If Christianity isn’t feminism and courtly love, what is it?

New commenter Tim asks:

I’ve come to really enjoy your writing since I first found it about six months ago. I appreciate how you’ve expanded my thinking on many issues.

However, although I’ve read many of your archived articles, I struggle to understand your actual positions on issues.

Because you’re so skilled with pointing out the various errors you see in modern Christian perspectives (such as the errors with complementarianism, courtly love, etc.) I think I understand your alternatives, but I’m never quite sure.

In short, you frequently oppose a position but I can rarely figure out what your actual position is. I’m interested in the positive principles and positions that you teach your children.

Will you please consider writing a series of positive articles, stating as clearly as you’re able what you actually believe and why? This would be very helpful for me as I consider your work.

I very much appreciate Tim’s kind words, and if he has a specific topic he wants me to provide more detail on I’ll do my best either via a comment, a reference to an existing post, or by writing a new post.

However, I think the question itself is telling.  If I’m reading Tim correctly, he agrees that modern Christians have unwittingly adopted courtly love in place of Christianity, and he agrees that courtly love is a perverse mockery of Christianity.  But (again, if I understand correctly) he struggles to imagine what Christianity would look like if we removed the adulterant.

While I think I get where he is coming from, the very fact that it is hard to imagine Christianity without courtly love (not to mention feminism) is the fundamental problem.  Imagine a time in the not too distant future where Christians have adopted homosexuality as if it were Christianity.  A blogger who regularly pointed this out might receive a similar question:

I’ve been reading your blog for some time, and have begun to see what you are getting at.  After reading here I can now see what a bad idea our monthly bathhouse night was, and that the unfortunate incidents we experienced there weren’t random as I had once believed.  I’ve even begun to accept that our church’s weekly beefcake review is likewise ill conceived.  I’m still grappling with whether or not we should continue our customary fruity dance during the offertory, although as some have pointed out you might be overly sensitive on this particular item.

But I struggle with your focus on what we should stop doing, and am looking for specific advice beyond things like “cancel the men’s naked hot-tub event” and “stop having gay sex”.   What would we be as Christians without homosexuality?  What could possibly be left once we rule all of these gay things out?  We need positive direction, not just warnings to stop being gay.

This hopefully seems absurd, because today at least Christianity doesn’t face the same widespread corruption regarding homosexuality that we do with feminism and courtly love.  The question is absurd because we don’t (yet) struggle to imagine Christianity without homosexuality.  However, this isn’t the case when it comes to Christianity and courtly love (or feminism).  The corruption is so endemic that we struggle to recall what was corrupted in the first place.

This isn’t a simple question to answer because the Bible and/or the church (if Orthodox or RCC) doesn’t always offer specific scripts we should follow on (for one example) how Christians should court for marriage.  We know that fornication is prohibited, and that if a person burns with passion they should marry and not deny each other sex.  Likewise the Bible tells us to honor our father and our mother, so adopting a secular holiday set aside to honor fathers and using that time to disparage fathers is a problem, but this doesn’t tell us exactly how we should go about honoring fathers.

Other times the Bible is quite clear on what we should do (for example headship and submission), but because of the corruption we are repulsed by what it clearly tells us we should do.  Either way, the crucial first step is to recognize the corruption both in general and in specific, and root out the specific false teachings we have unknowingly adopted.  As we do this, the specific expressions of non cucked Christianity will vary, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bother working to root out the corruption in the first place.

Once you identify the corruption, follow this detailed plan:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Courtly Love, Feminists, Men's Sphere Humor. Bookmark the permalink.

154 Responses to If Christianity isn’t feminism and courtly love, what is it?

  1. Pingback: If Christianity isn’t feminism and courtly love, what is it? | @the_arv

  2. earl says:

    I’d have a hard time giving an alternative too…what’s the opposite of feminism and trying to win the woman’s heart in courtly love? Following God’s will?

  3. Oscar says:

    We know that fornication is prohibited, and that if a person burns with passion they should marry and not deny each other sex.

    There’s less agreement on those points among professing Christian men here than one would expect.

  4. BaboonTycoon says:

    It’s really not so hard to see what it could be like. It’s all there in the Bible. The problem, of course, is realigning modern Christianity with those Biblical concepts. Even if every Christian in the entire world wanted a return to a more faithful interpretation and practice of scripture, we would surely be struck down by the managerial state and its “civil rights laws” and “victim advocacy groups” and so on. It’s astounding how even fundamentalist Saudi Arabian Muslims are subject to the egalitarian leviathan.

    I’m currently going through this
    https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2018/09/10/excerpts-and-discussion-of-rod-drehers-the-benedict-option/
    terribly long essay discussing Rod Dreher’s book and its proposed solutions to this problem. The outlook is grim indeed, but we have to look at the scope of the problem before we can address it. I wish it was as easy as simply blogging and having a lot of kids, but we’ve got much more of an uphill battle than that.

  5. 7817 says:

    Detailed plan “Stop it!” looks a lot like repentance.

    [D: Indeed!]

  6. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    We know that fornication is prohibited, and that if a person burns with passion they should marry and not deny each other sex.

    There’s less agreement on those points among professing Christian men here than one would expect.

    Agreed. Although I don’t think the real issue is really regarding understanding what the command is, but with accepting the implication of the command. Per Matt 19:12 “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

  7. stickdude90 says:

    Although I don’t think the real issue is really regarding understanding what the command is, but with accepting the implication of the command.

    I can’t help but wonder how many people became atheists because God wouldn’t let them have sex with their girlfriends.

    I want to have sex with my girlfriend. God says I can’t. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

  8. earl says:

    ‘I want to have sex with my girlfriend. God says I can’t. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.’

    I wonder how many men found out what a bad trade that is.

  9. Clearly you’ve never been to 20’s-30’s church singles groups if you think people go atheist over that.

  10. shmohawk1 says:

    These answers are weak. The man asked an honest question, and not only is nobody making an effort to answer, the guy is getting mocked for even asking. Yes, it’s true that the fact he has to ask is telling … and yet just saying that “the fact that you have to ask is telling” does not answer the question.

    To Tim: IMO, Laura Doyle’s books do a good job of giving hands-on, practical descriptions/examples of what submission looks like from a woman’s POV. e.g. she talks about finances as something wives should surrender control over, even gets into nuts-and-bolts details like the difference between saying things like “we’ll do whatever you think is best” (an affirmation of trust, support and submission), vs. “we’ll do whatever you want” (which comes off as passive-aggressive). Of course, she’s not a Christian, so you may not find everything 100% spot-on, but I think it’s a good start to what you’re looking for.

  11. In all seriousness, my parents had a similar view. So did i until i went to college and church youth groups. (kennesaw state and churches around cobb county, like church of apostles.) it’s like how pastors dont feel guilty preaching you must tithe because the israelis tithed to the levis–most or at least a lot of people don’t feel too bad over the fact church group is wednesday night is 8pm and then they go wherever with gf at 10pm. They definitely are not becoming autistic and going atheist over it.

  12. Robert What? says:

    Anyone who includes a Bob Newhart clip in an article, in context no less, is ok in my book.

  13. Scott says:

    This is why I always feel like I need to fill my sessions up with idle talk for the last 50 minutes

  14. Dalrock says:

    @shmohawk1

    These answers are weak. The man asked an honest question, and not only is nobody making an effort to answer, the guy is getting mocked for even asking. Yes, it’s true that the fact he has to ask is telling … and yet just saying that “the fact that you have to ask is telling” does not answer the question.

    If he has a specific question as I wrote I’ll do what I can to answer it. But I’m not going to try to answer all possible questions, or guess at one only to have him come back and say that wasn’t it.

  15. What’s the opposite of feminism and trying to win the woman’s heart in courtly love

    Feminism is contrary to natural law. Therefore, the opposite of feminism is fulfilling one’s (feminine and masculine) role within the natural and divine order.

    We all have some sense of when this role is being contravened. When men act effeminate, the man is behaving contrary to his nature, which was programmed by God. When women forgo marriage for a career, they are defying the role which has been ordained for them.

  16. earl says:

    In the overall scheme of things we are behaving contrary to our nature and it is deemed ‘normal’…what will it take to get back to the ways God made us?

    The easiest suggestion as a start is to quit letting cucks and feminists dictate the roles and go back to what God said. You’ll probably get a lot of rejection, pushback, and shame…but it’s better if we do what God made us for than to get thumbs up from feminists and cucks.

  17. ys says:

    I am guessing Tim was looking for a “statement on courtship,” like a statement of faith or something. Which could be hard to come by.
    Part of the point is what Dalrock has been doing. Our cultural thinking is so polluted, so corrupted, even in the church, that we need the detox. We need to see where the wrong influences have come in, and their sources, so we know what, and how much, we are rejecting.

    For my part I offer thanks, as this has series has caused me to consider so many couples I know, and how they have really gotten together. It is rarely according to the Tradcon script.

  18. I wonder if his question was so hard to answer because you guys are Protestants.

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    I wonder if his question was so hard to answer because you guys are Protestants.

    Sigh.

  20. I too sense the tension in the question asked as well as the answer provided.
    It culminates nicely in the soft whispered questions of “well, what’s the opposite of feminism then?”
    Reminds me of those old Chinese Kung Fu movies where the apprentice asks the wise white bearded master a straightforward question, only to be told that he is a naiver fool for not asking the “right” question.
    I agree, that grows tiresome after a while.

    So, okay what is the opposite of feminism and gynocentrism, for that matter? A good starting point for us all, no doubt.

    The fundamental problem is that Christianity has been so twisted and corrupted, and male Christians in particular, have been so conditioned as to be terrified to dare utter, let alone think about the obvious answer, for fear of committing yet another thought crime against the Church, against God, against women, and against themselves.

    Yet the answer is indifferent to our human sensibilities and mental frailty. It would just as soon punch Christian men in the jaw, if it had not already drop kicked every one us full throttle right in our testicles, while women point and laugh.

    The answer is to re-install patriarchy.
    The same patriarchy that was in full force during the Bronze Age, the Greco-Roman Empires, the Byzantium Empire and Islamic Caliphates that followed. And the same contemporary patriachies running simultaneously in Classical and Imperial China, the Delhi Sultanates. as well the Aztec and Inca Empires chugging along in Meso-America. These were societies where males held power, unilteral rights, control, authority and privilege over families and society – not because they had testicles or greater value than women – they held power and control and authority because it was commensurate (in balance with) with the immense burdens of sole legal, financial and social accountability and responsibility that they carried every day of their lives.

    Christian men in this age struggle to even fathom this idea because they have grown up in an abundant, automated and almost war-less society, believing in fairness for all, equalism (equal outcomes) and equality between the sexes, which is a complete and utter bald-face lie.
    Men and women are not equal, and never will be. We are completely different.
    Not necessarily better or worse than one another, unless you want an audit of all accounts – which may interest only the most sexist and righteously indignant among us.

    The truth is that today men still bear ALL of the legal, financial and social accountability and responsibility. For this reason men SHOULD therefore remain bestowed with commensurate legal, financial, social and political power, rights, authority and privileges. However, it is instead women holding superior rights (unilateral), power, authority and privileges while simultaneously assuming the responsibility and accountability levels equivalent to toddler aged children, in other words, no responsibility at all.

    But men have ceded their rightful authority and power over to women in order to be nice, and gentlemanly, worthy of access to sexual congress, and not knuckle-dragging misogynists.

    Rest assured though regardless of all such modern day male fears, feminism and its bed-sister gynocentrism, are unsustainable long-term.
    A society where power, rights and authority are not balanced to responsibility soon collapses uinto dysfunction, injustice, revolution and war. We are already seeing this. The Christian Church we once knew will probably disintegrate during this process.
    Patriarchy will be installed regardless, whether women (and any surviving Christian men) want it to be or not. The human race is not beholden to feminism.

    So the only question now remains is how long are Christian men going to stand there and let women hold court over the Church, The Scriptures and the family? From my vantage point, Christian men are doing nothing at all, and they will continue to be cowards on this question.
    Men will continue to complain like hens, while the children (women) run around the building with sticks of dynamite.

    It’s not going to end well, gentlemen. Because the insolent behavior of children cannot continue to go on uncorrected.

  21. 7817 says:

    “Will you please consider writing a series of positive articles, stating as clearly as you’re able what you actually believe and why? This would be very helpful for me as I consider your work.”

    This is somewhat difficult to do, even if the writer is in good faith. If the writer is not in good faith this just makes Dalrock a target, a bit like trying to answer the 290 bullet point checklist.

    This is a great response: “Either way, the crucial first step is to recognize the corruption both in general and in specific, and root out the specific false teachings we have unknowingly adopted. As we do this, the specific expressions of non cucked Christianity will vary, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bother working to root out the corruption in the first place.”

    It’s hard to say with precision how things should be, exactly how we should act at all times, because we see through a glass darkly. When all we have to look at is the corrupted world it’s hard for our eyes to be pure. The Bible is clear about this though, which is why we have to follow at least what we know God commands, such as husbands not being embittered against their wives, and wives obeying their husbands.

    Jesus says we will know them by their fruit. Man looks on outward appearance but God looks on the heart. The test is the fruit, and the fruit of feminism and complementarianism is not good.

  22. Name(required) says:

    “I wonder if his question was so hard to answer because you guys are Protestants.”

    Are you suggesting that Martin Luther invented chivalry and courtly love? Study the history of the Roman Schism a bit more. You have a lot to learn.

  23. Rights, Authority, Power, Privilege = Responsibility, Accountability.

    Yet women do not want responsibility nor accountability.
    They resent them both.
    They reject them
    They despise them.

    Such burdens are for you. So you remain saddled with it all. While they pretend to be competent and in charge.

    In K-12 education
    In the military
    In the workplace
    In dating sexual relationships
    In sexual reproduction, pregnancy, abortion and childbirth
    In marriage and divorce
    In legal (criminal and civil matters)
    In medical care
    In retirement and estate planning.

    And you let them continue to pretend and play this wreckless and dangerous game, so as not to disturb the beast within, and to avoid a public tantrum, or to avoid being wished into a cornfield.

    And you hope that you and others you love will somehow not be destroyed throughout the whole charade.

  24. Pingback: If Christianity isn’t feminism and courtly love, what is it? | Reaction Times

  25. Anonymous Reader says:

    Are you suggesting that Martin Luther invented chivalry and courtly love? Study the history of the Roman Schism a bit more. You have a lot to learn.

    Sigh.

  26. 7817 says:

    “what’s the opposite of feminism and trying to win the woman’s heart in courtly love?”

    I’d say we are not looking for the opposite because that would just be a mistake in the other direction. It might help us figure out where center is though. Since feminism and courtly love is a perversion of the truth, a twisting, what we have to figure out is where the twist is and make it straight.

    I think the twist is in attributing redemptive power to Woman rather than Christ. It results in idolatry of the female, worshipping woman and believing that She sanctifies and makes holy rather than God. Servant “leadership” becomes the form of sacrifice and offering to this deity, and let us not take Her name in vain by holding her at fault for anything She does; after all, a god can make no errors.

    We are to worship God and serve Him only, to fear God and not another god.

    Feminism is another form of worshipping the created rather than the Creator.

    Women are insufficient to this, and it is cruel to them to hate them for insufficiently fulfilling their roles as gods in this religion. They in incapable of it. Feminism is cruel to everyone who takes part in it.

  27. Rush Limbaugh defined it perfectly, rule #24: Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.

    Right there, that is feminism from a secular standpoint. So what is feminism from a spiritual standpoint? Feminism is Eve eats all the apples, gives God the middle finger when He asks her about it, and has the snake present Adam with a restraining order, ordering him to stay 500 yards away while still being forced to provide Eve food, clothing, and shelter.

    In a modern American church that has embraced the algebra that is courtly love + feminism = Christianity, you will see a blend of these two philosophies. But the modern American church MUST embrace these philosophies since preaching pure Christianity is likely to get the Pastor fired or (if the Pastor owns the church building) will have the Pastor preach to an empty building with no money in the offering plates.

  28. The goals might not be the same for Christian vs. Secular couples.
    We had formalized systems to accomplish the goal of marriage. And women tore them down.

    First, you would have to train males as boys to find or create jobs, learn investing, and purchase property to prepare to be fathers & husbands. Christian men would have to learn the love of Christ to know how to treat their wives.

    Girls would have to go to finishing school, to learn how to stay pure, act like a lady, prepare for being a wife, mother, and keeper of the home. Christian women would have to learn to submit to Christ in preparation for submitting to their husbands.

    Then we’d have to reinstate Debutante Balls. In the past they were mainly for UMC white women. People that were eligible and prepared for marriage would be pre-screened. Then in attending the ball, they’d have to see if there was a match.
    Mexican culture has something called Quinceañera that accomplishes roughly the same thing.
    African-Americans used to use Cotillions for this purpose.

    So in return for his prep, a man would get a virgin wife in her prime, pre-screened and prepared to make babies and keep a home. Being fruitful and multiplying.
    A woman would get the protection of a husband, wife status, and resources.

    Then they’d have to live in a community where these standards were held in high value, and the punishments for violating them were swift, severe, and public.

    We’d also have to set up a legalized, regulated and taxed Red Light District for the whores.

    So all of that would sound like a return to Americana circa 1930-1950, and mainly for Caucasians. Most modern day Americans would fight it.
    Too many men are used to getting nothing out of the deal. It would take several generations to recondition men to a new standard, and several generations of restoring shame and punishment to sluts and whores.

    If people didn’t want to do that, and men continue refuse to require virginity from potential wives, as well as getting married during their fertile years, then things will continue as they are now. Women bringing anything to the table in whatever shape it’s in, and men signing up to give them full benefits. The Beta Boy’s dream.

  29. Are you suggesting that Martin Luther invented chivalry and courtly love?

    Protestants rarely make appeals to Calvin and Luther. They defer to the authority of scripture, but the scriptures can’t answer all of life’s important questions. The Bible can’t set out the roles and duties of men and women in a systematic way like the tradition of natural law which underlies much of Catholic social teaching.

  30. Name(required) says:

    How about if we just read the Bible, and do what God said? Don’t worry too much about the fine details. It really doesn’t matter what the Christian Patriarchy looks like, as long as it’s a Patriarchy, and as long as we’re following Christ.

  31. 7817 says:

    “the scriptures can’t answer all of life’s important questions.”

    Naturally we ought to pile a bunch of human regulations on top of what God said, since it worked out so well for the pharisees…

    Take some lessons from your buddy Earl. If you want to proselytize that’s how to do it. I would be far more likely to convert based on what he says, as he just tells the truth as he understands it from a Catholic perspective. You are taking a dump on protestants then saying hey follow me guys. Not going to win converts that way unless you have spectacular value of a sort that overshadows the insults.

  32. earl says:

    The Bible can’t set out the roles and duties of men and women in a systematic way like the tradition of natural law which underlies much of Catholic social teaching.

    Well since I’m Catholic I guess I have to ask…like what?

    Outside of saying artifical birth control & abortion are a grave evils…I’m not sure what Catholic social teachings have about the proper duties of men and women. Especially when it comes to how you get a spouse. It may be because I’ve never taken pre-Cana but that’s kind of hard to do if you can’t even find a woman who wants to get married.

  33. earl says:

    Women bringing anything to the table in whatever shape it’s in, and men signing up to give them full benefits.

    That’s the cog in the machine that has to go away to take away the free ride of rebellion from women. If they can slut it up with Chad and get a golden parachute from Eddie why would they change?

    The more of them who don’t get the golden parachute and have to resort to youtube videos and marrying themselves because they decided they could have Chad in her fertile years without his commitment…the better it is if she gets no commitment from Eddie.

  34. That’s the cog in the machine that has to go away to take away the free ride of rebellion from women. If they can slut it up with Chad and get a golden parachute from Eddie why would they change?

    Men have to be re-educated to value exactly what it is we bring to the table.

    -Spiritual Leadership
    -Authority from God to bless and curse
    -Personal physical protection
    -Our last name/family name
    -Legitimization of wives and bastard children
    -Our income and resources
    -Property, assets
    -Seed for children
    -Logical, linear, objective thinking
    -Power to build anything on this planet that can be built
    -Military organization to keep enemies at bay

    And there’s more.

    But boys have been pushed aside to focus on the girls and now males aren’t raised to understand their intrinsic worth and potential. We need to start there.

    Then male self-esteem will be restored to the point where males realize you have no obligation to buy a multi-thousand dollar ring and white wedding dress for a 15 years running N+50 cum rag.

  35. NotaBene says:

    Neat topic. We sure do spend a lot of time breaking things down and railing against the way things are. I sure do. From church policy to culture, I love to rip stuff open. Coming up with ways to actually fix things is a lot harder, even when we agree on the “basics”.

    I’d love a definition of what most people here think “courtly love” is. Many words carry baggage, like “dating, courting, pursuing, wooing” and so forth. So it’s good to define terms.

    Not all the “courtly love” stuff is bad. I mean, what I imagine it is. When I was attracted to my future wife at age 16, I did odd things to impress her… hormones and all… was that wrong? Eh, I don’t think so. She did a lot to impress me, too.

    I guess I’m interested in fleshing out the idea of being “anti-courtly love” and why, if there’s a post I can read that summarizes. Not trying to start an argument, as I agree with pretty much every post I’ve read here.

  36. Not all the “courtly love” stuff is bad. I mean, what I imagine it is. When I was attracted to my future wife at age 16, I did odd things to impress her… hormones and all… was that wrong? Eh, I don’t think so. She did a lot to impress me, too.

    I guess I’m interested in fleshing out the idea of being “anti-courtly love” and why, if there’s a post I can read that summarizes. Not trying to start an argument, as I agree with pretty much every post I’ve read here.

    Courtly Love is bad because it is a Feminine based idea.

    It conveys to males the very wrong perspective that you have to chase and/or impress women. And you most certainly do not.

    Eve was created for Adam, and pulled out of him. Women were created for men and already set up to get the better end of the deal. They just walk into whatever we have by virtue of the marriage. Adam was already working, naming animals, and tending the Garden.
    Eve didn’t have to do anything but wake up, get walked down the aisle, and inherit a planet.

    So they need to present themselves to *us* with:
    -Hymen intact
    -Chaste conduct & conversation
    -Youth, beauty & fertility (which will all be gone in 15 years but she wants a lifetime commitment)
    -Ability to manage money & keep a home (not burn through money faster than you can make it)

    Then men can decide if we want to give our considerable gift set to a woman in exchange for the only two things we can’t have without women:
    1) vaginal sex
    2) biological children

    Everything else on this planet, we built it, or we could. I don’t need to impress a woman with jack squat.

    Men don’t chase women. Men need to relearn the art of self-improvement.
    And then realize that THEY are lucky to have YOU.

  37. Pingback: Male Value | RedPillPushers

  38. Opus says:

    I have yet to read in this blog of that Nineteenth-century British movement known as Muscular Christianity designed to expel from Christianity ‘all that is. effeminate, un-English and excessively intellectual”. Whenever I read a verse or two from the NT it is always through that type of lens that I understand scripture (and I recommend you all do the same). Not being a regular church-goer I am thus at a loss to understand that the churches have in my adult life-time become Feminised because it was not like that in my adolescence. The last time I attended a service the Sermon might as well have been preached by a cross between an Imam and Justine Trudeau. Making a scene in an English Cathedral is a criminal offence and so i remained tight-lipped but I would have said something to the Right Reverend on the way out had I been sure which one of the worthy Divines was him (at least it was a him).

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    NotaBene
    I’d love a definition of what most people here think “courtly love” is.

    There is a search box in the upper right hand corner of this page directly above “recent comments.
    It can be used to search this blog.
    You could try typing the words “courtly love” into it and clicking “search”…then reading each and every article that is found.

    I hope this helps you. Because it is easier on all of us when people with questions do some of their own work, rather than passively expecting everyone else to do it for them.

  40. Anonymous Reader says:

    I have yet to read in this blog of that Nineteenth-century British movement known as Muscular Christianity designed to expel from Christianity ‘all that is. effeminate, un-English and excessively intellectual”.

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news old chap, but Queen Victoria has passed on. Happened a while ago, in fact.

  41. Spike says:

    A good place for Tim to start:
    -There were only two options in Scripture in man-woman relations: Married, or not.
    -Marriage was between a man and a woman, for life.
    -That bond was instituted by God and was therefore not negotiable.
    -Divorce was given to the Israelites by Moses, but Jesus told us that it was given to them ”due to their hardness of heart” in the same passage.
    -Jesus reiterated the original covenant given to man in the Genesis account (Gen 2:24) as the norm for marriage.
    -Marriage was a covenant entered into (3-way, with God as other partner) and the relationship was based on biological and economic boundaries.
    -Courtship sneaked into Christian thought during Medieval times, a carry-over from pagan Greece.
    -Modern Day Marriage has been influenced by industrialization, higher living standards and the advent of the welfare state. From Victorian times onward, women have been given increasing rights, that is, an increasing say as to whom they choose to marry. Previously, the father’s authority ruled. The father would dissuade his daughter from marrying frivolously. His rules were that her suitor would have to be decent, have a means to support her and later, his family.
    From the 1960s on, the Western world has undergone a series of social/ sexual revolutions that have sought to wind back the Biblical model, with concomitant strife following.

  42. white says:

    You seem to think Tim’s question is in good spirit. I think it’s more likely his comment is disingenuous. Anyone who’s been in Churchian circles for X amount of time knows that “Oh, but what is your alternative?” is the No.1 go-to strategy.

    From there, the Churchian can move on to attack the offered alternative, or declare that you have none if you didn’t provide any. (as if that means anything) Or he could simply point to “Church unity” as reason why the current status quo should remain. All these are attempts to silence criticism and avoid the issues raised. We see that too in Tim’s question:

    “Will you please consider writing a series of positive articles”

    Why aren’t the posts here positive? Why does it matter what Dalrock believes and why? Is it not enough to simply point out the problems in Christianity today?

  43. How about if we just read the Bible, and do what God said?

    If we do that we’re following a man-made convention. God said nothing about the Bible, and even if he had it would have been different than the 400 year old English bible you lot regard as the last word on Christian doctrine.

    How do we know God wanted us to read the Bible? Jesus didn’t tell the Apostles to write a Bible and make it the highest authority on Christian doctrine.

    Even if Jesus had given the Apostles the very same Bible you read today, it wouldn’t be comprehensive enough to answer questions like the one posed by the guy Dalrock wrote this entry for. It’s not a scientific text. That’s why Catholic tradition includes Thomism and natural law so questions like this can be settled.

    Don’t worry too much about the fine details. It really doesn’t matter what the Christian Patriarchy looks like, as long as it’s a Patriarchy, and as long as we’re following Christ.

    I don’t remember reading that in the Bible.

    Naturally we ought to pile a bunch of human regulations on top of what God said, since it worked out so well for the pharisees…

    Sola scriptura is a convention because there is nothing in the Bible that says a Bible must be written and taken as authoritative. That was invented by Protestants who apparently made an important discover that had escaped the notice of Christians for 1500 years. The scriptures were canonized in a framework of “human regulations” so that undercuts the claim Protestants want to make for its doctrinal primacy.

    You are taking a dump on protestants then saying hey follow me guys. Not going to win converts that way unless you have spectacular value of a sort that overshadows the insults.

    My, what a sensitive soul you are. I don’t think I insulted anyone. But now that you mention it, there are quite a few Protestants I’d love to see tried and executed for promoting the heresy of feminism. I’d start with that fellow about three or four entries ago who said the Pilgrims couldn’t handle life in the New World, so women were sent to run things. He’d spend a few days on the breaking wheel.

  44. Drats, these comments need an edit feature.

  45. Burner Prime says:

    Brilliant response. I was also wondering if the oh-so-‘umble request for alternatives was to begin building a trap.

  46. Burner Prime says:

    @white, I sensed the same thing (disingenuous). Started with the complimenting, buttering up the ego, then the humble request for an “alternative” (which would manifest as a counter-argument), which could then be countered with a “but what about…?” or “so you’re saying…”, etc. looking for a way to paint D into a corner or some other rhetorical chess move. Dalrock avoided that by getting right to the root. The perversions should be excised. That isn’t an “alternative”. It’s returning to the original state.

  47. sipcode says:

    “If you love Me, keep my commandments.”

    “Go and sin no more.”

    Simple. Not always easy.

  48. ChristianCool says:

    @Spike

    Wonderful list and great thoughts. I agree and it is indeed the case.

    Now, try telling that stuff to a Family Court Judge. 😆

    Unless we can fix the legal unfairness of Marriage 2.0, women have every incentive in the world to divorce men. Under “no fault divorce”, she can and she has every incentive to do so.

    Why do wives falsely accuse husbands of crimes, right before a divorce? Because she has an incentive to do so. Once your soon to be ex-wife falsely accuses you of a crime, she is now virtually guaranteed the house in divorce and you get to continue to pay mortgage, utilities, and insurance…. possibly forever. It all depends on the Family Law judge’s orders. Disobey and you will go to jail at first and prison if you continue to upset her over and over again.

    When a man is in divorce proceeding, his life, income, future, freedom, and legal rights belong to that one family law judge, which if you believe self-reported stats, are over 85% “feminists”. The Family Law judge is an Empress in Black Robes. She can and will use her almost limitless powers to ruin the man’s life (they call it “social justice”). And when you complain, she will say “well, maybe you should not have married her. Now write the damn check I told you to or you will be sent to jail tonight!”.

    Until the legal aspects of our society are fixed, men have to opt out of a system designed to destroy him. That does not mean MGTOW; it means avoiding the legal traps women use to destroy men. That means opting out of Marriage 2.0

    Some of the fixes we need to allow marriage again in the Western world:

    *Men must be given legal court-based due process rights when falsely accused of any crime against a woman, whether at work, church, police situations, etc.
    *Marriage 2.0 with unilateral divorce has to end, including the divorce treasure chest women get in divorce court.
    *Mandatory polygraphs for all women making any criminal or potentially criminal allegations against a man where no evidence exists or when case is more than 1 year old.
    *Permit and enforce Prenuptial agreements to be extensive and always be enforced as written.
    *Custody will always be shared and visitation and equal parenting visitation and child-rearing rights are strictly enforced.

    Unless we can get legal rights restored to men, stay single. Marriage is a deathtrap otherwise. Any discussion of Christian or Biblical marriage is irrelevant in a litigious society like the USA. Discussing Biblical Marriage in the context of the Western world is like discussing gravity while in Mars. 😆

    If you want to marry, find a Christian woman who will marry you in a private religious ceremony between you, her, and God and reside in a State that does not have Common Law Marriage, and never file anything with courts. You do not have to MGTOW to have kids or even a wife, if you do a “Biblical Marriage” instead of the government marriage system.

    Men can fix this mess, if enough Red Pill or MGTOW in large enough numbers. We will get there someday, but the sooner the better. Our country is suffering tremendously because of this.

  49. CSI says:

    Yes ChristianCool I see so much self-serving nonsense from in women’s forums regarding Marriage 2.0. A classic line is “if a woman has kids and divorces him, of course she deserves half of everything because she sacrificed her career to raise his children”.

    Well the only time you’ll see a woman refer to “her kids” as “his kids” is when she’s hoping to extract more from him in divorce court. She probably wanted the kids more than him. She could have gone back to full time work, but chose not to. Probably the only time she expresses regret for having to give up her “career” is, again, when she’s hoping to extract more money in the divorce.

    And what about his sacrifices that enabled her to give up full time work and devote herself to her kids? Meaningless apparently. Reading those forums you’d think everyday at work for him was a relaxing paid holiday, while she was trapped at home, doing the exhausting hard labor of keeping the house reasonably tidy and looking after “his” kids.

  50. Bee says:

    redpillsetmefree,

    “Men have to be re-educated to value exactly what it is we bring to the table.”

    Great list. Thank you.

  51. Bruce says:

    Earl,

    I would like to hear your interpretation of paragraph 156 of Amore Letitia:

    “Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected. This includes all improper interpretations of the passage in the Letter to the Ephesians where Paul tells women to “be subject to your husbands” (Eph 5:22). This passage mirrors the cultural categories of the time, but our concern is not with its cultural matrix but with the revealed message that it conveys. As Saint John Paul II wisely observed: “Love excludes every kind of subjection whereby the wife might become a servant or a slave of the husband… The community or unity which they should establish through marriage is constituted by a reciprocal donation of self, which is also a mutual subjection”. Hence Paul goes on to say that “husbands should love their wives as their own bodies” (Eph 5:28). The biblical text is actually concerned with encouraging everyone to overcome a complacent individualism and to be constantly mindful of others: “Be subject to one another” (Eph 5:21). In marriage, this reciprocal “submission” takes on a special meaning, and is seen as a freely chosen mutual belonging marked by fidelity, respect and care. Sexuality is inseparably at the service of this conjugal friendship, for it is meant to aid the fulfilment of the other.”

    Doesn’t this come dangerously close to teaching feminism in an official, magisterial document? I was particularly bothered by the “cultural categories of the time” part which is always what progressives use to condone all sorts of behaviors and practices Christians have always rejected.

  52. Novaseeker says:

    The reason why this is such a thorny issue (i.e., how are we to go about having young Christians meet and marry other young Christians in a way that is pleasing to God) is that this is not an issue that the church has had to deal with directly, at least not for a long, long time (millennia). For the most part, the church has outsourced this issue to the ambient culture, which had various ways of regulating this activity under the rubric of “courtship” (often with a lot of parental involvement over the years) in a way that was more or less consonant with Christian ideas about sex and marriage — not 100% concurrence, mind you, but largely consonant.

    The current crisis emerges from the fact that the ambient cultures practices about this became antithetical to Christian teaching about sex and marriage in the space of around a century, and in a gradual way over that period. Throughout that period the church continued to rely on the ambient culture’s ways of doing this, in effect baptizing novel practices such as the development of the institution of dating, the decline of parental involvement in mate selection, and the changing of criteria in spouse evaluation. By the time the break with Christian morals became too obvious to miss (beginning sometime in the 1960s and 1970s), the goose was already cooked, so to speak, in terms of everyone being very accustomed to the church having outsourced mate selection activity to the ambient culture’s world of dating and love, and accommodating itself to that culture, such that it became nearly impossible for the church to suddenly back away from that stance even when it became obvious to everyone that the ambient culture’s way of doing this was leading to massive amounts of fornication taking place. Pro forma objections were raised discouraging Christians from fornicating and so on, but the church nevertheless has never completely distanced itself from the ambient world in this respect, and this is the core problem.

    At this point it’s very unlikely that the church will distance itself from the ambient culture’s mate selection process, other than in small pockets that will likely be short-lived (“I Kissed Dating Goodbye”, etc.). Rather, what we will continue to see is more pro forma objections to this or that aspect of the dating/mating culture that obviously violates Christian morality (fornication, cohabitation), while at the same time turning a blind eye to the rampant occurrence of these and fully endorsing the underlying dating/mating system which makes such transgressions virtually ubiquitous.

    Again, the church is in a box on this — and by “church” I mean all of American Christianity, regardless of affiliation — it isn’t a sectarian problem, it’s a problem that cuts across all Christians in America because we all live and operate in the same ambient culture. The church is in a box because it basically accepted the development of the dating/mating culture all the way along earlier in the 20th Century, such that both the church and its members now expect that the church simply accepts it (if with some pro forma criticisms in some cases). In other words, it’s basically too late for the church to turn its back on the dating/mating culture in toto — that train left the station in the first half of the 20th Century. This is why you see Christians tinkering around the edges — that is, accepting the existing dating/mating culture as a basic system, but tinkering with it so as to make it less un-Christian, or to prune un-Christian practices from it. This will never be fully effective, of course, because the underlying dating/mating system is itself inherently un-Christian in various ways. But it’s deeply unrealistic to expect that the church will be able to — even if it wanted to (which it mostly does not) — distance itself more fully from the ambient dating/mating culture in any kind of widespread or thorough-going way. Die has been cast on that long ago, I’m afraid.

    And this is why, I suspect, we get questions like Tim’s.

  53. BillyS says:

    FSG,

    Get your head out of your rear. The Scriptures do promote reading and following them in many places. Your ignorance doesn’t define truth.

    Traditions of man have a way of backfiring. Popes and anti-popes, indulgences, killing Christians, etc. Lots of blood on your organization’s hands. Spend time on a forum that is focused on the RCC-Protestant debate rather than spreading your idiocy here. Even Earl challenged you.

  54. earl says:

    God said nothing about the Bible, and even if he had it would have been different than the 400 year old English bible you lot regard as the last word on Christian doctrine.

    C’mon man you should know better than that. God certainly said SOMETHING about Scripture.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16-17&version=NASB

  55. earl says:

    I would like to hear your interpretation of paragraph 156 of Amore Letitia:

    @Bruce

    Well much like Scripture I’d suggest reading the paragraph before and after to get the proper context.

    155.  Saint John Paul II very subtly warned that a couple can be “threatened by insatiability”158. In other words, while called to an increasingly pro-found union, they can risk effacing their differences and the rightful distance between the two. For each possesses his or her own proper and inalienable dignity. When reciprocal belonging turns into domination, “the structure of communion in interpersonal relations is essentially changed”.159 It is part of the mentality of domination that those who dominate end up negating their own dignity.160 Ultimately, they no longer “identify themselves subjectively with their own body”,161 because they take away its deepest meaning. They end up using sex as form of escapism and renounce the beauty of conjugal union.

    157.  All the same, the rejection of distortions of sexuality and eroticism should never lead us to a disparagement or neglect of sexuality and eros in themselves. The ideal of marriage cannot be seen purely as generous donation and self-sacrifice, where each spouse renounces all personal needs and seeks only the other’s good without concern for personal satis-faction. We need to remember that authentic love also needs to be able to receive the other, to accept one’s own vulnerability and needs, and to welcome with sincere and joyful gratitude the physical expressions of love found in a caress, an embrace, a kiss and sexual union. Benedict XVI stated this very clearly: “Should man aspire to be pure spirit and to reject the flesh as pertaining to his animal nature alone, then spirit and body would both lose their dignity”.163 For this reason, “man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot al-ways give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift”. 164 Still, we must never forget that our human equilibrium is fragile; there is a part of us that resists real human growth, and any moment it can unleash the most primitive and selfish tendencies.

  56. earl says:

    I was particularly bothered by the “cultural categories of the time” part which is always what progressives use to condone all sorts of behaviors and practices Christians have always rejected.

    There was this part after…

    ‘but our concern is not with its cultural matrix but with the revealed message that it conveys. ‘

    They were highlighting a wife is not a slave or servant to the husband…she is literally his flesh.

    Make no mistake though…feminism will also seek to distort the ‘wives being subject to their husbands’…by either overlooking it or trying to twist it into something that St. Paul never meant it to be. If a wife thinks she’s completely seperate from her husband…she doesn’t have the right idea too.

  57. 7817 says:

    @FOG

    “…there is nothing in the Bible that says a Bible must be written and taken as authoritative.”

    You are a liar.

  58. squid_hunt says:

    @FSG

    I wonder if his question was so hard to answer because you guys are Protestants.

    It does make it easier when some outside organization usurps your authority and dictates the proper way to behave in a religious setting with no scriptural support. All you have to do is ignore their very obvious and visible corruption and you can even claim divine authority.

    Regarding the article and Tim, the first step is to recognize that while the church and the pastor have authority regarding the structure, organization, and doctrine of the church, you, as a father and husband, have the same authority regarding your family. You are responsible to God for the teachings and welfare in your home and the spirituality of your wife and children. When you abdicate that responsibility to Sunday School teachers and conference leaders and pastors (And Mommy blogs and the Disney Channel and the radio), you make your family vulnerable to corruption.

  59. squid_hunt says:

    @white

    You seem to think Tim’s question is in good spirit. I think it’s more likely his comment is disingenuous. Anyone who’s been in Churchian circles for X amount of time knows that “Oh, but what is your alternative?” is the No.1 go-to strategy.

    I don’t think that’s fair. I spent years in church trying to make things work, seeing the reason and logic that could make it pan out but always running into a brick wall of a wife with the entire support of a church and pastor telling me I was 100% the problem. I knew it was wrong, but everything was telling me everything that was wrong was me, which isn’t even logical.

    When I found this blog, I read thirty pages in, the light switched on, and everything laid itself out. I suddenly knew everything that was going on and how it had been done. I had a raging anger that so many people were messing up my life and marriage and I made a vow to myself that I would never again let a pastor dictate to me in my home. If my wife wants to run off to Daddy pastor all the time, she can go live with him and he can pay her bills.

    It’s been a mess the last three years sorting all of that out, but I can definitely sympathize with Tim swimming in the water and not noticing it’s wet.

  60. C’mon man you should know better than that. God certainly said SOMETHING about Scripture.

    Those are Paul’s words to his disciple, Timothy. Nowhere does Paul say that scripture has primacy over the Church, or that all Timothy needed to do was “read the Bible and do what God says” as one person here put it. That exhortation would not have made sense because “scripture” in that context meant the Septuagint. The Pauline Epistles, obviously, were still being written. If Paul had said to Timothy “Just read the [extant] scriptures and do what God says” he’d be telling him to follow Torah Judaism.

  61. BillyS says:

    Keep being ignorant FSG, but please take it elsewhere.

  62. The Scriptures do promote reading and following them in many places. Your ignorance doesn’t define truth.

    Ignorance of what? “The scriptures” as Protestants understand them today are not the same thing as the scriptures that are made mention of by Paul. This is about doctrinal primacy. If Paul had rubber stamped sola scriptura, then his authority would have preceded scriptural authority.

  63. squid_hunt says:

    @BillyS

    I just want to take this moment to publicly agree with you, Billy.

  64. Is it because of ignorance that there are hundreds of Protestant denominations?

  65. Mr. Generic says:

    @earl

    “That’s the cog in the machine that has to go away to take away the free ride of rebellion from women. If they can slut it up with Chad and get a golden parachute from Eddie why would they change?

    The more of them who don’t get the golden parachute and have to resort to youtube videos and marrying themselves because they decided they could have Chad in her fertile years without his commitment…the better it is if she gets no commitment from Eddie.”

    What’s Eddie’s incentive to do this? You’re basically asking him to choose lifetime celibacy, lifetime loneliness, and the forgoing of any potential children. Why? So that his non-existent future grandchildren can live in a less screwed-up world? That’s asking a lot of any man (particularly a beta one.)

    I think you make a very valid point, but it is going to be hard for any change to come about if that change is dependent on people making decisions that go against their own personal best interests.

  66. squid_hunt says:

    Yes. Good thing there aren’t multiple Catholic/Orthodox denominations otherwise your argument would be just silly.

  67. Bruce says:

    He is referring to 2 Timothy 3:15? If Paul meant the OT, I assume he meant the OT as the New Testament concealed – able to instruct unto salvation once it is explained as an image of what the NT describes.

  68. Damn Crackers says:

    Oh boy! Another Catholics vs. Protestant debate. Like all Churches aren’t completely feminized by now.

    Didn’t most Jews at the time of Jesus get married right after puberty? If so, what kind of fornication was St. Paul talking about? Was he discussing child molesters? rapists? I think most of what St. Paul was addressing was the spiritual fornication of leaving the marriage of Christ and visiting sacred prostitutes like were seen at Corinth. Even if we go by the traditional definition of all-unmarried sex as fornication, Paul was addressing a narrow set of Christians who were exhibiting proto-Gnostic beliefs that marriage and procreation is evil. Now, many in society today believe the same thing.

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oh boy! Another Catholics vs. Protestant debate. Like all Churches aren’t completely feminized by now.

    Plus it works so well. I’m sure the average feminist is pleased to see men taking their attention away from real problems and focusing on sectarian mud wrestling.

    Novaseeker has a very cogent comment up thread: the churches (that’s all of them) having adbicated any authority over young men and young women’s social lives 100 or more years ago can’t readily hope to pull that back.

    Instead of “mah church!”, a more useful discussion would be in the direction of “What would an intentional churchgoing culture that encourages 20-something marriage look like”.

  70. Hazelshade says:

    @Dalrock

    Tm asked: “Will you please consider writing a series of positive articles, stating as clearly as you’re able what you actually believe and why?”

    Maybe you could tee up the Rutting Buck post?

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/like-a-rutting-buck/

    @Novaseeker

    The church has also gotten sex and marriage wrong when they tried to address it directly. See Sts Jerome and Augustine. Excessively limiting expression of desire for your wife is prissy and quite contrary to the implications of St. Paul’s “if you burn with passion, marry” guidance, I think.

  71. BillyS says:

    Popes and anit-popes FSG.

  72. Gunner Q says:

    “In short, you frequently oppose a position but I can rarely figure out what your actual position is. I’m interested in the positive principles and positions that you teach your children.”

    Men lead, women follow. Wives obey their husbands in all things, men do not abuse that trust. As you would obey God, wifey should obey you. This has been twisted into men must serve women instead of merely being magnaminous towards women.

    Original sin was women refusing to obey and men encouraging female rebellion. White-knighting.

    The wife’s and husband’s obligations are separate. Wifey obeys even if hubby isn’t Christian. Hubby doesn’t murder her when she wants a divorce.

    The purpose of marriage is sex. 1 Cor. 7:2. Women also want children and that’s fine, per hubby’s approval (because he’s the one paying the bills) but if society makes children the purpose of marriage then the husband’s legitimate needs begin to be neglected. This is how the child support model was able to even be considered.

    Men are unsexy early in life and very become successful late in life. Therefore, what women need to do is invest her youthful beauty in a man years before he’s naturally sexy. She gives him her age 20-35 and her grateful husband will give her the rest of his life. It’s a great deal for her but she needs to not ride that cock carousel and then “settle”, jaded and used, to a man that sexual frustration has driven either desperate or dark.

    The parallel of that to human life–we give God our mortal lives and He will be pleased to give us eternity–should be obvious.

  73. Dalrock says:

    @Hazelshade

    Maybe you could tee up the Rutting Buck post?

    Ha. That was my thought as well, and I included it in my comment in response to Tim (I then reworked the reply into a post).

  74. Hmm says:

    One of the things political parties never learn is not to establish rules and precedents that you don’t want to fall into the hands of the opposition (case in point: “The nuclear option” in judicial appointments was originally a Democrat idea).

    As far as the current Marriage 2.0 (or is it 3.0) system is concerned, we men must take our lumps for seeking our own advantage and not considering the consequences:

    – Aiding and abetting contraception, so we could sleep with women without fear of pregnancy. The unintended consequence: They can sleep around too without fear of pregnancy. And they do. And we do still,

    – Passing no-fault divorce laws, so the rich could divorce their wives without cause when they got tired of them. And it was the men casting off the wives of their youth that created the demand for protection for those “helpless women” (hence family courts). But of course, the wives could do it too, and they bent the system to their advantage.

    Where to go from here? I’m tempted to say with Bob Newhart, “Stop it!” but guys going all Lysistrata isn’t going to cut it in this age. We need to figure out and play the long game here – plan on a multi-generational work to restore – what, exactly? Well, we need to figure that out, too. There really is no golden age to go back to – even the early church had its problems. But somewhere in the history of Christ’s church are the pieces we need to build on, “line upon line, precept upon precept”, to rebuild the foundations. Much assembly required.

    We need to start with our sons and daughters – and wives. And we need to start soon. Which means a plan.

  75. vfm7916 says:

    Dealing with heresy in the church or reforming western culture shares the same requirements on timing as planting trees:

    The time to start was 5 years ago, or now.

    You gotta figure out your plan yourself. I do this:

    Teach my sons game.
    Don’t send my daughters to college.
    Teach my daughters that marriage and bearing their own children is their highest calling.
    Reinforce God’s design for my sons and daughters.
    Stay married with good game practice.
    Do all the economic stuff to become outcome independent.
    Homeschool.

    No matter how many people tell you that you can’t, that it’s impossible, western women are terrible, you’ll never find a wife, game sucks, just MGTOW, it’s too hard, you should keep one thing in mind:

    Take a first step, and then keep walking. It’s easy to not get started. It’s easy to say “soon”. It’s easy to talk about planting trees. It’s easy to say “I have to do X first”. I know this because it happens to me all the time, and it stops me more often than I care to admit.

    I keep stepping down that path, though, and once i’m on the train it’s easier to keep going than stop. Just get started, and keep stepping down the path.

    One day you’ll be standing in your orchard and you’ll not remember all the people that told you it was impossible.

  76. Daniel says:

    We cannot wait around for the culture to collapse and for patriarchy to be reborn. Neither can we wait for the “church” to come to its senses and repent. It would be nice. But in the meantime, we have to realize that marriage begins with a contract between a man and his future father-in-law. If you are looking for a decent wife, you have to find a father who has reared his daughter according to God’s word and taught her to be under his authority, and then yours. It is a losing bet to fall in love with a “christian feminist” and expect to reform her. Not only that, her father must warn her that if she rebels, she will have no quarter in his house, and that he will send her back to you. She may have the support of the legal system, but she will be disowned by her parents. They will fight for your custody of your children.

    God bless you if you can find a church that teaches this and supports biblical, patriarchal, marriage. You have an even greater chance of success if you keep your family away from feminizing influences in the “church.” One would hope that you can find a whole church community that would rebuke your wife if she rebels against you or leaves you.

    Are we embarrassed to admit that women are second class citizens in the church and in the home? They certainly are for they are called to subjection. But they are also “joint enjoyers of the allotment of the varied grace of life” and we should honor [value] them that our prayers not be hindered. The feminine is the weaker vessel, and must be dealt with in compassion. “Weaker” in the sense that “the spirit indeed is eager; yet the flesh is infirm.” Her heart is as regenerate and willing as yours, but have compassion on her weaknesses.

  77. Gunner Q says:

    vfm7916 @ 11:51 am:
    “No matter how many people tell you that you can’t, that it’s impossible, western women are terrible, you’ll never find a wife, game sucks, just MGTOW, it’s too hard, you should keep one thing in mind:”

    Sure. Go plant new trees while the gov’t is uprooting your neighbor’s trees and fantasize that your dick is Too Big To Fail.

    Nobody in the mainstream is telling men that they can’t have marriages and children. Fact is, they’re DEMANDING men get married and have kids, or shaming men for being shy about the massive risks. Just like you do. Hmm.

  78. ray says:

    white — “Will you please consider writing a series of positive articles”

    — ‘Why aren’t the posts here positive? Why does it matter what Dalrock believes and why? Is it not enough to simply point out the problems in Christianity today?’

    You are so right. Many of the OPs and comments here are about the ONLY thing positive in modern Christianity. But yo Dalrock, do the whole thing again. For me.

    I get this a lot too. “Uh, could you explain It All from the beginning?”

    No, hows bout this instead: You read and understand the dozens of essays I’ve written on these topics, and after that, THEN if you’ve got questions, ok. Until then STFU.

  79. vfm7916 says:

    @Gunner Q

    Thank you.

  80. Damn Crackers says:

    There is one way to get folks back to traditional ways and get kids to avoid fornication. Send them to a Burning Man orgy and show them how boring one is:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6178607/Campmates-hiked-Burning-Man-say-Orgy-Dome-boring.html

  81. kronbergweb says:

    Well, biblically, we should send our servant out to locate a suitable maid and have him do a quick character test; if she passes, he puts gold jewelry around her neck, meets the family: they have a farewell party and off she goes to her new home. Sounds Christian to me. Modern Christian women will object to the character test; so, there might be some negotiating; but at least young men will know the true nature of getting married: have gold or fuggettaboutit.

  82. Dry Holes says:

    It is plain that feminism has today wormed its demonic way into all three traditions- Catholic, Orthodox and Protestantism.

    Although unpopular, I don’t think the average American retains enough in common with historic Christianity to be fairly called “Christian” any longer. I think most believe in an “American Folk Religion” comprised of perhaps 33.3% mammon worship, 33.3% leftism (with feminism importantly) and perhaps 33.3% selected, oft reinterpreted Christian teachings (generally of mercy, forgiveness, refraining from judgment, etc.).

    We don’t call Nazi’s “Christians” do we? Nor JW’s. Why should we call the average American a “Christian” today?

  83. Oscar says:

    @ Damn Crackers

    Didn’t most Jews at the time of Jesus get married right after puberty? If so, what kind of fornication was St. Paul talking about?

    Most of the people to whom the Apostle Paul wrote were gentiles, not Jews. Many were Greeks, and the sexual perversion of 1st Century Greek culture would make our culture look prudish by comparison. Corinth (as in, 1st and 2nd Corinthians) was known as an extraordinarily perverted city, even by Greek standards.

    The Romans were only marginally better (maybe). Have you ever read about the perversions of Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero?

    So, “what kind of fornication was St. Paul talking about?”

    All of it.

  84. squid_hunt says:

    @Dry Holes

    God promised himself a remnant. He doesn’t deal in statistics, he deals in individuals.

    To say that there are no more Christians is to say that you refuse to be a Christian. The requirement to be a Christian is to 1. Accept Christ as Saviour and 2. Follow the teachings of Christ and his apostles. If there is no biblical church in your area, it’s time for you to start preaching the gospel and establish one in accordance with new testament doctrine.

  85. earl says:

    I’ve read how feminism has wormed into the Catholic church…but it’s nothing compared to the homo clergy.

    And I do think the two are correlated.

  86. Dry Holes says:

    Squid. I never said “no” more US Christians. I said “most” not.

    I agree exactly with your correct reference of remnant (1 Kings 19:18 of many). I think that the US is now a remnant nation, as the Baal, Asherah & Moloch worshippers have the numbers today.

    Best

  87. Earl, seek out the SSPX. Novus Ordo has been compromised.

  88. Anonymous Reader says:

    FSG could you please clarify what sort of “gaming” is referred to in your handle “FSG@FSpeedGaming”?
    Thanks.

  89. Paul says:

    @FSG
    “How do we know God wanted us to read the Bible?”

    Because: 1. Scripture is the actual revelation of God to humankind 2. Scripture records the actual words spoken by God to humankind 3. Scripture testifies the value of reading Scripture

    John 5: “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

    Scriptures testify of Christ, the source of eternal life.

    2 Tim 3 “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    Scriptures have the power unto salvation and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training for equipment of the servants of God.

    Luke 24 “He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.””

    The power of the Holy Spirit will give Christ’s disciples both insights into Holy Scripture, as well as power and wisdom to preach the gospel to all humanity.

    @FSG : “That’s why Catholic tradition includes Thomism and natural law”
    Thomism is just a philosophy. It can be beneficial, but so can other philosophies.
    It does not carry any weight against the power of Scripture

    1 Co 2 “What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. ”

    The apostles spoke words of the Spirit, NOT human wisdom, to explain spiritual realities, which can only be discerned by the hearer filled with that same Spirit. The Scriptures are the preservation of the revelations of God through prophets, Christ, and his disciples.

    No other writing outside Scripture has the same authority. Not even an ex-cathedra declaration by the pope can nullify anything from Scripture. The moment such an attempt is made it is a clear sign of spiritual darkness.

    @FSG: ” there is nothing in the Bible that says a Bible must be [,,] taken as authoritative.”
    Your ramblings show your ignorance. Look at the writings of any respected disciple of Christ and you will find the utmost reverence for the authority of Scripture.

    2 Pt 1 : “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

  90. earl says:

    seek out the SSPX. Novus Ordo has been compromised.

    Oh…there it is.

  91. Anonymous – video games, not gambling. It was for a site I flipped.

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    @FSG
    Thanks.

  93. freebird says:

    “You seem to think Tim’s question is in good spirit. I think it’s more likely his comment is disingenuous. ”

    Concern trolling is so easy in this day and age of pervasive passive aggressive disorder.

    Dalrock’s job is to provide content for the commentors to comment upon.
    The commentors have a done a good job of answering the question, as it should be.
    Some folks just want a handle on rebuilding the mound.
    “How dare you oppress wymyn!”
    God himself is doing a fine job of demonstrating what Not to do,in the form of rampant incurable STD’s,birth rates below replacement,and a decidedly uncivil society.

    Dalrock has handled this very well, good job old man.

    It’s impossible to have courtly love with a single mother because she already has HER family.
    You will not be allowed to discipline this child,but you can open your wallet.
    Cuckhold chumps.
    Is that what God prescribed for you,for a happy and prosperous life?
    To work your days paying for another man’s offspring?
    Yet we hear this from the pulpit, and shaming if disagreement arise.s
    CUCKHOLD churchians,and fake conservatives.

  94. earl says:

    It’s impossible to have courtly love with a single mother because she already has HER family.

    It seems from discussions here it’s impossible to have courtly love with any woman.

    Single mothers fall into one of two camps…either you have to accept the fact her kid is first and work around that (courtly love to win the heart of mom & kid) or they are more active pursuers of guys because she’s ready to find the paycheck of her dreams because she figured out trying to be a mom on her own is not easy.

    I’m glad the issue of courtly love has been brought up because outside of a few rare circumstances it seemed like I had to do that mode to get a date…now I can wait to see if a woman ever does anything to gain my attention because she doesn’t want some other woman to get me. If not, no big loss. Being single is better than being divorced because the woman you ‘courtly loved’ decides she doesn’t feel it anymore.

  95. re: Bruce, quoting from “Amoris laetitia”. As a Catholic, I’ve paid great attention to the things that the so-called Pope Francis has said and written for the past five years, and at this point I would say that when he speaks or writes, whatever he says is likely to be the complete opposite of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Case in point: compare the text of “Amoris laetitia” with this text, taken and translated from the Roman Catechism, originally published in 1566:

    So it is the job of a man to treat his wife with generosity and honor. In this matter one ought to recall that Eve was called a companion by Adam when he said, ‘the woman, whom you gave to me as a companion.’ Because of this, some fathers taught that it happened that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of the man, as also she was not established from his head, in order that she would understand that she was not the lord of the man but rather subject to the man. Besides, it is fitting for a man always to be occupied in the pursuit of some morally upright matter, both in order that he may supply the things which are necessary to support the household, and in order that he may not grow sluggish from idle leisure, from which almost all vices have flowed, but then [it is fitting for him] to establish the household rightly, to correct the characters of all, to keep the members each in their duty. Again, however, the roles of the wife are those which the prince of the apostles enumerates when he says, ‘Let women be subject to their men, in order that even if any do not believe the word, through the company of women they may be won without a word, considering your holy company in fear; of you let there not be adorning of the hair outwardly or the wearing of gold or cult of the donning of clothes, but the person of the heart who has been hidden in the incorruptibility of a quiet and modest spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For thus sometime also the holy women hoping in God were adorning themselves, subject to their own men as Sarah was obeying Abraham while calling him lord.’ Also, let their [women’s] main pursuit be to raise children in the cult of religion, to take care of domestic matters diligently. But let them gladly keep themselves at home unless necessity should compel them to go out, and let them never dare to do that without the permission of the man. Then, in which thing the marital bond is most situated, let them [women] recall that always, according to God, no one must be more loved than the husband, and no one must be considered of greater value than he whom she ought to gratify and obey with the utmost eagerness in all things which do not oppose Christian piety.

    Incidentally, in my opinion, this text provides exactly the kinds of positive principles that Tim was seeking in the original question.

  96. For Tim, if he reads this:

    Over at Sigma Frame, Wayne praises Dalrock for repetition. I echoed (and echo) that praise, and apply it to Cane as well.

    The thing is, context is king. It’s hard to soundbite the stuff around here—or if it could be done, it might be too big a pill for you to swallow.

    So I would say: stick around. Keep reading. When stuck and frustrated, the most important (but hardest) thing you can do is to be still. Alexandre Dumas said something that applies well here:

    “Until the day when God shall deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is summed up in these two words,-Wait and hope.”

    I know this feels like a brush-off. Perhaps it partly is. But what I really, really want to avoid is giving you something satisfying, but wrong. Sometimes osmosis is safer than injection.

  97. Tom Lemke says:

    But (again, if I understand correctly) he struggles to imagine what Christianity would look like if we removed the adulterant.

    I submit that this looks something like Josiah discovering the Book of the Law.

    And what, indeed, did that look like?

    1st: acknowledging that the Lord is God.

    2nd: rooting out all idols within the ranks of “the faithful” and destroying them.

    And so on. Sounds rather like what dalrock has been doing, really.

    Carry on, then.

  98. info says:

    fathers helping their daughters find husbands and teaching their sons would go a long way towards a more functional noncourtly love role on the path to marriage

  99. Josh says:

    Hey Tim,

    If you’re looking for a more affirmative position rather than exclusvie critique, you’re probably looking for The Maculinist by Aaron Renn.

    Josh

  100. Damn Crackers says:

    @Oscar – “Have you ever read about the perversions of Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero?”

    Yes. Never go full Caligula, let alone Corinthian Christian incestuous love (see 1 Cor. 5.) At least Nero had the decency to make his slave a woman by castration before he married her/him.

  101. Tim says:

    @shmohawk1

    Thank you for your recommendation of Laura Doyle. I hadn’t heard of her. I will investigate her work.

  102. Tim says:

    @constrainedlocus

    I appreciated your response to my question, namely to “reinstall patriarchy.”

    In your opinion, what are some important actions steps that an individual man can take in his own life to reinstall patriarchy? What does that look like?

  103. Tim says:

    @Opus

    Given your British context, you might really enjoy this series of teachings from British Bible Teacher, David Pawson. He does an excellent job analyzing male leadership and showing how its failure in the church has led to failure. And, although he has a global background, he is thoroughly British.

    https://davidpawson.org/resources/series/leadership-is-male

  104. Tim says:

    @Spike,

    I am firmly in agreement with you regarding marriage and its stability. My wife and I hold to an absolute conviction that Jesus taught that marriage is “one man, one woman, for life.” No exceptions/modifications/etc.

    Here’s my question to you: How should a father train his daughter to expect fatherly authority over her marriage to work out? Practically, what does that look like at different ages and in different contexts?

    (I have a young daughter, so this one is important to me personally.)

  105. Tim says:

    @white & @Burner Prime

    My comment was certainly not disingenuous; it was absolutely sincere. I genuinely appreciate Dalrock’s input and I see his work as having an important effect.

    Here’s what I meant by “positive” and why I think it would be helpful for Dalrock to write more “positive articles.”

    I’m using the word “positive” to simply mean, “presenting a clear, good example to follow.”

    When Dalrock writes an essay showing how the Fireproof movie fails its test of Biblical fidelity, he is showing a negative example. The Fireproof script isn’t for you and me to follow. It’s a bad example.

    But what’s the positive example? What should that husband and that wife do? The positive case would be to simply lay out an essay showing what the Biblical answer is. Or perhaps there is a good story in film or print that could be presented as a better example.

    I think that Dalrock already does a better job of giving positive example than most I’ve read in the manosphere.

    You can’t beat something with nothing.

    So if you take away feminism, you need to have a substitution for that operating system. Unfortunately, I read a lot of people in the manosphere who seem to have taken away feminism and replaced it with misogyny.

    That’s not healthy.

    I don’t want feminism and I don’t want misogyny.

    I want the positive example–whatever it’s called–to be so burned into my thinking that it’s a natural operating system default.

    Followers are drawn to people who lead with a positive example. You can make an impact sniping away and pointing out the faults in another person/philosophy, but you can’t build a movement.

    You only build a movement by saying, “Here’s what we believe and stand for. If you understand and like it, follow us.”

  106. ray says:

    Tom Lemke — “But (again, if I understand correctly) he struggles to imagine what Christianity would look like if we removed the adulterant.”

    — ‘I submit that this looks something like Josiah discovering the Book of the Law.
    And what, indeed, did that look like?
    1st: acknowledging that the Lord is God.
    2nd: rooting out all idols within the ranks of “the faithful” and destroying them.’

    Yeah, that’s succinct. That covers the major activities, which in our particular hour is mostly war. V Old-Testamentish nowdays, what with Jezebel and Ahab running loose in the Westlands.

    It’s profitable — and obedient to Jeshua — also to be aware of the signs of God, both in the heavens and here. Don’t have to be an expert, but the King expects His servants to ascertain His nearness by many methods, while not knowing the exact hour. Which even Jeshua doesn’t know, praise Father’s mercy.

    This page does a good job of tying real-time cultural elements and events to Scriptural warnings and directives. It also rebukes false churches and their subtle, often hidden, but quite real idols. Other Christians in other net-realms also are v effective in tracking and exploring current/recent signets, in conjunction with major events particularly. These works likewise illustrate the loving order of God.

  107. Tim says:

    @Ray

    You wrote: ” ‘Why aren’t the posts here positive? Why does it matter what Dalrock believes and why? Is it not enough to simply point out the problems in Christianity today?’ ”

    Some of the posts are positive.

    I’m interested in what Dalrock believes and why because, from what I’ve read, he probably has a postive example of implementation in his own life.

    It’s not enough to point out the problems in Christianity today because anybody with 5 minutes in church can do that.

    Pointing out problems is easy. Proposing solutions and plans for action is harder. Proposing the right solutions and the right plans for action is hardest–and most important–of all.

  108. Tim says:

    @seriouslypleasedropit
    Read it. Thanks. I appreciate the wisdom in the Dumas quote.

  109. RichardP says:

    See this link:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/09/17/if-christianity-isnt-feminism-and-courtly-love-what-is-it/#comment-286540

    There is some good writing at this link – starting with constrainedlocus and going for another 3 posts to constrained locus again. constrained locus summarizes the thrust of these posts by saying: The answer is to re-install patriarchy.

    That answer presumes our country is governed by the people and for the people. It is not. It maybe never was. Our country is governed by the merchants – those with something to sell. Sellers need buyers. Look carefully at the current landscape. Most buyers are women. Most selling is done to women. Most advertising is geared to women’s sensibilities.

    Do you think the ones who run this country, the sellers, are going to jeapordize their market (women) by allowing patriarchy (where men constrain women) to be reinstalled?

    This is a serious comment. The reality behind this comment is what makes “reinstalling patriarchy” not a useful response to the question “whatever shall we do”. For starters, we won’t be allowed to do anything that jeapordizes anybodies market. And therein lies the problem. Patriarchy works only when we live off the land and don’t drive downtown to the office to work. I cannot imagine a scenario anywhere in the near future where corporations will allow millions of men to own enough land that they can support their families by farming it. So long as mass production exists, genuine patriarchy cannot exist, except in small pockets in unobtrusive places.

  110. Sharkly says:

    RichardP,
    Patriarchy works only when we live off the land and don’t drive downtown to the office to work.

    I totally disagree. God invented Patriarchy. It doesn’t go out of date. What alternative would you suggest, Feminism? Sorry, But I’m going with God, and not you, on patriarchy.

  111. Bruce says:

    @Ionathas Gnosis ph. d.
    Thank your for that helpful text. We’ve come a long way.

  112. Sharkly says:

    The answer is to re-install patriarchy.
    Kind of. The answer is to restore Biblical Christianity, which includes God instituted patriarchy as its’ divine, family, and societal structure.
    1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
    We restore Biblical Christianity by living it ourselves, while we root out the specific false teachings we have unknowingly adopted(as Dalrock said), first from our own lives, and then from others with caution when we can see clearly and are strong enough to withstand their error, lest we fall into sin again also. First we must separate ourselves from the apostate, and purify our hearts and minds. Christ must rule us with a rod of Iron, before we can be His true servants, and reign with Him. We must love His Laws and His word, and meditate on them, so much that we can sense false teachings in our gut. Always fearing Him and fleeing from evil. We must proverbially wash our filthy robes and always wear white. And once we are ready then we do all we can within our Christian liberty to reform our cultures and nations. And we pray for His return. For the King of Kings to slay them with the word of His mouth as the chosen, and faithful are with Him.

    I still debate whether we are to be martyrs, or kill the 450 prophets of Baal. I don’t know, but I suspect we are to pour out our own blood as a final offering.
    Revelation 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

    There is no greater Honor than to die for Christ and to reign with him, Immune from death, a good and faithful servant, brothers in death, and brothers with our almighty savior throughout eternity.

    ISIS tried to institute their Caliphate by violence, and uphold it by violence, and it was a bloody mess that quickly was destroyed.

    With God’s kingdom, we must first put our selves into subjection and mortify our selves.

    It would take several generations to recondition men to a new standard, and several generations of restoring shame and punishment to sluts and whores.

    It can also happen in a single generation, that truly repents, rather rapidly. When the King of Kings comes to rule with a rod of iron, the women will submit faster than the men.(think war brides) But we’re not ready for that quite yet, I don’t think. But like the parable of the virgins waiting for the bridegroom and the wedding feast, we need to get ready, and be prepared.

    Step one to restore the patriarchy is we have to believe in it and God’s design of it. We have to understand that men were created in the image and glory of God, and as the bearers of His image we are entrusted with sovereign reign over our wives in everything as Christ rules the church in everything. And we are to rule over our families well as the similitude of God.
    James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. 11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?

    We need to begin by first showing other men the degree of respect we’d like to eventually receive from them and others in our envisioned patriarchal utopia. If we are so full of hate that we can’t even respect each other, we’re just deluding ourselves to imagine patriarchy ever working with our own lack of self-control. To be respected in our own homes, we have to be prepared to respect other men’s rule over their own homes, when they do everything quite different from how we would do it. We can’t be AMOGing telling their wives we are better men and would husband them better. We have to be able to honor other men despite our differences, just because they are in God’s image. And honor women as weaker creatures who only reflect the glory of man.
    Romans12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
    The patriarchy must start in your heart and mind, you must put yourself into subjection to it first.

  113. BillyS says:

    First, RichardP is wrong that Patriarchy could not work in today’s society.. Where you go to work is not relevant to the underlying principles of society.

    Second, any change is more likely to happen quickly rather than slowly. I can see nothing that would drive a slow change to this, but societal breakdown could shift attitudes very quickly. Changes might work through society over time, but merely make divorce almost impossible and you could shift actions immediately. That change is not likely to happen without an external driver forcing it however.

  114. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Karla is the gift that keeps on giving. She alone is enough material for a manosphere blog.

    Here she talks about that favorite female topic: Empowerment.

  115. earl says:

    Here she talks about that favorite female topic: Empowerment.

    It’s one of two favorite female topics…the other is ‘Why can’t I find a good man?’

  116. white says:

    @RichardP
    @Sharkly

    RichardP is right that ever since the Industrial Revolution, women has been an essential part of every country’s economy. And women have proven time and again, regardless where they are from, that once financially productive they absolutely will not obey any form of Patriarchy. It’s no coincidence that womens’ liberation always coincides with Industrial development – no matter which part of Earth you look at. It does seem like womens’ repentance is necessary before Patriarchy can happen again.

    On the other hand, there’s ISIS

  117. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @white

    The precursor to women’s repentance is the repentance in the pulpits. As long as women continue to be taught that they are awesome, independent, should only submit when it’s not submission, equal with men, superior to men, more spiritual than men, oppressed by men et al, they will cling to the messages that itch their ears and justify their sin rather than seek repentance. As long as men are taught that they are the reason women are not empowered and are oppressed the message of repentance will be as welcome as was the prophet Jerimiah prophesying the need to repent.

  118. Dalrock says:

    @Tim

    When Dalrock writes an essay showing how the Fireproof movie fails its test of Biblical fidelity, he is showing a negative example. The Fireproof script isn’t for you and me to follow. It’s a bad example.

    But what’s the positive example?

    Switch the sexes. Have the wife submit to her husband, and try to win him over without a word. Fireproof isn’t merely wrong, it is teaching the opposite of biblical roles.

    I’m interested in what Dalrock believes and why because, from what I’ve read, he probably has a postive example of implementation in his own life.

    I make it a point not to write much about my family, for a number of reasons some of which (at least) I assume are obvious.

    It’s not enough to point out the problems in Christianity today because anybody with 5 minutes in church can do that.

    Pointing out problems is easy. Proposing solutions and plans for action is harder.

    I disagree. If this is so easy, then why are so few others doing so? Where else but here and the Christian men’s sphere do you go and see these things pointed out? If you think I’m doing what everyone else is doing, something pedestrian, why are you asking for me to tell you what to do as a husband and a father? Who else are you asking to tell you exactly how to live your life? This is a fair question, because you are suggesting that what I’m doing with the blog is pedestrian, child’s play. Please show me the other children. And if I’m doing something unremarkable, why do you look to me for direction?

    Proposing the right solutions and the right plans for action is hardest–and most important–of all.

    This is just as easily a criticism of the Apostles Peter, Paul, etc. as it is a criticism of me. Because surely you have read their instructions, and now you are saying another man must fill in the gaps for you. How is it that they have neglected what you say is the most important of all?

  119. Anonymous Reader says:

    TIm
    It’s not enough to point out the problems in Christianity today because anybody with 5 minutes in church can do that.

    Well, maybe, yet there is a big difference between what can be done and what is done. Let’s turn your fingers around and ask: Tim, what have you done in your church to push back against feminism? If you’ve actually read much on the site, you should know of some obvious errors that are all too common.

    Does your church have a “manUP” sermon around Father’s Day, and if so have you discussed that with the pastor(s)? Bonus points if you contrast that sermon with the usual Mommy Worship that accompanies Mother’s Day. Now, if you attend a church like the one Hmm belongs to, or an Orthodox church like the one Scott goes to — churches that at most merely mention “Today is mother’s / father’s day” with well wishing, followed by whatever homily / sermon is standard…then this question does not apply.

    Do women read from the Bible during services in your church, and if so have you taken that issue up with the church leader(s)?

    Do women preach in your church, and if so why are you still there?

    Again, if you’ve truly read this site deeply, you know the problems and some of the pushback. Without doxxing yourself, what are you doing in your own situation?

  120. ray says:

    Tim — “So if you take away feminism, you need to have a substitution for that operating system. Unfortunately, I read a lot of people in the manosphere who seem to have taken away feminism and replaced it with misogyny.
    That’s not healthy.
    I don’t want feminism and I don’t want misogyny.”

    Complete blather.

    WHAT misogyny are you talking about? WHERE in all the Western World is this ‘misogyny’ that you fear so desperately? WHERE are Western men mistreating females, destroying their lives, stealing their families, and on and on?

    Nowhere. It doesn’t exist. Men don’t hate women by nature, nor do men collectivize to strip femininity away from females, and force them to become males. As the past century has proven forever, women DO collectivize to strip masculinity away from boys and men, and to force boys and men to submit to their collective will, via the Sisterhood. The halting of the S.C. confirmation process by ONE ACCUSING AMERISKANK proves my point. There are millions of similar examples.

    The opposite of the current Feminist Nations of the West is NOT ‘misogyny’ as you so subtly frame it. The opposite is Scriptural Patriarchy, unless like the Sisterhood, you are alleging that God and His Word are misogynistic?

  121. drifter says:

    Eph 5:29 indicates that man is said to nourish and cherish himself, and so he should be doing the same for his wife. The problem is that women and “christian” white-knighters today interpret that to mean that their husbands should pedestalize them. However, according to BLB, the only other places each of those phrases are used conveys a much different meaning…see Eph 6:4 and I Th 2:7. Would these heretics argue that fathers should pedestalize their children, or that a nurse should pedestalize her children?

  122. 8 in the Gate says:

    Keep up the good work Dalrock, you are a God send and much needed.

  123. Dry Holes says:

    No one else touches your work Dalrock- you are the most important worker in the field and God will reward your great efforts.

  124. drifter says:

    Nor does it help that some key Greek words/phrases have NOT been consistently translated to the English. Love comes to mind.

  125. info says:

    If Patriarchy is misogyny. Then all sex is rape.

  126. earl says:

    I don’t want feminism and I don’t want misogyny.

    Feminism is misogyny.

    It is true that women can certainly hate women…look at how much the herd hates femininity, motherhood.

  127. earl says:

    As the past century has proven forever, women DO collectivize to strip masculinity away from boys and men, and to force boys and men to submit to their collective will, via the Sisterhood.

    Along with that women collectively try to strip each other of their femininity and replace it with masculinity. However it’s counterfeit because women can’t be men.

  128. NotaBene says:

    @Redpillsetmefree Thanks, that helps (even though it’s waaaaay up there now). I agree!

    @Novaseeker Nice post back there a ways!

  129. earl says:

    “Here’s what we believe and stand for. If you understand and like it, follow us.”

    You read the Bible, Ringo? That’s the start.

    Now if the particular church you subscribe to starts to try twisting what Scripture says especially marital roles to make it where the husband submits to the wife and the wife dictates the marriage…you have a problem. And that’s what Dalrock highlights quite often.

  130. ray says:

    RichardP — “Do you think the ones who run this country, the sellers, are going to jeapordize their market (women) by allowing patriarchy (where men constrain women) to be reinstalled?”

    Of course not. And if you read the Book of Revelation carefully, you will find multiple references to the Second Babylon, or Babylon the ‘Great’, receiving rebukes. Here’s just one example, from Rev. 18 —

    “For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

    And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

    For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

    Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

    How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.”

    Hmm. Sound like any place familiar to readers here? Can you think of a nation that fits that description perfectly?

    Made other nations ‘drunk’ with her New Babylon feminist kulture. Merchants of the planet made wealthy by selling luxury crap to the Holy American Female. Ten-thousand-dollar handbags. Five-thousand-dollar bottles of perfume. Designer clothing. And on and on.

    American corporations and governments are long addicted to the money and power that accrues from a nation effectively ruled by females. Largely with male proxies in leadership positions. But make no mistake about who runs the show.

  131. white says:

    @Tim

    “It’s not enough to point out the problems in Christianity today because anybody with 5 minutes in church can do that.”

    And you just proved my point:

    “Anyone who’s been in Churchian circles for X amount of time knows that “Oh, but what is your alternative?” is the No.1 go-to strategy.”

    And so the status quo remains.

  132. vfm7916 says:

    @Gunner Q and his ideological fellow travelers:

    “Pointing out problems is easy. Proposing solutions and plans for action is harder.” -@tim

    “I disagree. If this is so easy, then why are so few others doing so?” – @ Dalrock

    “And so the status quo remains.” – @white

    “constrained locus summarizes the thrust of these posts by saying: The answer is to re-install patriarchy.” – @RichardP

    “vfm7916 @ 11:51 am:
    “No matter how many people tell you that you can’t, that it’s impossible, western women are terrible, you’ll never find a wife, game sucks, just MGTOW, it’s too hard, you should keep one thing in mind:”

    Sure. Go plant new trees while the gov’t is uprooting your neighbor’s trees and fantasize that your dick is Too Big To Fail. -GunnerQ

    Nobody in the mainstream is telling men that they can’t have marriages and children. Fact is, they’re DEMANDING men get married and have kids, or shaming men for being shy about the massive risks. Just like you do. Hmm. -GunnerQ

    _______________________________
    Why is it not easy to point out problems? Because humans can barely tolerate any form of criticism these days because they have wrapped themselves in ideologies as their self-identity. Dalrock has addressed the Church issues far better than I could, but GunnerQ’s response represents many men’s hurdle to recognize a problem, propose solutions, and act upon them in their own lives.

    Why does the status quo remain? Because fear.
    Why does feminism flourish in churches? Because fear.
    Why do Christian men not publicly point out heresy? Because fear.
    Why do many men fail to take even the first steps of being a patriarch? Because fear.

    Make of that what you will.

  133. squid_hunt says:

    @vfm7916

    I always find the “You can’t do anything! No one will let you!” responses to be hilarious.

    Might as well tattoo “My ex-wife took my agency when she took my balls.” on your butt.

  134. earl says:

    I always find the “You can’t do anything! No one will let you!” responses to be hilarious.

    You can do anything…you have to get over the fear over what you think the consequences will be.

    And given anytime someone pushes back against the feminist sisterhood is labeled as a misogynist, sexist, or whatever other buzzword is out there…it should be pretty clear what happens.

  135. earl says:

    Although I will ask @vfm7916….

    You are aware of no-fault and family courts, right. There is VERY REAL risk to being a patriarch. The likes of which weren’t seen even back in the 50s. On top of that a woman on the carousel even a little N of (1-4) statistically is a greatly increased divorce risk. What needs to be tackled first is sexually immoral and irresponsible people(especially the female side) helped by usage of the pill.

  136. Tim says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    @Anonymous Reader

    Good questions.

    My own experience is so very, very different from the experiences reported here by other readers; because of this I probably hear Dalrock in a very different way than most readers.

    -I was raised in a family where my mother displayed submission to my father in every way. I’ve never heard my parents argue and I’ve never seen my mother behave in a rebellious or insubordinate way. She truly models Biblical femininity. I can’t think of a single example where I would say she falls short of the Biblical standard. And that’s a genuine statement.

    -All of my siblings have Biblically ordered marriages where male leadership is clearly visible.

    -The church that my wife and I are part of is ordered according to the Biblical instruction:
    -Women don’t speak in a church meeting. They don’t pray aloud, don’t prophesy, don’t preach, don’t lead in singing, don’t read from the Bible, and don’t give any other form of direction or leadership. The church is entirely man-lead. the Bible says women should be silent in a church meeting, so we simply practice that teaching.
    -The women dress modestly, focusing on inward beauty rather than outward beauty. The women wear head coverings during church meetings and while praying/prophesying as a symbol of authority.
    -We’ve never bothered to preach Mother’s Day or Father’s Day sermons; the extent of our corporate notice of these days is a simple special prayer, thanking God for the mothers/fathers at the end of the church service.

    -In my own marriage, my wife is submissive and meek. I am the leader of our home and she is my helper. We are blessed to have a profitable, loving relationship.

    That’s my background.

    Now, you may be interested to know that even though I come from such a unique and conservative background (and I continue faithfully in it), I was affected by the constant press of feminism. When I was younger I often sought to water down those practices in order to be less contrarian.

    More than anything, reading Dalrock and the comments has shown me that there are actually other men who deeply crave the kind of life and experience I have.

    I’ve always felt like I’m on a bit of an island. I don’t know many other churches or believers who practice the kind of male/female relationships that we do. Frankly, I didn’t know there were others that wanted such a life; that wanted to simply obey what the Bible teaches.

    I can now see, from the many comments here, how blessed my family and I are.

  137. Tim says:

    @Dalrock
    You write this: “I disagree. If this is so easy, then why are so few others doing so? Where else but here and the Christian men’s sphere do you go and see these things pointed out? If you think I’m doing what everyone else is doing, something pedestrian, why are you asking for me to tell you what to do as a husband and a father? Who else are you asking to tell you exactly how to live your life? This is a fair question, because you are suggesting that what I’m doing with the blog is pedestrian, child’s play. Please show me the other children. And if I’m doing something unremarkable, why do you look to me for direction?”

    I see the error in my previous statement; If you read my above comment to “Anonymous Reader,” you’ll notice that I come from a unique background and maintain a fairly unique Christian experience.

    That is what makes me think, “This is easy…now I’d like to see Dalrock address the building, positive questions.”

    I stand corrected.

    Your work is valuable; it is absolutely not pedestrian. It’s very important for a vast swathe of us to read and understand.

    But, for what it’s worth, since I’m already so far to the conservative end of the spectrum, the type of work you do that I find most helpful is when you critique the ostensibly conservative commentators and remind them of the Biblical standard. (E.g., Wilson and other complementarians.)

    Your work has helped me to resist the siren song of complementarianism in favor of maintaining a devotion to Biblical fidelity.

    It can be very lonely to feel like you’re the only one; by reading your work I feel like I’m not the only one who sees the disconnects between the message preached in popular christian circles and the messages contained in Scripture.

    I have always been inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to modern churches, feeling “It must not really be that bad!”

    I guess it really is that bad.

    More of us need to stand up and speak boldly.

    Keep up the good work. I genuinely value reading your commentary.

  138. feeriker says:

    Now, try telling that stuff to a Family Court Judge. 😆

    Heck, try telling it to a pastor and his congregation full of churchian modernists.

  139. earl says:

    Speaking of Kavanaugh now his accuser refuses to testify in a Senate hearing.

    #believeallwomen

    https://www.lifenews.com/2018/09/19/woman-making-sexual-assault-claims-against-brett-kavanaugh-refuses-to-testify-in-senate-hearing/

  140. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Tim. I’m probably more confused after reading your latest comments than I was before, but either way I appreciate the kind words and I’m glad you find the site of value.

    As you’ve noticed your comments are always going into moderation. Usually this only happens for the first comment unless I put you in the moderation list. I checked your email address and IP, and neither are on my moderation list. If you have a wordpress login, make sure you are logged in first before commenting; I’ve come across a few cases where that caused issues. Otherwise, all I can think of is that wordpress doesn’t like your email address (I see that a few years ago another commenter entered the same email address). So if all else fails, you might try making up something else. As far as I can tell, wordpress doesn’t mind if the address is legit or not, but the one you are using might not be unique enough.

  141. Dalrock says:

    @Tim

    All of my siblings have Biblically ordered marriages where male leadership is clearly visible.

    There is a subtle substitution here that Cane Caldo pointed out in his most recent post. The Bible instructs wives to submit to their husbands, and husbands to love their wives. At the same time it says the husband is the the head of the wife. Complementarians subtly twisted this to “Husbands are to lead”. This isn’t incorrect, in that leaders have at least some obligation to lead. But the substitution is being made to avoid saying (and thinking) what the Bible actually says (repeatedly). Then this is exploited further to eliminate headship in practice. If we were thinking biblically and not culturaly, we would instead say:

    Biblically ordered marriages where the wife submits to her husband and the husband loves his wife.

    Check out Cane’s post if you are interested.

  142. OKRickety says:

    Dalrock said: ‘Biblically ordered marriages where the wife submits to her husband and the husband loves his wife.’

    Incorporating both headship and scriptural teaching, I consider this to be a more complete summary of the relationship:

    In Christian marriages, both spouses recognize that the husband is the head of the wife, and both follow the biblical commands for the husband to love his wife and the wife to submit to her husband.

  143. Micha Elyi says:

    -Courtship sneaked into Christian thought during Medieval times, a carry-over from pagan Greece.
    –Spike11:43 pm

    I disagree. Contradicting your claim about the ancient pagans practicing “courtship” are early Christian martyred women killed by the pagans because they wished to practice what St. Paul preached in 1 Corinthians 7:8 rather than marry as pagans expected. The idea that marriage required the free consent of both the man and woman was considered by the pagans to be a weird, socially rebellious idea of the Christians. But if you’ve got some solid sources backed by evidence that demonstrate “courtship” was a common practice of the ancient Greek pagans, please share them.

  144. Sharkly says:

    Tim,
    I was raised in a family where my mother displayed submission to my father in every way. … All of my siblings have Biblically ordered marriages where male leadership is clearly visible. … The church that my wife and I are part of is ordered according to the Biblical instruction: Women don’t speak in a church meeting. … The women dress modestly, focusing on inward beauty rather than outward beauty. The women wear head coverings during church meetings and while praying/prophesying as a symbol of authority. … In my own marriage, my wife is submissive and meek.

    Wow! Please tell me the area where you live, as close as you are willing, and what sort of church you go to. I might be interested in moving to your little utopia and joining up. I am not aware of too many good options like that around me.

  145. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Tim

    Half of us want to visit your church now. I don’t think I am understanding this part of your summary correctly (bolded portion). The women do prophesy or don’t ? Do men prophesy there? Thanks.

    -Women don’t speak in a church meeting. They don’t pray aloud, don’t prophesy, don’t preach, don’t lead in singing, don’t read from the Bible, and don’t give any other form of direction or leadership. The church is entirely man-lead. the Bible says women should be silent in a church meeting, so we simply practice that teaching.
    -The women dress modestly, focusing on inward beauty rather than outward beauty. The women wear head coverings during church meetings and while praying/prophesying as a symbol of authority.

  146. Hank-T says:

    “If he has a specific question as I wrote I’ll do what I can to answer it. But I’m not going to try to answer all possible questions, or guess at one only to have him come back and say that wasn’t it.”

    That’s a dodge. You can easily do a series of positive articles and hope any one hits.

    “This isn’t a simple question to answer because the Bible and/or the church (if Orthodox or RCC) doesn’t always offer specific scripts we should follow on (for one example) how Christians should court for marriage.”

    He wants to know your position yet you said the Bible doesn’t tell you even though Complementarian is directly disputed with the Bible.

    Like others said, there is no dating in the Bible. Best thing is go from singlehood at parents house to marriage. Every other journey is a grey area of temptation.

  147. vfm7916 says:

    @earl

    Absolutely. I know we’ve tangled over this before, but I want you to know that I understand the risks out there for men. I myself am at risk, to a greater degree than most on this board. I don’t want to downplay the risk, for any man.

    However:

    The existence of risk, and the consequences of risk, can be mitigated or reduced by your actions.

    You can only control you.

    Outsize rewards will always come with risks. When you can reduce risk to your tolerance level, or increase your tolerance level, you can judge if the return is worthwhile.

    For me, planting trees and making children is worth the risk. I have mitigated a lot of risk. Yes, it could all blow up.

    The stats say that 50% (?) of all first marriages end in divorce. That also implies that 50% don’t. Does anyone have enough context to evaluate those numbers? That’s a rhetorical question, and the answer is No.

    So, screw statistics. They’re worse than damn lies because they can stop you from acting or attempting anything, instill doubt and hopelessness, make you preach the futility of it all in order to justify your own indecision (that would be called hamstering, and yeah, guys do it too), and on and on until its too late. I’m 99% sure that Lucifer is a statistician…

    Me, I’m a procrastinator. It’s a bad weakness. Yet the silver lining is that once I’m in motion It’s too much work to stop. So I keep going, putting one foot in front of the other, following and refining my plan as I learn more. Planting trees or having kids is like that.

  148. It’s true that it’s nearly impossible to imagine modern Christians rejecting feminism. But there are some red-pillers who have a view of what it would look like.

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/10/19/god-game/

    Heartiste is not giving you a full model. Nor could he. But he clearly knows what he’s talking about and he can see it. He has the frame, maybe you can borrow it from him.

  149. earl says:

    Does anyone have enough context to evaluate those numbers?

    Taken at face value no…

    But there are factors showing how the number of premarital partners a woman has the divorce risk goes up. To me that’s a BIG one. Even though we talk about churchians…a woman who attends church weekly lowers a divorce risk. Things like cohabitation (which is likely to result in premarital sex) increase divorce risk. These are actions rather than her saying she doesn’t believe in no-fault. Sure you are evaluating individuals when you choose a spouse but if you know what their actions are you can gauge their divorce risk better.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VmMGTymAVcI/s1600/teachman

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability

  150. Tim says:

    @Dalrock,

    Thank you for the link to Cane’s post and the clarity on language. I had not caught that slip into complementarian language.

    I don’t wish to cause confusion; let me rephrase my original question into a succinct form:

    Dalrock, would you please consider writing an article from time to time that simply discusses an ideal scenario and shows examples as to how we can live out our actual Biblical standards in a very difficult world? A world in which we face anti-Biblical assault both from the culture at large as well as from mainstream Churchianity?

    Some of us already have strong marriages where our wives are in submission to us and we are seeking to model and instruct our children very carefully so that they will follow our footsteps. But because the standards of the world are so topsy-turvy, it’s hard to know how to coach them (our children).

    For example, since a father has the Biblical authority over his daughter’s marriage, do you think I should train my sons to approach a girl’s father for permission before making his interest known to her? If my daughters are submitted to my authority in their marriage prospects, should they notify me of their interest in a certain man so that I can go directly to him? This is merely an example to spark your understanding.

    My family and I are blessed to be part of a very serious, Biblically-ordered church which maintains a strong and clear position on male headship both for the church at large and for the individual congregants, so many of your cogent observations on mainstream Churchianity don’t really apply to us. But, I’m still looking for wisdom and ideas that I can use with the next generation in order to help them avoid the errors of my own.

    Just because I’m operating from a position of relative strength doesn’t mean I don’t have a lot to learn. So I appreciate any commentary you can provide on “the ideal” of what it means to be a strong, Christian man in a difficult age.

    Thank you.

    (p.s., I will adjust email and IP settings in the future for a more stable identity.)

  151. Tim says:

    @Ray,

    You allege that my concern over “misogyny” is “complete blather.” You ask where I see misogyny in the manosphere.

    When I use the term “misogyny,” I’m using it in the simply dictionary definition: “Misogyny: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.”

    When I read some of the commentary in the manosphere–especially on non-Christian sites–I come across many, many examples of men who espouse hatred, dislike, mistrust, and/or prejudice against women.

    The whole idea of MGTOW would seem to fit into that dictionary definition.

    I think any man should be very careful and wary in all interactions with a woman in today’s world.

    But I cannot reconcile those hardcore MGTOW sentiments with Christianity. Proverbs 18:22 says that “He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD.”

    I am deeply grateful for my mother, my wife, my sisters, my sisters-in-law, my sisters-in-Christ, and many of my female friends and acquaintances.

    I don’t like to hear “womyn,” as a class, disparaged any more than I like to hear “men,” as a class, disparaged.

    I think it’s more useful to focus on the underlying ideology, ethics, and doctrine that leads to certain behaviors, principles, and worldviews put into practice.

    Feel free to make your own judgements on the use of the term misogyny. I do think it fits some of the commenters in the manosphere. (It doesn’t usually fit many of the bloggers themselves.)

    I have no problem advocating for a Biblical patriarchy. I live by that outlook myself and in my own family.

  152. Tim says:

    @Sharkly,

    I don’t feel particularly comfortable sharing personal details here in a public format. I’ve chosen a pseudonym for a reason–probably the same reason as Dalrock himself.

    I will simply assure you that I haven’t exaggerated my comments for effect. They are truthful and accurate.

    I will, however, tell you a bit about the genesis of the church that I’m a part of, because I think it provides a useful example for other men to follow.

    The church that I’m a part of has a very long (multi-decade) history. But it was established from the earliest days with a focus on Biblical adherence.

    One of the leading men who initially established the church was actually converted in a very feminized church. As a young man, he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and was given only a few months of life expectancy by his physicians.

    He was not a Christian; he was a hard-charging sinner.

    His Christian mother asked him to come to a prayer meeting with her. He relented. While at the prayer meeting, the group prayed for him to be healed of his cancer. He felt someone physically touch his body during the prayer. After looking around, he observed no one who could have touched him.

    After returning home, he recounts that for the next few days, he sat continuously on the toilet while black blood and other disgusting things passed out of his body. After those days on the toilet, everything stopped and returned to normal.

    He later returned for medical examination and the doctors could find no trace of the cancer. He concluded that he had been supernaturally healed and those days on the toilet had been all of the cancerous flesh being passed out of his body.

    (He lived for ~50 years after that initial experience.)

    After that dramatic conversion experience, he turned his energy away from his sin and towards Christ. He began to pursue the Lord, study the Bible, etc.

    He attended his mother’s church. (The same church where he had been healed.) That church had a woman as its pastor.

    But, since he was reading the Bible, he quickly became challenged with trying to figure out how to be faithful to the Biblical teaching on women as pastors.

    After wrestling with the topic for a long time, he came to the conclusion that he could not continue being part of a church where a woman was pastor, no matter how evident the supernatural power of God had been and no matter how dramatic his conversion experience had been. He became convinced that a house built on the sand will eventually fall.

    He left that church and began gathering very simply with his own brother (who had also converted) and their wives. Over time, others were added and the church grew and was strengthened.

    I’m convinced that this is the “positive pattern” that is appropriate for our current challenges, especially as it relates to Churchianity. As many of the commenters above have said, it’s high time for men to “man up” and start leading.

    Every single one of us must:
    1) Pursue Christ and his kingdom with passion and devotion. We must be disciples who actively follow Christ and his teachings, not mere converts who verbally profess from time to time.
    2) We must study the Scriptures which are given to us “for teaching, for reproof, for correction…” and are “able to make us wise…”
    3) If we find ourselves part of a church situation which is contrary to the teaching of Scripture, we should respectfully go to the leaders in the church and question them, search Scripture together, entreat them, and challenge them. We should do so according to the Scriptural pattern.
    4) If such questions/challenges/etc. do not result in harmony between us and harmony with the Scripture, we should seek the Lord for guidance and, if appropriate, withdraw from that congregation. By withdrawing from the congregation, you remove the male leadership that is necessary for its success and you remove the financial financial support that is necessary for the pastor’s financial structure.
    5) From that point, we should seek to build afresh, gathering with others whom God would provide, and should build our next endeavor upon a clear foundation of Scriptural authority.

    In my opinion, our clear submission to Scriptural authority will eradicate many of the erroneous feminized doctrines from a church.

    In times like these, I’m often reminded of Elijah’s experience; he thought he was the only faithful prophet of God, but God showed him otherwise. In today’s world, it’s easy to think that you and I are the only faithful disciples of Christ; sometimes God shows us otherwise. There are many, many of us out there who are actively living according to the Biblical pattern.

    It works and it produces good fruit.

  153. Tim says:

    @Lost Patrol

    My comments were intended to delineate between how women participate in a church meeting and how they exercise spirituality at other times.

    The first section was in response to 1 Corinthians 14. Paul says, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 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.”

    Based on this passage, in the church I’m a part of, women do not speak in a church meeting. No matter how “spiritual” the verbal contribution may be (praying, prophesying, etc.), women speaking in a church meeting is clearly prohibited by Scripture.

    The second section of my comment was alluding to 1 Corinthians 11. “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

    Based on this passage, in our church, women cover their heads when praying or prophesying.

    Practically we interpret this to mean that in a meeting of the church where all congregants are involved in praying (the men aloud, the women silently), women should cover their heads.

    When a woman is praying or prophesying in another context (such as alone, privately with her husband, as part of a small prayer group), whether such prayer is silent or aloud, she should cover her head.

    I don’t see any Scriptural reason to assume that prayer or prophesy are restricted to men alone; as far as I understand, I think all spiritual gifts and graces are open to both men and women.

    But in a public meeting of the church, women are to exercise their gifts silently.

    Does that make more sense now?

  154. vfm7916 says:

    https://www.bloombergquint.com/pursuits/2018/09/25/millennials-are-causing-the-u-s-divorce-rate-to-plummet#gs.SF4s_nY

    Without getting into the detail, the LT;DR is that if you get married these days, you’re more likely to stay married, or at least for the millennials.

    I will stand by my prediction that Generation Zyklon will have both a higher marriage rate and a greater percentage chance of remaining married.

    Whereas white progressive SJW females and soyboys will extinct themselves through lack of reproduction…

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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