was considered a luxury, and was expensive for its time (the tools to cut hair…..cutting hair with a flint knife wasn’t going to do it, and even a copper blade, honing in fashion for cutting hair was just expensive for its time).

    The ancient Egyptians did use bronze to shave, and as a culture and people…they hated body hair…it’s where the infamous arab shave was started…..a barber would pluck every hair off your face, oils, breaks for tea…but one would not need to shave for a bit. Some of it was the heat in that region as well.

  110. info says:

    @MKT
    ”I think you can trace much of that back to revivalism.”
    Bridal mysticism as my comments above proves it goes back to the 12th century. same time cuckchivalry emerges.

  111. info says:

    @MKT
    ”Imagine if a guy said “The first thing I’m going to do is get rid of this girlie garbage we call music and replace it with something much better.”

  112. Pingback: See Christians fight toxic masculinity - Fabius Maximus website

  113. DerMaiden says:

    Dalrock,
    I read this article from fabiusmaximus and I was curious about these Complementarians. When did their doctrine first come into being and what is their stance regarding creationism and or evolutionism?

  114. OKRickety says:

    DerMaiden,

    I don’t know the answers to your questions. Perhaps they can be found here: Articles in category Complementarian.

    One group significantly involved is the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. They have a website that might provide answers to your questions.

  115. PokeSalad says:

    Waaay past time to retire the silly “Mad Dog” moniker for Chandler and come up with something much more accurate. Lap Dog? Poodle? Teacup Poodle? Kittycat?

  116. PokeSalad says:

    The devil tends to have all the best tunes.

    Reminds me of a story about Lenny Kilmister, the deceased frontman for Motorhead….when asked one time why he wore bits and pieces of German and Confederate army uniform badges/trinkets on his outfits, he said, “Evil armies always have the best-looking uniforms.”

  117. Dalrock says:

    Welcome DerMaiden,

    You might start with the CBMW’s own description of their founding: https://cbmw.org/uncategorized/the-danvers-statement/

    This post and the article it links to might also be of interest: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/surely-they-will-be-reasonable-once-they-see-how-reasonable-we-are/

    And this one: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/supplicating-to-rebellion/

  118. PokeSalad says:

    oops, should be “Lemmy,” my bad

  119. earl says:

    “Evil armies always have the best-looking uniforms.”

    Perhaps on Earth…in the spiritual battlefield it’s the opposite.

  120. DrTorch says:

    AnonS wrote Blessed are the poor in spirit
    -Addicts and toxic people are not poor in spirit
    Blessed are those who mourn,
    -Addicts and toxic people only mourn their own losses
    etc.

    Good points. The idolatry of evangelism has clouded people’s eyes so they can’t discern the difference between the sin and living conditions. There are some who laud poverty just b/c it’s poverty (not b/c those people are meek, humble or serving), the sort of criticism Theresa of Calcutta received.

  121. Anonymous Reader says:

    PokeSalad
    Waaay past time to retire the silly “Mad Dog” moniker for Chandler

    On the contrary. The obvious absurdity makes it the perfect nickname.
    “Agree and amplify” works in multiple situations.

  122. AnonS says:

    “Toxic Masculinity Dog”

  123. ray says:

    earl —

    Quite a graphic. Who is the girl with the sword?

  124. feeriker says:

    Waaay past time to retire the silly “Mad Dog” moniker for Chandler and come up with something much more accurate. Lap Dog? Poodle? Teacup Poodle? Kittycat?

    “The Contentious Castrato?” “The Mouthy Metrosexual?” “The Troublesome Transsexual?” “The Cantankerous Cuckservative?”

  125. ray says:

    ‘Doormatt Chandler’?

  126. earl says:

    The archangel Michael.

  127. ray says:

    earl —

    That is just silly.

  128. Pingback: Modesty standards are sinful. | Dalrock

  129. illuvitus says:

    If I’m rightly understanding Chandler and company, the only differences between men and women are superficial and arbitrary things God has declared for no reason in particular.

    That makes God into a sort of petty despot instead of a Perfect Creator. The theological implications of living on the margins of feminism instead of the center of Christian orthodoxy may be even more important than all of the harm these guys are doing to marriages, manliness, and femininity.

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.