Bnonn, Pastor Foster, and the power of women.

Reader 7817 shared what I believe to be a newsletter from Bnonn and Pastor Foster.  Whoever is the author, they mistakenly claim that women are powerless to create patriarchy (emphasis mine):

…a much more serious error is implied in the second—that women have the power to achieve the biblical ideal of patriarchy. The reason we don’t have patriarchy now, in other words, or the reason the church (not to speak of society) is imploding under feminism, is that women are not submitting. If they would only return to their proper place, patriarchy would be restored.

This relocates the locus of control from its biblical center in men exercising their innate father-rule on behalf of God, to an ironically feminist-sounding and entirely false center in women’s virtue. It is a functional denial that patriarchy is actually built into creation; that men are always the ones with the power, even when that power is being bent toward the aims of women.

In this way, many of those fighting feminism fall into a mirror image of it. Just as genuine gender equality is most useful to feminism when it remains an ideal that is never realized—let alone lived out—the same becomes true for patriarchy under those fighting feminism. Claiming to believe in patriarchy, to paraphrase Paul, they nonetheless deny its power.

This self-contradiction is especially obvious if one suggests that men need to take responsibility for women submitting to them.  How often will this be glossed as blaming men for women’s faults (which is indeed a common problem in the church among those afraid to criticize women). But holding men accountable to the role God gave them is not equivalent to winking at women’s sins. On the contrary, calling men to require women’s submission is exactly to hold women accountable to submit!

Parts of what they argue above are correct.  The last bolded part is mostly correct.  It is right to expect pastors to teach wives to submit to their husbands, and to exercise church discipline when required.  Long time readers of this blog know that I’ve focused probably 10-1 on challenging men vs women in this regard.

But it is false to claim that Christian wives lack the power to create patriarchy in their own marriages.  For this is exactly what the Apostle Peter tells wives to do in 1 Pet 3:1-6 (ESV):

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

Note that what Peter is telling wives to do is take unilateral action and make their husband their ruler.  Peter follows up in 1 Pet 3:7 telling husbands to love their wives, but neither instruction (to wives or husbands) is conditional upon the other.  Peter even specifically states that Christian wives are to create patriarchy in their own homes even if their husband doesn’t obey the word.  The hope of course is that the wife will win her husband over without a word through her submission and demonstration of fear and reverence, but this doesn’t change the fact that Peter is telling wives (like husbands) to take unilateral action*.

And wives aren’t the only women with the power to create patriarchy.  In Titus 2 the Apostle Paul instructs Titus to have older women teach younger women to submit to their husbands (ESV):

2 But as for you, teach what accords with sound[a] doctrine. 2 Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

This brings us to every complementarian’s favorite biblical fact:  neither husbands nor pastors are instructed to tell wives to submit.  This is true but beside the point, because both husbands (1 Cor 14:35, Eph 5:26) and pastors are instructed to teach the word, and the word repeatedly tells wives to submit to their husbands.  Moreover, the Apostles Peter and Paul both set examples in their epistles by directly telling wives to submit to their husbands.

Nevertheless, complementarians persist in claiming that husbands especially must not tell their wives to submit**.  This is a fundamental tenet of complementarian theology.  When accused of violating this tenet, Pastor Steve Camp was outraged at the charge:

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

So while Bnonn and Pastor Foster are incorrect in stating that wives don’t have the ability to create patriarchy in their own marriages, they are right that Christian leaders need to be rebuked for decades of false teaching on the matter.

*That husbands can do things to make submitting to them easier and wives can do things to make loving them easier doesn’t change the fact that each is assigned a specific task.  Neither can accomplish (or be responsible for) the other’s task, but it is loving for us to try to make each other’s burdens lighter as we focus in patience on doing what we are respectively called to do.

**What could be more unchivalrous?

Update:  Cane Caldo has written his own excellent response to the newsletter:  When All Else Fails Read the Instructions

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Bnonn, Cane Caldo, Complementarian, Pastor Michael Foster, Pastor Steve Camp, Submission. Bookmark the permalink.

245 Responses to Bnonn, Pastor Foster, and the power of women.

  1. 7817 says:

    Men are to love their wives, yes, but the problem for many low ranking Christian men is that they want to please their wife more than they want to please God. This was true in my case anyway, and was something I had to repent of.

    So it is interesting that in order to put things back the way they should be in proper order of importance, the first thing necessary was to love and fear God first, which >looked< like loving my wife less.

  2. princeasbel says:

    Excellent response, Dalrock. I agree with Bnonn that men have the power to take women’s authority away, but it didn’t occur to me to look at the commands to wives as creating patriarchy. Thanks for responding as you have.

    Thus, to solve the problem, we must speak to the men. We can either treat the symptoms, or we can treat the disease; we haven’t the energy to do both.

    The writers of scripture had the energy to speak to both men and women. I think they found it necessary to do both. I wonder if anyone really does Bnonn and co. can’t follow their example because of a lack of energy. But I repeat myself.

  3. AnonS says:

    We always have a patriarchy in that now most women are just in a sexless harem with Big Daddy Government and its male enforcers. Big Daddy Government always works to make them feel empowered in the moment and depressed and childless in the long term.

  4. Oscar says:

    @ princeasbel

    Excellent response, Dalrock. I agree with Bnonn that men have the power to take women’s authority away…

    Really? How so? Does an individual man have the power to take his wife’s authority away? Because that sounds a whole lot like “Using Male Privilege”, and that – according to the Duluth Model of Power and Control, on which domestic abuse laws are based – makes that husband an abuser.

    https://www.theduluthmodel.org/

    What does the husband do when he attempts to take away his wife’s authority, and she accuses him of abuse, and that lands him in prison? What power does he have then?

  5. Bruce says:

    A pastor-friend of mine once put is it (the complementarian position) this way: “those verses are in there for her not for you.”

  6. feministhater says:

    On the contrary, calling men to require women’s submission is exactly to hold women accountable to submit!

    What does he mean ‘require’? How do men do this? I’m all ears..

    At the moment, it’s without meaning. A figment of imagination. The only way to do this is to go MGTOW. If women do not follow, submit and shut the fuck up, you leave them behind. That is the ONLY way that a ‘requirement’ like that works.

    Anytime you try a smidgen more, Oscar’s point comes in and you are a de facto abuser, according to the Duluth Model. No ifs or buts.

    Bnonn needs to elaborate more on this point. If he does not provide a definitive explanation of how this requirement will work on the individual level as well as the community level, he is full of shit. A snake oil salesmen.

  7. feministhater says:

    I include princeabel within that as well. Come up with the explanation of how you do this as a man. How do you require a woman to submit?

  8. Novaseeker says:

    What does the husband do when he attempts to take away his wife’s authority, and she accuses him of abuse, and that lands him in prison? What power does he have then?

    I think their idea is that if men exerted their power as men, Duluth would be swept way (men control legislatures, police forces, etc.). The issue is that men have chosen to empower women with things like Duluth.

    That isn’t completely wrong, but it’s only half the picture. Women’s behaviors have a large impact on men’s behaviors and vice versa. This is both on an individual level and a collective/social level. Addressing one side of the problem will not solve it — either inside the Church or outside of it, and that is where bnonn errs.

  9. thedeti says:

    Probably is from Pastor Foster or Bnonn. Their new website is up and it’s fashioned to be mostly a response to “Red Pill” and the Christomanosphere. The theme is that Christian men who ingest the Red Pill have lost their way. Dalrock and Rollo are called out and taken to task by name.

    The overarching themes seem to be

    –“yes, Red Pill does a great job of explaining what ‘is’; but ‘is’ is not ‘ought’.”

    –“be patriarchs and love your wives”

    –“don’t do porn and stay away from extramarital sex”

    –“the Christomanosphere is bitching and complaining and defeatist moping; but we’re about action”

    Well. OK.

    But you can’t act unless you understand what “is”. And “church” can’t be trusted to tell us what “is” because women don’t like it when men talk about what “is”. And I don’t trust Michael Foster or Bnonn to teach unflinchingly what “is” so as not to hurt the womenfolk’s feelings. Because the women are watching, and reading, and policing what Foster and Bnonn will say.

    Itsgoodtobeaman.com is where they blog now.

  10. thedeti says:

    Sorry, but this is not the kind of guy I think has much to teach me about biblical patriarchy or masculinity. https://bnonn.com/about/

  11. Oscar says:

    On the contrary, calling men to require women’s submission is exactly to hold women accountable to submit! ~ Tennant & Foster

    Husband: Wife, you must submit to me as you are commanded to in Ephesians, Corinthians, Peter, Timothy and Titus.

    Wife: No.

    Now what?

    As I keep stating, the definition of authority is:

    the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

    Requiring submission, and holding accountable requires that the one handing out the requirements, and holding his subordinate accountable enforce obedience.

    So, how does a husband do that?

    Tennant and Foster both whine and bitch about whining and bitching without providing solutions, but they’ve provided zero solutions as to how a husband enforces the requirement that his wife submit to him.

    So, let’s hear it, boys. How does a husband hold his wife accountable to submit to him?

  12. thedeti says:

    Oscar:

    How does a husband hold his wife accountable to submit to him?

    Dalrock and Cane have both addressed this. I’m not going to speak for them or even try to paraphrase them. My thoughts, partly from scripture, are that you seek help from family and church. You do a Matthew 17 on them: You go to them directly. If they don’t listen, you return with two or three others in the hopes they will help her listen. If she still won’t listen, you go to the entire church with it. If she still won’t listen and repent, she’s “excommunicated” and she is as an unbeliever to you.

    When those in the church refuse to help you (and we all know they will), then you have to resort to dread. And you have to walk it out. You withdraw attention. You withdraw financial support. You then file for divorce and end the marriage. The catch is that if she repents, submits, and returns, you have to take her back.

    Look at someone who walked this out: Pastor Saeed Abedini. He did pretty much what’s set out up there. But he has not taken Naghmeh back, in my view because she remains unrepentant and rebelling against him.

    I’m not saying this is entirely right. I am saying this is an attempt to start a conversation on this. i hope Cane will weigh in. I admit i’ve not read all his posts on this subject and I haven’t gotten down into the scriptures all the way.

  13. Oscar says:

    @ Novaseeker

    I think their idea is that if men exerted their power as men, Duluth would be swept way (men control legislatures, police forces, etc.). The issue is that men have chosen to empower women with things like Duluth.

    I’d like princeasbel to speak for himself, but okay, let’s suppose what you wrote is true. How do we accomplish that? We can’t even convince other Christian men to unashamedly embrace the scriptures that command wives to submit to their husbands. How are we supposed to also convince enough godless men in government, plus enough godless women in government, to get rid of Duluth?

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    I think their idea is that if men exerted their power as men, Duluth would be swept way (men control legislatures, police forces, etc.). The issue is that men have chosen to empower women with things like Duluth.

    Just as “is” is not a synonym of “ought”, the words” some” and “all” aren’t either. I’m quite sure that the vast majority of men, 99% of them, didn’t sign off on Duluth back in the 1980’s. So it is quite hollow and childish to point fingers and say “Men! Man up and repeal those bad laws”. In the US it takes a lot of money and time to get even the slightest change in post-divorce custody laws, for example, but don’t bother asking TradCons for any help, because they side with feminists almost every time. Lots of heavy lifting might get a state to move from mother-custody as a default to shared-custody – although the details of what “shared” means are always tricky.

    That’s a tiny modification in the divorce industry. Yet TradCon clowns expect men to just “ManUP” and overturn the 40-year old Duluth protocol “just do it” style?

    This is childish, immature, and indicates a near total lack of social awareness regarding how laws are enacted in the modern world.

    Quick question: How many New Yorkers actually approve of the new abortion law? Should every man in the state be held responsible for that law, when most men have zero influence in Albany? Can i hold Bnomm to account for whatever feminist laws exist in New Zealand?

    This “You other men should fix everything!” screech that TradCons resort to all too often is a very feminine trait…rather odd.

  15. Asaph says:

    Actually trump recently changed the definition of domestic violence by abandoning the Duluth model, and changing it to actual cases of physical violence.
    Unfortunately, after trump era stops and the Duluth model takes control again, people who got together during trump era won’t be grandfathered in.

  16. Dalrock says:

    @feministhater

    What does he mean ‘require’? How do men do this? I’m all ears..

    There is pressure men can bring to bear that is in line with Scripture and even the disaster that is Duluth. Pastors can still preach that wives are to submit to their husbands from the pulpit. They can also enforce church discipline when appropriate. The problem is that most pastors carefully avoid preaching submission, or when they do try to find a way to pretend that if you understand it correctly it really shouldn’t offend the congregation’s feminist/chivalrous sensibilities. The reality is if they aren’t outraging the feminist/chivalrous sensibilities, they are teaching it wrong. Pastors could also teach and enforce a hard line on divorce, weakening the threatpoint. Pastors could do something really radical and follow the instructions in Titus 2, setting up a group of older women and having them visit younger wives and urging them to (among other things) submit to their husbands. This last one would be enormously effective if the Pastor was serious about accepting what the Bible plainly says and could survive the inevitable demands for his ouster. Even short of that, pastors could stop piling on husbands and fathers and instead honor them. But even the last bit would be to nearly all conservative pastors like french kissing their sister. Yuk!

    Husbands do have a bit of power through the force of their personality. This is something we have gone over both on this blog and in the larger sphere. This is what Bnonn and Pastor Foster seem to be zeroing in on in their new website. The temptation is so say If Christian husbands are excellent enough, we can avoid the uncomfortable stuff (that I mentioned above). The thing is, it is good to teach men how to improve and to urge them to excellence. What is not good is to pretend that Scripture teaches us that wives can’t submit on their own, that husbands need to make them do so. This is a lie, and a reversal of Scripture. There is also the problem as I wrote about the other week of trying to transform Christian marriage into something that is only for the elite. You can improve individual men (which I applaud), but you won’t make the average man extraordinary. As Cane Caldo says in his new post, what we need to do is give up trying to do it our own way and follow the directions.

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    @thedeti

    Eh, you are just showing your age. Many of the new, modern patriarchs under 30 are growing beards, wearing hipster glasses and quaffing craft beers that are heavy on the hops…

  18. thedeti says:

    Anon Reader:

    I can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic. Sorry, but any man under 30, hipster faux lumberjack or no, doesn’t have a whole lot to tell me on how to manage a marriage and family.

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti
    Look at someone who walked this out: Pastor Saeed Abedini. He did pretty much what’s set out up there. But he has not taken Naghmeh back, in my view because she remains unrepentant and rebelling against him.

    Wait, I thought that Naghmeh divorced Saeed, and therefore he has no option to take her back. I admit that I haven’t read about that case in a while, but I am very sure she filed, not him.

    In any event, that sad case is a very clear example of what really happens, and therefore both Bnomm and Foster are essentially blowing smoke, not offering anything useful.

    @Asaph
    Citations needed.

  20. Anonymous Reader says:

    thedeti
    I can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic.

    What are the effects of hops on the endocrine system?

  21. vfm7916 says:

    I’m curious about how much of this instruction was jewish traditional culture that Paul was teaching to Gentiles?

    Are there any historical references to the differences in use of soft power between Gentiles and jews at the time? It would be a significant advantage to women to firmly establish patriarchy where they could exercise soft power far more effectively.

    If most cultures at the time were similar, this would simply be a given. Yet for Paul to need to say it indicates differences, would it not?

  22. 7817 says:

    Is it wrong to be stoic about it and just ignore it when a wife won’t submit, at least in the areas you can? I’m not saying that women should not be called out on their errors, but in my experience, telling a woman she is wrong for not submitting can be a Display of Low Value. Sometimes a man is better off just working his plan and being the man no matter what his wife does.

    Granted, there are times when a lack of submission is destructive to the marriage…

  23. Swanny River says:

    Dalrock,
    This post is why this blog is a source of comfort for struggling husbands. We go to the church and likely get argued with, and if we don’t say anything, then church comforts or acquiesces to the culture of rebellion. Maybe Bnonn will step back and see what he has posted is a millstone to husbands with rebellious wives.

  24. thedeti says:

    Anon Reader:

    Naghmeh filed for legal separation. (you can be legally separated for years, permanently, without being legally divorced. You have to pay spousal support, since technically you’re still married and spouses have legal duties to support each other.)

    My understanding was that Saeed said essentially to her “withdraw your separation petition and come home.” Naghmeh said “no”. Saeed said “So it’s divorce, then. If you will not submit, then the marriage is over.” He upgraded the petition to one for legal divorce, and divorced Naghmeh.

  25. Swanny River says:

    I know I need to “Do the Deti” route, but it terrifies me (he has offered his email to help me). But I also know that Tenant and Foster would not know how to encourage me to go Dread, whereas commenters here have gone through it and offer encouragement and tips.

  26. Oscar says:

    RE: Pastor Saeed

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2018/march/pastor-saeed-abedini-arrested-for-violating-court-order

    Boise police arrested Abedini Sunday night for violating a restraining order against his ex-wife, Naghmeh, who had campaigned for his release from the Iranian prison but later divorced him after he was freed.

    In 2016, a judge ruled that Abedini could only contact his wife via email and text messages over matters concerning their two children.

    According to the Idaho Statesmen, an Ada county prosecutor claimed Abedini violated that court order by sending derogatory, name-calling text messages to Naghmeh.

    Prosecutors did not say when or where the messages were sent. The content of the messages was not very clear, the newspaper reports.

    Abedini has pleaded not guilty to the charges and has been assigned a public defender.

    Thanks for proving my point, thedeti. That’s definitely how every Christian husbands wants to end up. If that’s what happens to a martyr for Christ, what hope do the rest of us ordinary men have?

  27. Novaseeker says:

    How do we accomplish that? We can’t even convince other Christian men to unashamedly embrace the scriptures that command wives to submit to their husbands. How are we supposed to also convince enough godless men in government, plus enough godless women in government, to get rid of Duluth?

    Oscar — I agree, it’s totally impractical. I just wanted to point out that it is a reiteration of the “men created it, so men need to fix it” argument.

    That’s a tiny modification in the divorce industry. Yet TradCon clowns expect men to just “ManUP” and overturn the 40-year old Duluth protocol “just do it” style?

    AR — I agree — was just pointing out that this is the basic argument they make.

  28. thedeti says:

    swanny:

    You have to stand firm is all i can tell you. I did not make Mrs. deti submit. I simply told her what the consequences would be of her failure to submit. And I resolved to walk those out and impose those consequences.

    If it meant the end of the marriage, so be it. If it meant she left, so be it. If it meant legal divorce and all the mess that would go with it, so be it. If that meant I was not free to remarry, so be it. If it meant living on 40% of my income and a drastic reduction in my standard of living for a while until i could recover, so be it.

    I was not going to live one more day with her constant complaining, rebellion, sniping, sarcasm, sexual deprivation, and all around bitchiness. If she wanted to live that way, that was fine – but she would be doing it not married to me, and not under my covering, and not with my continued acquiescence.

  29. ray says:

    One look at Bnonn’s photo tells me all I need to know. Here we go again, another soft-faced, doe-eyed non-masculine ‘pastor’ trying to tell men about masculinity and worse, about the masculinity of Father and Jeshua. God help your ridiculous planet, teeming with resentful third-raters.

    Plus — of course — he’s got a daughter. Eets requisite! Making Bnonn another instant fembot, all the yammering about ‘patriarchy’ is just cover. Bnonn is lighting back-fires across Churchianity to squelch any ACTUAL masculine/Christian revival that might occur in Femistan as a result of truth-speaking by a few faithful Christians online. Smother that baby in the womb!

    Bnonn needs twenty years of hard scrabbly knocks in an authentically masculine culture, before he even could possess the necessary rock-foundation upon which King Jeshua MIGHT allow him some real Scriptural understanding and inspiration. Then, perhaps, he’d be ready to teach other men. Mebbe.

    Instead, Bnonn and fellow ‘pastors’ will continue on in their Happy Bubbles where he and his co-milquetoast ‘Christians’ can pretend, in community, that they are tough guys, about Father’s business. His painful, exhausting, saddening, alienating business. I look at that photo, I see a typical man of this world, who has not passed through such things, nor even recognizes their existence and necessity. Bnonn is about the world’s business.

    Got the daughter’s college and career plans laid out yet, Bnonnster? It’s never too soon to start contacting elite colleges, you know. Only the best for your princess!

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    Is it wrong to be stoic about it and just ignore it when a wife won’t submit, at least in the areas you can? I’m not saying that women should not be called out on their errors, but in my experience, telling a woman she is wrong for not submitting can be a Display of Low Value. Sometimes a man is better off just working his plan and being the man no matter what his wife does.

    IMO this gets into “how” as well as “what”. It’s possible for a man to think he’s being stoic and enduring contentiousness, when to external observers he’s being butthurt and petty. Churchgoing men have an additional hazard in the “Love endures all things” verse – that can lead a man to enduring not just contention, but outright rebellion and verbal abuse. A married man shouldn’t be thinking of himself as some Roman-era galley slave who is counting the days until joyous death…

    Being stoic doesn’t mean being glum or grim, etc. A man who is working his plan and enjoying it would be more likely to succeed than a man who is just grinding it out, waiting for something to change.

    As we all know, there’s many ways to correct a woman, and they generally do not take criticism very well. In fact IMO part of vetting a future wife should include a little gentle correction on some triviality – if she blows up into an emotional storm, that’s a bad sign.

    “Yeah, I’m running the plan that works. It’s good stuff. Anyone who will obey me / follow me is free to join in!” is a mindset that can work.

  31. thedeti says:

    Oscar:

    Don’t believe everything you read in the press.

    https://mycourts.idaho.gov/odysseyportal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#DispositionEvents

    The case started when Naghmeh filed for separation. On October 4, 2016, Saeed filed a counterclaim for divorce against Naghmeh. That petition was granted and a decree of divorce entered on April 6, 2017 and amended the next day.

    Yes, it sucks. And the best that will happen here, probably, is that Saeed Abedini will be paying child support with no relationship with his children, he will have to not talk to his ex wife, and he will have to live with the legal constraints imposed on him. He can’t make her submit, and if she will not, it means the end of the marriage and probably total destruction for him, her and the kids.

  32. thedeti says:

    Ray:

    It is to laugh. To me, Bnonn is just another effeminate man yelling at other effeminate men to be men.

  33. thedeti says:

    If women do not follow, submit and shut the fuck up, you leave them behind. That is the ONLY way that a ‘requirement’ like that works.

    Word.

  34. MK Riker says:

    Also in the newsletter, they quoted my tweet (as an example of “What anti-feminist Christians give with one hand, they take away with the other.”), but they cut off the last line–the punchline and the best part.

    Check it out here: https://twitter.com/MKRiker2/status/1087376713577725952

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    I just wanted to point out that it is a reiteration of the “SOME men created it, so ALL men need to fix it” argument.

    I have edited to clarify the problem. The men who make this argument are like some bunch of hippies in 1970 planning to bring down The System by getting everyone in town to flush their toilet at the same moment. “Man, if everyone flushes the toilet at th’ SAME TIME there’s no way the sewers can handle it, man, and then they HAVE to listen to the People! ”

    It is childish and ignorant.

    Frankly, I know 18 year old high school students with a firmer grasp of the legislative process than the all-grown-up men who preach “Men Can Fix This! Stand Shoulder To Shoulder!” at a time when Hillary Clinton nearly won the 2016 election.

    Not to mention the sheer inanity of blaming the innocent, ordinary men for actions of rich, powerful men the former have zero control over. That’s another feminine habit I see in TradCons very often. Odd…

  36. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Good job Dalrock! Like you and many commenters here, I prefer to let a solid scriptural hermeneutics determine my ethics rather than allow my ethics to determine my hermeneutics.

    How in the world can an exegete actually state that a verse is excluded from what men are to teach women while holding that 1 Cor 14:35 is part of the God-breathed Canon or that 2 Tim 3:16 excludes verses concerning wives. The amount of scriptural contortion required to be a white-knight Gillette-boy complementarian is astounding.

  37. thedeti says:

    https://mycourts.idaho.gov/odysseyportal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0

    And here’s what is going on with Saeed’s latest criminal case. He’s charged with violating the no contact order, He pleaded not guilty and it was set for trial in July 2018. He didn’t appear for a hearing, and now added a second misdemeanor to the charges. There’s a bench warrant out for his arrest.

    He’s working as a pastor in Virginia, or some state other than Idaho, where he was living with Naghmeh and their kids before he was arrested in Iran.

    How this works is that the arrest warrant extends no further than Idaho’s borders. He could be extradited if the state decides it’s worth it to do so. Extradition is usually used with violent felonies, not with misdemeanors like drunk driving or violating no contact orders, and that’s usually because extradition is expensive. The extradited person has to be taken into custody in the extraditing state and transported in custody to the receiving state. And that costs money. And states don’t want to pay it unless they have a charge/crime that really requires redress.

    So, mostly what he has to do is stay out of Idaho. The minute he sets foot there, he can (and will) be arrested.

    What he should do (and should have done) is plead the first violation charge down, pay a fine, and not do it again.

    Unfortunately, because of Naghmeh’s refusal to submit, their children will suffer. She is causing the suffering of her children.

    Of course, if Saeed submits, or had submitted, to her, why, they could have stayed together.

  38. feministhater says:

    Husbands do have a bit of power through the force of their personality.

    There is a word for this, it’s called ‘Persuasion’ and is not the same as ‘require’.

    ‘Require’ means to demand, to create an obligation on another person. It requires, excuse the pun, force or authority. How does a man ‘require’ a woman to submit?

    This is all a circle jerk because husbands do not have authority and cannot use force, so they can not ‘require’ anything.

    Even if you persuade her of the merits of your case, that is only a temporary reprieve, in the morning she’s a different person with different wants and needs. She can and probably will change her mind, disregarding all the hard work you spent convincing her and putting you on a direct course with the family courts and even criminal courts if you played ‘dread game’ on her.

    This is what you call a ‘waste of time’ in the literal sense of the phrase.

    Once again, Bnonn misses the crux of the matter. Authority and responsibility go hand in hand. He requires (that word again) men to have responsibility but falters on how they have any authority to demand such.

    You know this yourself, authority has been stripped from men. There is no way to fix this, not without force. All that is discussed is ‘band aid’ philosophy and like Trump, it’s all a temporary reprieve from inevitable reality of the decline…

  39. thedeti says:

    old fashioned man:

    With the exception of the first “discipline” BGR lists, these suggestions are merely band-aids and smack of juvenile tit for tat punishment. These don’t lead to lasting change.

  40. feministhater says:

    I was brought to faith in 2004, after several years as an outspoken atheist, when finally God clouted me over the head with a Christian who actually knew what the Bible says—my now-wife, Smokey the Magnificent.

    And there you have it. Lol! Hahaha!

  41. Bee says:

    Swanny River,

    “I know I need to “Do the Deti” route, but it terrifies me (he has offered his email to help me).”

    Before going Dread, have you been slowly upping your personal and home leadership?

    The “Married Man Sex Life” blog/book guy recommended upping it slowly so you do not shock your wife. This is what I did. But, I did not have my wife hinting, or threatening me with divorce. If divorce is imminent then you probably don’t have time to slowly up your leadership.

    I’ll be praying for you.

  42. Anonymous Reader says:

    deti
    With the exception of the first “discipline” BGR lists, these suggestions are merely band-aids and smack of juvenile tit for tat punishment.

    It’s worse than that. Several of the suggestions are abuse under the Duluth protocol; taking away credit cards / reducing an allowance, for example is explicitly listed in the Wheel image up in the comments. In the Anglosphere she’d be within her rights to claim spousal abuse and bring the government into the situation.

    In anticipation of some replies: “No True Christian Wife Would Do That” is a fallacy, not an answer.

  43. feministhater says:

    The Duluth Model’s purpose is to disarm men of their natural power over women. There is no pretense. That’s its actual purpose. By doing so it has placed women in the power seat, especially so in marriage.

    You can have all the cards in the world, but women are sitting with all aces, with Jokers up their sleeves.

    You can try and bluff but once those cards are laid out, the bluff is revealed to be what it always was, bluster…

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    @deti

    You mean a man who refers to his wife as “Smokey the Magnificent” doesn’t seem all that patriarchal to you? Better get to drinking more hop-heavy craft beers and work on your beard…

  45. Zadok says:

    Bnonn is filling the niche for “purple pill” Christian. He grasps some red pill truths and applies them to his blue pill worldview. The result is standard complementarian ManUp advice.
    I’m not sure why he thinks this blog is only about blaming women. I’ve gotten more actionable advice and Biblical wisdom from Dalrock and the commenters here than any of my pastors, sunday school teachers, and the 10 Christian marriage books I’ve read.
    I found Dalrock shortly before my marriage (and I) hit rock bottom a few years ago. Well, when I discovered it was at rock bottom. This blog gave me hope and even community as a lurker.
    I am eternally grateful to Dalrock (and other men of the manosphere) for my slowly improving marriage.

  46. One look at Bnonn’s photo tells me all I need to know.

    Physiognomy is real.

  47. Pingback: Bnonn, Pastor Foster, and the power of women. | Reaction Times

  48. feministhater says:

    With the exception of the first “discipline” BGR lists, these suggestions are merely band-aids and smack of juvenile tit for tat punishment. These don’t lead to lasting change.

    No shit. They reek of a powerless midget who has no real means to get things done. It’s so funny because most of suggestions are mere different forms of financial repression of the wife which is abuse and the rest are weak attempts at withholding affection; which often is exactly what the wife needs to start the divorce proceedings… Lol!

    Hahaha! Oh man!

  49. JRob says:

    feministhater on February 4, 2019 at 12:36 pm
    Hat trick!

    @Zadok
    Congratulations sir, it’s joyful to hear of your success!

  50. feministhater says:

    Cut down the time you spend with the wife from five hours to three hours, that way she has two more hours to spend doing someone else. Such heroic disciplining of the wife there, oh my!

  51. sipcode says:

    These are good questions and good points that at least steer the discussion in the right direction. But the bride maketh herself ready. God could force His hand, but He said to His church, ‘make the choice’: He has set before us life and death …and to choose life …and the wife has the same choice. She must honor her vow.

    From a practical POV, I would have to incarcerate my wife or possibly some other level of physical coercion. That action would render most all men, with the endorsement of the church, in the county jail. And note, God’s people did not bend in His many physical ‘coercions’ upon them. It was their heart condition, that did not give a shit about their God. So with women.

    Before men can be fully men …act in the image of God that only they were created in [fully represent God], women have to surrender. The healing of the church starts with women that will return to their biblical place, just as it was all derailed by Eve leaving her place.

    I suggest that, overall, many men are beginning to get this [God is breathing across the valley of stacked up dry bones of men] …..but women of God have to go yet deeper into more decadence before they will yield to God, before yielding to His agent, to men.

    God has done all this in Genesis 3:16: He has made women the Agent of Satan, and men the Agent of God; read it. This we must accept, forcing men to seek Him more and more — search His Scripture for themselves, and wait until He further acts to suppress women, that will not submit, under His heel.

  52. Gunner Q says:

    Zadok @ 12:59 pm:
    “I’m not sure why he thinks this blog is only about blaming women.”

    Because championing women against the forces of Male Privilege brings him female approval. He wants to build himself up the easy way, by tearing down fellow men.

    Truth has nothing to do with what he teaches. He is not speaking in good faith, which is why my response was much harsher than Dalrock’s and others’. The way to stop this behavior is to expose him as a scumbag, to shatter his White Knight fantasy. Hate him, don’t teach him. Learning from us would only make him look weak so he ain’t gonna listen anyway.

    Instead, teach the people who might listen to him.

  53. Yer says:

    @Novaseeker

    I think their idea is that if men exerted their power as men, Duluth would be swept way (men control legislatures, police forces, etc.). The issue is that men have chosen to empower women with things like Duluth.

    That isn’t completely wrong, but it’s only half the picture. Women’s behaviors have a large impact on men’s behaviors and vice versa. This is both on an individual level and a collective/social level. Addressing one side of the problem will not solve it — either inside the Church or outside of it, and that is where bnonn errs.

    You’re not wrong, but there’s a far more fundamental (dishonest) error than the fact that Bnonn’s strategy is incomplete or will fail. Bnonn is using the existence of an ultimate cause to deny the existence of proximate causes (and thus actionable advice).

    Say you called a plumber to fix a leaking pipe. When asked what the cause of the leak is, he responds: “As the homeowner, you are solely responsible for the leak. Ultimately, the leak only exists because you allow it to.” While not incorrect, the question was clearly asking for the proximate cause of the leak (what fitting was broken), not the ultimate cause (the homeowner allowing it). Adding to the absurdity, the fact you called a plumber proves you are taking responsibility for fixing the leak. If given this response, you would thus assume the plumber either didn’t know what was causing the leak, or was unwilling to tell you.

    While this response would be viewed as bizarre obscurantism, this newsletter (and complementarian advice in general) use the same sophistic rhetorical strategy. Instead of offering an actionable proximate cause, the authors pivot to restating the same ultimate cause (men not fixing everything). It’s not just stupid or incomplete–it’s intentionally obscurantist and dishonest.

    [Sorry, screwed up HTML tag on previous comment.]

    [D: No problem. I was fixing the tag in the original as you were fixing this one. I’ve since deleted the duplicate.]

  54. OKRickety says:

    If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” [1 Cor. 14:35 NASB]

    I think the conditional clause here is interesting. It presumes that women might not want to learn anything. In today’s society, it seems they think they already know everything.

  55. Damn Crackers says:

    Who submits to whom in a gay Church marriage?

  56. Splashman says:

    Men, do not attend a church which clearly and deliberately avoids teaching any portion of truth as represented in God’s Word, or teaches the opposite. You’d be much better off not attending church. As an alternative, identify another man or men who fear God as you do, and meet up with him/them regularly to discuss scripture, your struggles, etc. That’s exactly what God intended when he told believers to meet together. A “church” (as currently defined) is not necessary, nor is any formal structure to your group or meetings.

  57. I think the biggest blind spot among Christian men is the refusal to accept the veritable conflict with what they read in the Bible (what should be) and what is the current reality we are living through day by day – namely that men in the West have ZERO legal or financial or religious authority in marriage anymore.

    You can certainly call Christian men to improve their attitude, frame, game and their confidence and assert more authority and incline their wife to defer to his decision-making, head-ship and leadership in marriage.
    You can also politely ask modern day Christian women, most of them returning to church only recently as Neo-Born Again Christians after a decade or so of sleeping around, divorcing or having bastard children, to please refer to 1 Peter 3:1-6 and comply.
    But if we are honest with ourselves as men, this is window-dressing. It’s bullshit.

    The reality on the ground is that men – across the board, in all sectors of the West – have ceded marital authority completely.

    Not over to women.

    But to the state.

    You are not marrying a woman.
    You are marrying a state that does not give a damn about what 1 Peter 3: 1-6 says, nor any of the other writings of the reformed Christian-hater, Apostle Paul.

    In fact, the state has an entire, detailed Scripture of its own regarding your “Christian marital authority” (yes, that’s in sarcastic quotation marks). If you read what these Scriptures say, they say VAWA. They say the Duluth Model. They say YesMeansYes, They say MeToo.

    There is no legal or financial or even religious authority for men in marriage anymore. Period.
    All that you have as a husband and father is this:
    100% legal and financial accountability and responsibility against zero authority, zero rights and zero power.
    For you, the “gun is always in the room”. The only question is when or if your so called loving wife has enough benevolence not to pick it up, today or tomorrow, and use it.
    Understand now that statistically most wives DO use it. In spite of how wonderful a dad or husband you think you are or people tell you that you are.

    Doesn’t matter how buff or Alpha you are.
    It doesn’t matter if you qualify for the modern western woman’s 666 sexual ideal (6 feet tall, 6 figure income, 6 pack abs).
    Doesn’t matter how nice, compliant, conciliatory and deferential you are.
    Doesn’t matter how devout or pious you are.
    And prayer is not going to save you either.

    If God wanted marriage to succeed in modern times, then he simply would.
    Except he just doesn’t.
    Look at what is happening.
    What Christians don’t seem to want to accept is that marriage and family has fallen apart largely because of our own incompetence and deference to women.
    I don’t blame God for this. It’s all our fault.

  58. Joe says:

    “That husbands can do things to make submitting to them easier and wives can do things to make loving them easier doesn’t change the fact that each is assigned a specific task. Neither can accomplish (or be responsible for) the other’s task, but it is loving for us to try to make each other’s burdens lighter as we focus in patience on doing what we are respectively called to do.”
    *****************
    My wife and I were discussing exactly that on Saturday night while dining at a nice place near out home.
    She said “its like a big circle. I do whatever I can to make your job easier, and the easier I make your job, the easier mine gets, and the better you get at yours”. Like wise, I do what’s needed to make her job easier, which makes mine easier, and makes her better at hers. Like she said, its a big circle.
    What makes that work for us is that we both made a decision of the will to do this. We don’t always FEEL like doing those things. But we do them anyway. And the more you practice it when the feelings aren’t there, the easier it gets to do when the feelings aren’t there.

  59. 7817 says:

    @Zadok

    Congratulations, and welcome brother.

  60. Lost Patrol says:

    Nevertheless, complementarians persist in claiming that husbands especially must not tell their wives to submit**.

    I’ll see your “not tell” and raise you a “none of your business”. Eye witness account:

    Pastor doing exigesis through Book of Colossians arrives at the much anticipated “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.”

    (Props for literally saying those words out loud. He was reading, what could he do?) This was followed by a complete sermon on how husbands ought to act in order to facilitate the verses coming true or whatever, closing with an admonition to those husbands that whether or not his wife ever submitted to him was between her and God; and was “none of his business”.

    He then advised the wives that if their husbands ever inquired about these verses, that she was to tell him – direct quote, yes this really happened without pushback – “Honey, that’s none of your business”.

    Wonder how stuff like this goes down where Bnonn and Pastor Foster go to church?

  61. Jane says:

    I believe when it comes to submission the impetus is on women to submit and not on men to make them submit. I think there are people out there who are so rebellious toward authority or so set on not submitting to a particular authority that nothing including any possible consequence even up to death would get them to submit. Most people will capitulate if pressed hard enough, most people won’t die rather than submit, but anyone could choose not to submit no matter what an authority figure does. So the impetus has to be on women.

    But does a women submitting mean a household is automatically a partiarchy? The majority of what happens in my family is driven by what I decide to do. And it is driven by what I decide because my husband told me to decide. For example I ask him what chore he wants the children to do and he tells me he doesn’t care and if I want them to do chores I should decide what they are. I tell him our daughter refuses to do the chores I assigned her and ask him what if anything we should do to discipline her and he tells me he doesn’t know any better than I do and leaves it to me to decide. When what I decide does seem to work and I beg him for help he then makes it very clear he doesn’t want to be pestered about it. Now if I decide to do something he doesn’t like such as yell and scream at my daughter for not doing her chores he will then veto that decision of mine and tell me to figure out a different way to deal with her disobedience but even when I ask him what he wants me to do instead he leaves it up to me to decide. And it is like this in most areas of our life where he has chosen for us to live in a functional matriarchy with a patriarchal veto. But is that really a patriarchy?

  62. Cane Caldo says:

    @LP

    He then advised the wives that if their husbands ever inquired about these verses, that she was to tell him – direct quote, yes this really happened without pushback – “Honey, that’s none of your business”.

    Brutal. Not surprising, but brutal. The thing is, almost everyone in your congregation wants to be told that. It comforts them to know that wifely rebellion should be expected and tolerated. What your church experienced was a close call with the truth, narrowly avoided at the last moment. Whew!

  63. thedeti says:

    Nevertheless, complementarians persist in claiming that husbands especially must not tell their wives to submit**.

    This has always baffled me. Christians are to exhort each other, and that includes reminding each other what the Word says. Wives have no problem whatsoever reminding husbands that they are to love them as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. Wives have no problem telling their husbands to get on their crosses daily so they can be nailed to said crosses. Wives have no problem whatsoever passing judgment on their husbands’ conduct and speech as “unloving” and “unChristlike” and “not God-honoring”.

    A husband is supposed to wash his wife in the water of the word, which includes speaking the Word over her, telling her what the word says and requiring her to observe and hew to it, and judging whether her conduct comports with the word.

    My Catholic friends are fond of saying that spouses are supposed to help each other get to Heaven. And part of that is keeping ourselves faithful to the Word, yes?

  64. thedeti says:

    Yes, wives really love

    “Submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord” (Translated as “husbands are required to submit to wives when wives expect it; wives are to submit to husband when wives feel like it or it will look good to the church”)

    and

    “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for Her” (Translated as “Get your ass on that cross so your wife can nail you to it. Husbands are required to do whatever their wives request and demand. And Wife is the sole arbiter of whether he is “loving” her sufficiently.”)

  65. Cane Caldo says:

    The difficulty Bnonn and Michael Foster present (to me, anyways) is that they lack the ability to stay on topic. They fail to differentiate people, topics, and categories; what I say, from what Dalrock says, from what Rollo says, for example. This is obviously related to the previous mentioned topical failure. They’re not clear thinkers or writers. They themselves do not know what they have written. That’s why I didn’t quote them in my response to their attack on me and Dalrock. What’s the point?

    As I said about Doug Wilson I’d have to make straight what they made crooked just so I could then explain how they got it wrong. That’s a road to nowhere.

    Proverbs 26
    3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey,
    and a rod for the back of fools.
    4 Answer not a fool according to his folly,
    lest you be like him yourself.
    5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
    lest he be wise in his own eyes.

    If I tried to straighten out Bnonn and Foster’s whirling, then they’d respond with “No, that’s what I’m saying! You’re saying something else that I misinterpreted!”, e.g., wise in his own eyes and meanwhile–to others–I would look a fool for even trying to make sense of Bnonn and Foster’s folly.

  66. thedeti says:

    Several of the suggestions are abuse under the Duluth protocol; taking away credit cards / reducing an allowance, for example is explicitly listed in the Wheel image up in the comments. In the Anglosphere she’d be within her rights to claim spousal abuse and bring the government into the situation.

    Maybe this is just me, but when i was going through my… marital difficulties, none of that would have mattered to me. Still doesn’t.

    “You go right ahead and call the cops. You go right ahead and swear out your complaint. I’ll construe it as a declaration of war. I’ll tell everyone who will listen all the nasty crap you’ve pulled in this marriage. I will shame you everywhere I can. I’ll shame you in our church. I’ll shame you in the court pleadings. I will spread of record every crappy thing you have ever done to me. It will all be right there in the court papers.

    “The ensuing divorce will be total war. It will all go to the lawyers because I’m not agreeing to anything. It will be total scorched earth and I will go General Sherman on you. If I can swing it, I want primary residential custody of the kids and YOU will be paying ME child support. Everything will be split down the middle. I am forcing every asset of this marriage to be sold and liquidated, and we’ll each get half. You fight me on this, I’ll just quit my job, let the court impute income to me, and I’ll go live in the county jail on the government teat. And you and the kids will have to get on TANF while you struggle and ultimately have to go to your parents for money. College for detiette? Not happening. Deti Jr.? Well, he’ll just have to struggle on his own.

    “What’s it gonna be, dearie?”

  67. Spike says:

    Unfortunately for pastors of various feminist stripes, the chickens of the Sexual Revolution are coming home to roost. Those chickens don’t look good, andnpastors feminists politicians or hone else won’t be able to sweep them under the rug l.
    You can’t tell a woman to submit. True. Scripture can, you can’t.
    You can’t tell a woman not to smoke during pregnancy. A doctor can. She can ignore him
    You can’t tell a woman not to destroy her child’s brain with Foetal Alcohol Syndrome. She drinks moderately , she says
    You can’t tell a woman not to destroy her baby’s future academic ability by not smoking dope during pregnancy. She knows what she’s doing she says.
    You can’t tell a woman not to smoke crack or meth. Same as above.
    You can’t tell a woman not to abort her baby. Four states now allow “post partum abortion”, or “birth-day” abortion.
    You cannot tell a woman how to raise their children or that those children do far better in intact, father-led families. She has the power to eject the husband courtesy of the State. She will use it, Christian or not.
    The problems outlined above are building up in statistical numbers. So too is MGTOW.
    Pastors are going to have a great deal of back-tracking to do, very soon.

  68. Stryker7200 says:

    @Lost Patrol – don’t tell me you still attend that church? I would have walked out.

  69. MK Riker says:

    Also in the newsletter, they quoted my tweet (as an example of “What anti-feminist Christians give with one hand, they take away with the other.”), but they cut off the last line–the punchline and the best part.

    Here’s the original: https://twitter.com/MKRiker2/status/1087376713577725952

  70. Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books For Cucks) says:

    Just a ding dang minute here…
    The version of the Duluth wheel above is different then the one I know. This one looks to be a same-sex marriage-friendly model, saying him/her. Was that a new one on some page I missed?
    The original, by its own terms, assumes all men are perps and only women are victims. They say on the FAQ page that they don’t do same-sex wheels, because all violence is patriarchal, but obviously someone there did an “updated” one.
    Here’s the Classic Coke version. (We’ll see if it shows up here, and I can understand if maybe the Chief Statistician would prefer it not and removes the link, it’s his boat).
    https://www.theduluthmodel.org/wp-content/uploads017/03/PowerandControl.pdf
    The one I’m waiting to see is the trans version. Only a matter of time.

  71. Opus says:

    Bnonn (really stupid name) reminds me of St Paul. In Bnonn’s case he was a fervent non-believer slaying true believers left, right and centre and despairing of finding decent opposition. Now however, Bnonn having found God and then Jesus takes up his sword against his former comrades in A-Theism. Unlike Paul, however, Bnonn’s Damascus Road moment happened when he met the woman he was to marry. This, of course, lovely though it is, to me looks very blue-pill.

    The way I see it is as follows: the West is virtue signalling – hence all the excesses of cultural Marxism or Liberalism. There are 186 countries in the world, the fourth richest is England. Of her former colonies Kiwiland is the 25th richest, Australia the 9th, Canada the 8th and the United States of somewhere I forget with about 93 Trillion Dollars of wealth the first and so Anglo puritanism dominates the world. Such effortless superiority enables the west to act as do the hosts at a party, courteous to even the gatecrashers, not because they like being gate-crashed but because to do otherwise would be to reveal a weakness. My Mother was just like that even though privately her views were very different. Bnonn reminds me of this.

  72. Lost Patrol says:

    @Lost Patrol – don’t tell me you still attend that church? I would have walked out.

    That may very well be the smart play, but I wanted to confront that and other things with Dalrock style counterpoints and see where the truth might lead us all. I don’t even know where else you can go. They’re all the same with regard to women’s lib. Even my friends and relatives from the RCC deal with it these days.

    Anyway, now we try to convert each other on a regular basis, in person and via email. We both think we have Biblical grounds for our positions. In addition, he has the complimentarian pastors and writers (attractive interpretations, etc.), I have Christian blog owners and commenters backing me (thanks if I didn’t say so and I’m keeping your names out of it). It’s all very cordial and I’ve invited anybody to tell me to stop but nobody has. In fact, I have been encouraged to ask questions and present alternate viewpoints; and they try to answer the issues. You can imagine the form most of that takes if you read this blog.

    I don’t know what it all means. Maybe they think they are operating a brilliant covert operation to bring me around by hearing me out. That’s what I think I’m doing with them. It would be fair for an observer to declare he sees nothing but a stalemate. That’s OK. I’ve got some time and it seems worth doing.

  73. Anonymous Reader says:

    Socioeconomic observations:

    Everyone in the Anglosphere lives in what is called a “high trust” culture. People are supposed to do the right thing on their own. Obey the speed limit, don’t drive the wrong way down one way streets, stop for red lights, don’t run over pedestrians – just to pick one example.

    The pastorate almost uniformly insists that the only limit on women is their conscience, while always being ready to invoke full discipline on men.

    Analogy: how safe would the average city be if women drivers were free to ignore any traffic laws that they didn’t agree with at any given moment? A woman decides the quickest way home for her begins with driving down an offramp, and everyone else can just get out of her way. Another woman who has no children decides that the 15 MPH (25 KPH) speed limit doesn’t apply to her so she busts through school zones at 40 MPH (65 KPH) and the kids can just get out of her way.

    This would create a low trust situation on the streets, where drivers would constantly be checking all around them for women ignoring stop signs / red lights / speed limits / hospital zones / everything. Then when men and some women demanded that the situation must be controlled because women are dangerous in cars the response would be

    * “Women drivers have historically been discriminated against!”
    * “You just hate women!”
    * “It’s up to you to watch out for yourself!”
    and of course
    * Not All Women Drivers Are Like That

    The last would be both true and irrelevant. Because even a few drivers ignoring the rules of the road with impunity degrades the trust that drivers must have in each other; even defensive drivers have to expect other drivers to be sane, for example.

    End of analogy.

    The low trust environment many men must live within was documented almost 7 years ago by Dalrock in the article Threatpoint:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/threatpoint/amp/

    It’s not just radical feminists, hasn’t been for years. Equalitarians, egalitarians, conservative feminists and other woman-worshippers are endorsing the creation and maintenance of low trust marriages by various means up to and including the threatpoint.

    Just as a low-trust driving environment is very dangerous for all drivers even if only a few are scofflaws, so is a low-trust marriage environment very dangerous to everyone.

    PS: if women are actually supposed to obey the traffic laws just like men, why are they exempt from Biblical regulation of their behavior? Is the traffic code actually more important than the Bible’s commandments to these pastors and writers?

    This enquiring mind wants to know.

  74. drifter says:

    But it is false to claim that Christian wives lack the power to create patriarchy in their own marriages. For this is exactly what the Apostle Peter tells wives to do in 1 Pet 3:1-6 (ESV)

    And the perfect online example refuting their position is The Transformed Wife.

  75. Frank K says:

    closing with an admonition to those husbands that whether or not his wife ever submitted to him was between her and God; and was “none of his business”

    Not surprising, as that is the standard response received when inquiring about a potential wife’s sexual past.

  76. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Deti
    While that is really the only mindset for a man to have towards a hostage taker, IMHO the “rules of discipline” up thread are aimed at Betaized churchgoing men who have a difficult time standing up to their wives and who would rather suffer in silence than see their family burned down. Those men are “bargaining in the shade of the law”, and they are the ones most likely to get the police visiting just to “teach them a lesson”, etc. So the advice is intended for men who are the most likely to be surprised by Duluth when it rolls over them.

    That is why I find the advice to be of no use, and possibly dangerous. Because the groundwork must be laid before a man can actually discipline a wife: she has to still have enough buy-in to the marriage to be reluctant to burn it down, and as you so eloquently laid out the man must have already made it clear that some lines are one-way – cross that line and everything changes permanently.

    PS: Thanks for the update on Abdini. It’s a sad thing, and doubly so since his “till death do us part” betrayed him while he was still imprisoned in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Aside from that, though, his story is way too common in the US and other countries – a fact that apparently just does not register in the minds of too many pastors.

    His case is not unusual, it is very common, even among churchgoing people, and the standard advice given by pastors & counsellors is generally useless at best, and harmful at worst.

  77. Frank K says:

    Who submits to whom in a gay Church marriage?

    A tough one for the state to decide how to enforce given the current rules, but from what I have observed usually one of the sodomites is the dominant one.

    As for who the “church” will support, you got me.

  78. @Dalrock:

    Pastors could do something really radical and follow the instructions in Titus 2, setting up a group of older women and having them visit younger wives and urging them to (among other things) submit to their husbands. This last one would be enormously effective if the Pastor was serious about accepting what the Bible plainly says and could survive the inevitable demands for his ouster.

    I could be wrong, but I believe that a group of older women from your average evangelical American church is more unlikely than ever to urge the kind of instructions found in Titus 2. Too many of them are divorcees themselves, or they have future designs to divorce their husbands in the near future themselves.

    https://www.careleader.org/gray-divorce-rates-exploding-heres-can/

    https://www.midlifedivorcerecovery.com/christian-divorce-recovery/

    https://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2017/03/10/Photos/NS/MW-FH830_gray_d_20170310171602_NS.png?uuid=25a51692-05df-11e7-8a31-001cc448aede

    In the words of Samuel Jackson as Mace

  79. To the above, in the words of Samuel Jackson as Mace Windu:

    It’s very dangerous, putting them together. I don’t think they can handle it. I don’t trust them.

  80. thedeti says:

    @ Anon reader:

    While that is really the only mindset for a man to have towards a hostage taker, IMHO the “rules of discipline” up thread are aimed at Betaized churchgoing men who have a difficult time standing up to their wives and who would rather suffer in silence than see their family burned down. Those men are “bargaining in the shade of the law”, and they are the ones most likely to get the police visiting just to “teach them a lesson”, etc. So the advice is intended for men who are the most likely to be surprised by Duluth when it rolls over them.

    This is precisely what women count on: Their husbands will suffer in silence instead of seeing their families burned down. It’s a gigantic game of “heads i win, tails you lose”. In my opinion, more and more men need to stand up and say “Wife, this far and no farther. Cross the line, you will be setting into motion things that cannot be stopped. I will not remain married to you, we will go to war, and you will be responsible for burning it all down.” In my own situation i had been backed so far into a corner i had nothing left to lose. So I didn’t care if it all burned to the ground.

    My guess is that at least some wives, women who have character, will respond favorably, and change. Most wives probably will not.

    I think that eventually, women, and wives in particular, will find that more and more husbands will consider they have nothing to lose anyway, so if she leaves, going scorched earth and fighting like hell to minimize financial obligations makes perfect sense. I think women will not like this, because more and more men will just say “no marriage” (that is until they get so thirsty in their late 30s that they finally give up.)

    As for Saeed Abedini: Naghmeh’s refusal to submit has destroyed her family, and her children’s lives. In a November 27, 2018 facebook posting she said she has never been with any men other than Saeed and has never dated anyone else and has never thought of anyone else “in that way”. It’s been 3 years since he returned and their marriage ended, and she has been praying for his “repentance”. (I won’t link to her FB page, you all can go look if you want. She goes by Naghmeh Panahi now.)

    This shows how diametrically opposed people can be in a marriage. She believed she could run a power play on Saeed and get the upper hand and control. He refused. She accuses him of “abuse”, she is believed by most even in the larger Christian community, and their marriage is ruined. In his mind, he sees her as requiring repentance because she will not submit. It’s a stalemate, and I applaud Saeed for saying “if you will not submit, then we cannot remain married. If you will repent and submit, I will take you back.” But Naghmeh demands that Saeed submit to her, and an army of lawyers and counselors and pastors.

    The purpose is to break him. The purpose is to bring him to heel. The purpose is for her to gain control and to run the marriage the way she wants. No man should stand for it.

  81. Gary Eden says:

    Every Christian man should read the Duluth wheel and then put aside any thought in their heads that they can be anything other than an abusive husband.

    Any exercise of power (headship) at all is abuse. You can either be a Godly husband or a non-abusive one; but not both.

    Godly marriage, as Biblically proscribed, is abusive by the current definition. Period. End of story. It ain’t nice but that is the way it is. And the sooner you quit caring about ‘bad words’ and feel-bads the sooner you’ll see progress in your marriage.

    Choose now who you will obey: God or the world (women). Those are your only choices.

  82. Splashman says:

    @deti,

    In my opinion, more and more men need to stand up and say “Wife, this far and no farther. Cross the line, you will be setting into motion things that cannot be stopped. I will not remain married to you, we will go to war, and you will be responsible for burning it all down.”

    Agreed. My wife has always submitted to me (at least directly), and I have no reason to think she will ever rebel, but because of what I’ve learned from folks like you on this site, I’ve rehearsed what I will do if it were to happen.

    Unfortunately, most women won’t (or can’t) consider rationally the future consequences of their actions, as feelings and here-and-now trump all. So I’m not at all confident that painting an accurate picture of her future would have any effect on her. It’s still the right course of action, though.

  83. The Question says:

    “But it is false to claim that Christian wives lack the power to create patriarchy in their own marriages. For this is exactly what the Apostle Peter tells wives to do in 1 Pet 3:1-6.”

    Darlock has said it before, but it can’t be stressed enough. The elephant in the room is that the women are in rebellion and men claiming leadership are terrified of calling them out on it. It’s easier to tell men what they can do to improve the situation,i.e. mitigate the damage, with the implicit promise that once they’ve sorted out all their life problems, we as a collective whole can finally get around to dealing with the feminist rebellion.

    Since of course no one man has or ever will have everything figured out and men have a natural predisposition toward self-improvement, it serves as a tremendous, effective and continual distraction…which ironically enough is exactly how we got to the situation we have now.

  84. thedeti says:

    When a wife refuses to submit you have to realize what is going on. Many things on many different levels. She’s in effect saying to you

    i don’t respect you. i don’t have to do what the Bible says. I don’t have to obey the Word, or you. You’re not sexually attractive. If you were sexually attractive, this wouldn’t be an issue with me at all. If you commanded my respect through word, deed, or bearing, this wouldn’t be an issue.

    I’m testing you to see what you’ll do. Are you going to stand up for yourself? Are you going to challenge me on my power play? Are you going to shut down my rebellion? Or are you going to cower and capitulate and give up? See, I don’t think you’ve got it in you. I don’t think you’ll stand up. I think you’ll just let me run this show.

    Her refusal to submit and respect you is (1) a declaration of her disrespect and disdain, (2) a statement that she doesn’t find you attractive or arousing; (3) a challenge to your authority and resolve; and (4) a power play/attempted coup d’etat. That last bit is essentially a declaration of war. It is defiance and open rebellion.

    Which is why the only response is

    Wife, stand down now. This is your last chance. If you do not stand down right now, we’ll go to war, and there will not be stone left standing on stone in this marriage. Submission, or divorce. Your call.

    But you cannot say this unless you have the resolve and willingness to follow that all the way through to legal divorce if she remains unrepentant (as Saeed Abedini did), and then take her back if she repents and submits. And then, once she repents and submits, the dynamic and proper order is restored: Husband loves. Wife respects.

  85. mgtowhorseman says:

    Swanny.

    It is hard, took me years and it is not dread game. Its not a bluff. Not an ultimatium.
    Those can be sensed and called. And when you collapse you are done.

    It MUST be as Deti says a statement of fact. This is not working.

    I simply, quietly said “I want a divorce.”
    She said “Why”
    I said “because I wont live as I an doing now.”

    No blame, no shame, just simple “it is not happening.”

    Lots of tears, anger, emotion.
    But the simple “what is acceptable” started and maintained the change several years later.

    P.s. if necessary I would say it again and do it.

  86. ray says:

    Speaking of the ‘power of women’, Tucker Carlson is doing segments tonight defending the family, and attacking the Liberated Abortionistas.

    Hopefully one day Tucker will notice that the Short Skirt Sisterhood dominates the news network where he works. Oh! look! who coulda prophesied? FOX News just hired a new anchor. And yes chillun she’s a blondie hottie exactly in the mold of the SSS. Calculated to entice conservative men at their weak point of Eve. Weasel in where they’re vulnerable and plant rotten mindseeds.

    Corporate America is quite comprehensively evil. That’ll change or else.

  87. mgtowhorseman says:

    When your wife or anyone disrespects you, threatens you, you must be firm and resolved.
    You must as Deti says be ready to go all in. Then the choice is thiers as it the guilt and bad outcome.

    Watch this. My wife said almost word for word what Decker says. “I dont respect your authority.”
    “You can’t relieve me” and “You wouldn’t dare.”

    And as Spock says I said “you can make a formal protest (in court)”, ” You are relieved” and “Vulcans (I) never bluff”. And when she sized me up I remained calm, composed and unwaivering.

    And after months of testing, she suddenly relieved command and has been happy since.

  88. Mad_Kalak says:

    What denominations are there that a wife will take what a church pastors/priest/elder seriously if confronted? Most people treat church like a voluntary association, and as easily walked away from as a gym membership.

    P.s. I don’t comment much as it is mostly the same voices saying the same things to the same people…but keep up the good work on the blog overall.

  89. RICanuck says:

    Most of the commenters here are married or MGTOW. For the boomers and GenX I think social cultural change is too late. Those in marriage/relationships need to keep trying, though.

    The older women are supposed to teach the younger women, but the older women are boomers, who are useless. In the War Rook Miz Clara was cast as a Silent Generation woman, not a boomer. I think the Kendricks did so for a reason.

    It is up to the boomer and GenX men to teach the younger Millenials and GenZ (iGen?) women when occasion presents itself. Repeat Lori Alexander’s dictum that, :Men prefer debt free virgins without tattoos”.

    Many Millenial men have no desire to marry. GenZ may or may not be more willing to marry, but the GenZ and Millenial women need to be told what will improve their odds, because many, many will never marry.

    Now, the real spear thrust of feminism is the Nietzschean (you shall be like gods!) will to power that is abortion on demand.

    We cannot wait for laws to change, or for Archbishop Dolan to publicly deny communion to Governor Cuomo. We have to speak to the younger women who may want marriage and children (someday).

    “Abortion is evil. It messes with a woman’s psyche, and turns her womb into a butcher shop. No man hopes to have his unborn child gestate in a slaughterhouse”.

    Some, especially the pro-life Christian women will object to this. “You are making women who have had abortions feeeeel bad!” Well, if they are uncontrite they should feel bad. The purpose of this script is to discourage abortion by the next generations of young women.

    It may help our younger brothers push back against the feminine imperative.

  90. Emperor Constantine says:

  91. Scott says:

    Mad_Kalak

    Orthodoxy is the only faith tradition that comes close. Because the traditions are ancient and based on the texts that Dalrock writes so much about.

    https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2018/03/04/churching-of-the-mother-and-child-after-40-days/

  92. Oscar says:

    How stupidly tone-deaf is it to brag about a 30% divorce rate among those who regularly attend church?

  93. Oscar says:

    On a happier, off-topic note: US wages are finally rising, and blue collar wages are rising faster.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/31/trump-economy-blue-collar-wages-rise-faster-than-white-collar/

    Average pay grew 3.0 percent in the 12 months up to December, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, employees in the broad “management, professional, and related” category gained only 2.5 percent.

    But there was a 4.2 percent rise in wages for “sales and related” employees, a 3.7 percent rise for “production, transportation, and material moving” workers, a 3.4 percent rise for “trade, transportation, and utilities” workers, and a 4.1 gain for “leisure and hospitality” workers.

    The biggest gains were around Minneapolis, where extremely low unemployment forced wages up by 5.2 percent,

    The rising wages tilt for blue-collar workers comes almost 30 years after the federal government passed the 1990 immigration bill to triple the inflow of legal immigrants to almost 700,000 each year. At the same time, Congress and Presidents from both parties passively welcomed the millions of illegal migrants who rushed across the Mexican border and into the blue-collar labor market. The federal flood of labor expanded the economy by suppressing blue-collar wages and boosting the stock market.

    That flow of blue-collar migrants dropped sharply in 2008 when Congress and President George W. Bush pushed the real estate boom over a cliff. It fell further in 2017 as Trump announced his “Hire American” policy in his inauguration speech. Trump also tightened up border enforcement, sharply reduced the number of refugees and has denied numerous demands from business for more workers and more consumers.

    So wages for Trump’s blue-collar base are rising amid Trump’s combination of a fast-growing economy and a tight labor market.

    We gotta take the good news when and where we can find them, gents.

  94. The Question says:

    @ Emperor Constantine

    Given what happens in a divorce, I can’t think of a single instance where a 30 percent failure rate on something that impactful on a person’s life is considered even remotely acceptable or “successful”, from airplanes and bungie jumping to vaccines or a cosmetic surgery. Even Operation Market Garden was 90 percent “successful” and was still an overall disaster for the Allies.

  95. ray says:

    Glad to hear Saeed is preaching elsewhere. His kids were stolen from him, against God’s wishes, by his empowered wife and the feminist State.

    I’m always interested in how he is doing, and if ahem ‘conservative’ Idaho decides to make an example of what happens to escaped slaves, pls. inform me of it here. I can make examples too.

  96. ray says:

    Zadok —

    Good for you. Praise God.

  97. ray says:

    Damn Crackers — ‘Who submits to whom in a gay Church marriage?’

    The Church submits to the gays.

    I love the easy ones.

  98. Sharkly says:

    ‘Who submits to whom in a gay Church marriage?’

    The Church submits to the gays.

    Good answer, Ray. Totally True.

  99. Oscar says:

    So, that makes the “Church” the “bottom”?

  100. Sharkly says:

    Michael Foster quips:
    Myth: the divorce rate is 50% in the church
    Reality: the divorce rate drops to around 30% when you isolate for consistent church attendance among the couples

    LOL, so If one or both of them quits attending church prior to one of them detonating the marriage, then it isn’t on the church, and the years of false teaching they dished out to them, and society.
    For the first 1800 years of the church, before Feminism, the divorce rate never went above half of a percent. It is hirelings like Foster who can’t see that our unprecedentedly wicked divorce rate is their fruit, because the church leaders are perpetual losers, losing against the gates of hell, and our corrupt culture, every day, because they are ashamed of parts of the word of God. The gates of hell will not prevail against God’s true church, but todays money grubbing losers got their ass kicked, and are still losing more every day. Now he is just attempting to dodge the blame by downplaying horrendous statistical evidence of rampant immorality of every kind in the church.

    He is ashamed that the Apostle Paul tells us through divine inspiration that women should pray with their head covered because unlike men they aren’t the image and glory of God.

    1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

    The hirelings are still busy letting pedestalized wives off the hook for failing to honor both God and His image(man). They place great burdens on men and won’t lift a finger to help them. Foundationally they neither understand God, nor who is in His image.

    Pastor Foster: So, if Ephesians 5 clearly teaches that marriage is to be a mirroring or similitude of Christ and His bride(the church), with the husband in the likeness of Christ endeavoring to cleanse the wife with God’s word, who in that similitude is in the image of God? Please tell me, if you know?

  101. Sharkly says:

    Oops. That last paragraph is a question to Pastor Foster not from him, I shouldn’t have used a colon after his name.

  102. Swanny River says:

    Sharkly,
    You say they place burdens on men and won’t lift a finger to help them. True, and it mirrors a comment I made earlier, about finding help here, but none from Foster.

    So what do you think about the fact that they disagree with you and think they are helping? Just like Rainey and Dobson think they ate helping. Look at Dobson, his life and ministry is “Focus on the Family.” So they would vehemently disagree that they aren’t lifting a finger to help.
    Foster would probably say,”I could be watching sports, or being a cool worldly guy with my time, but I am blogging about you instead, how am I not lifting a finger?”
    Solve that problem, and maybe progress will be made. Actually, you are hitting it hard and productively with them by using Scripture rightly, so my question is just in general, how to get the feminist Pharisees to repent? They run the Christian culture and our churches. They are so convinced they are helping, that when I or you say they are placing millstones on husbands, they have no means to process the comment. It’s like speaking in Swahli.

  103. info says:

    @swannyriver
    Salvation is the power of god through his word and his, gospel.

    They have shown themselves unregenerate.

    We deal with them as with unbelievers.

  104. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Sharkly said:

    “The gates of hell will not prevail against God’s true church, but todays money grubbing losers…”

    Don’t forget about the money-grubbing heretics like Sheila, feminism’s most brilliant female “Christian” pastor:

    When are you going to start doing affiliate marketing from your blog Dalrock? Get with the times!

  105. Emperor Constantine says:

    OT
    Speaking of Sheila, she has revised her remarks on Eggerich’s Love and Respect. I’m sure you all didn’t know that telling your wife the obvious — that she is a nag — is emotional abuse.

    The interesting thing is she isn’t even trying anymore: she doesn’t really even give it a half-hearted try to find Bible verses that support her heretical position, she just states them as fact.

    TL;DR
    Unconditional respect doesn’t help a relationship; it hurts a relationship.
    Some situations do not need for us to be “quiet”. They need us to pick up a whip of cords and turn over some money changers’ tables!

    https://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2019/01/love-and-respect-why-unconditional-respect-cant-work/

  106. Emperor Constantine says:

  107. Emperor Constantine says:

    Sigh… If only.

  108. Opus says:

    I learned recently that the folk singer Mrs Trudeau is a Gregoire. Are they perchance related? – all sounds a bit French to me.

  109. Opus says:

    I have got to say, really, now that I allude to The Canadian Prime Minister’s wife and her antics that at least in England the wives of Prime Ministers do not seek thereafter political office holding up in the meanwhile signs whilst wearing a mournful countenance about bringing their girls back home and for that matter not withstanding that we have so far had two wasp-chewing female Prime Ministeresses – far more terrifying than any man – that neither do their husbands of whose existence one is only vaguely aware – any more than does the Consort of our Head of State even though he embarrasses her with his boy-racer antics. Even Jan and Dean failed to consider the possibility of men in their late nineties acting like teenagers but such it is. Personally I can only think that he races across rural Norfolk minus seat-belt or accompanying-security for just one purpose – to liaise with his Mistress – it is not as if he is just popping out for a pint of milk or a copy of The Times, is it..

  110. Sharkly says:

    Actually, you are hitting it hard and productively with them by using Scripture rightly, so my question is just in general, how to get the feminist Pharisees to repent? They run the Christian culture and our churches.

    I’m no expert on human behavior, I do far better with understanding machines, but, I’ll give you my opinion. God’s scriptures do not go out void of effect, ever. Even if the person does not change, the confronting scripture moves them from unawareness to willful ignorance, or compounds their willfulness, storing it up against the day of their future judgement. We are called to share the scriptures in season and out of season. I think it is important to point out that their flocks are morally down there with the most vile ever recorded. I think they lose sight of that, thinking that their members are a cut above those who don’t attend. Their “churches” are Feminist divorce factories. Point it out. The young women show up dressed sluttier than prostitutes once dressed, because they won’t say “no” to them and enforce modesty on women. Keep using the Bible passages they are most likely to be ashamed of, and proclaim them unashamedly, to give others courage, and to make visible their conflicts with God’s words.

    I don’t know if they are predestined to be vessels of God’s mercy or vessels of God’s wrath, but most are surely vessels storing up the wrath of God by their leading their flocks into peril. Keep pointing out how Satanic Feminism, a supremacist ideology, is, and how Satan likes to tempt men via women. Show the wickedness of women slaughtering sixty million of their own babies while in the “protection” of their wombs. While these fools rail against a few red-pilled men who aren’t ashamed of God’s word, because one of them might morally convict one of the baby butchering bitches that they idolize. God said, thou shalt not commit murder. These deceivers think men finding the truth, is the biggest problem. So keep boldly sharing the truth.

  111. JRob says:


    Emperor Constantine on February 5, 2019 at 5:07

    Aposematism: Exhibit A

  112. thedeti says:

    Sheila Wray Gregoire – the Christian $u$an Wal$h.

  113. BJ says:

    @Dalrock

    I know I am late to this post, but this is really great stuff. I see what Bnonn and co. are trying to do, but this is a great response.

    Thanks for the work.

  114. Dalrock says:

    @BJ

    I know I am late to this post, but this is really great stuff. I see what Bnonn and co. are trying to do, but this is a great response.

    Thank you.

  115. Jim says:

    One look at Bnonn’s photo tells me all I need to know. Here we go again, another soft-faced, doe-eyed non-masculine ‘pastor’ trying to tell men about masculinity and worse, about the masculinity of Father and Jeshua. God help your ridiculous planet, teeming with resentful third-raters.

    I know. I took one look at that pussy and laughed out loud. It’s got soy boy written all over it. Physiognomy is a thing.

    Don’t forget about the money-grubbing heretics like Sheila, feminism’s most brilliant female “Christian” pastor:…

    Cunts are gonna cunt.

  116. feeriker says:

    It occurs to me that Paul in Ephesians 5 and Peter in his own epistle are speaking to women who they presume are dedicated Christ followers eager to do what God commands them to do, no matter how difficult and challenging.

    How many modern “Christian” women does that describe?

    Exactly.

  117. Anonymous Reader says:

    Good to see you BJ. Churches need more pastors who can see clearly.

  118. Paul says:

    What if the wife does not want to submit?
    That means she is sinning, and should be dealt with accordingly.
    What if she still persists, and the Church won’t address it?
    Yeah, well, welcome to the club

    I strongly believe divorce is not an option. What is left is a combination of : depend fully on the Lord Jesus Christ, live a holy life, pray for it, ask others to pray for it, persevere, change your own mind, and hopefully things will change.

    In my case things are slowly changing for the better, thank God!

  119. feeriker says:

    How stupidly tone-deaf is it to brag about a 30% divorce rate among those who regularly attend church?

    It just shows how deeply the secular cultural rot has infected the church. If the church were to start enforcing rigorous Scriptural discipline on the body tomorrow, the pews would be nearly empty on the following Sunday morning. That would be a very good thing for the health of the Body, but a bad thing for pastoral bank accounts. The latter, of course, is all that matters anymore, so discipline will never happen.

  120. BJ says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    Thank you for the kind words. I am far from perfect, and my church needs lots of work, but I can never simply sit back do nothing.

    I covet your prayers.

  121. Oscar says:

    @ feeriker

    It occurs to me that Paul in Ephesians 5 and Peter in his own epistle are speaking to women who they presume are dedicated Christ followers eager to do what God commands them to do, no matter how difficult and challenging.

    How many modern “Christian” women does that describe?

    How many Christians of either sex, in any age, does that describe? There’s a lot of dross in the American church right now. The only thing that burns away the dross is persecution. That’s it. If we don’t change, as a body of believers, then God will send us persecution to purify us.

    And, by the way, let’s not deceive ourselves. I don’t know how I’d bear up under persecution, and neither does anyone else here know that about themselves, until they go through it.

    It just shows how deeply the secular cultural rot has infected the church.

    AKA, dross.

    If the church were to start enforcing rigorous Scriptural discipline on the body tomorrow, the pews would be nearly empty on the following Sunday morning. That would be a very good thing for the health of the Body, but a bad thing for pastoral bank accounts.

    It would be very painful individually, and for the body as a whole. But the alternative is persecution, and that’s a lot more painful.

  122. Bee says:

    Paul,

    “In my case things are slowly changing for the better, thank God!”
    That is good news. Very glad to hear that. Thanks for the update.

  123. Paul says:

    Thank you Bee

  124. ray says:

    Jim — “Physiognomy is a thing.”

    Yoop. Once a man reaches, I dunno, his forties maybe, if you look carefully at his eyes and face, you will be able to see much of his character and life in his physiognomy. God gives us the faces that reflect our souls, that we earned. Yes some of it’s inherited, but still, it’s a cool and handy tool.

    I think there’s a Bible verse addressing this, but I can’t recall it offhand. Proverbs mebbe.

  125. BillyS says:

    Oscar,

    I have seen more men wanting to follow God’s will, even if tough, than women.

    Why do you think so many men in churches embrace being told they are scum and should not sin in “men’s meetings” when nothing of the sort happens in “women’s meetings”?

  126. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    I have seen more men wanting to follow God’s will, even if tough, than women.

    That may be true. We won’t know who’s genuine, and who’s counterfeit, until the fire burns away the dross.

  127. feeriker says:

    There’s a lot of dross in the American church right now. The only thing that burns away the dross is persecution. That’s it. If we don’t change, as a body of believers, then God will send us persecution to purify us.

    Yup. I’ve been saying for a long time that a church not persecuted is a soft, co-opted, useless church.

    And, by the way, let’s not deceive ourselves. I don’t know how I’d bear up under persecution, and neither does anyone else here know that about themselves, until they go through it.

    A perfectly fair point. I have no real idea how I would fair under intense persecution, either, although I pray that my faith remains steadfast enough to withstand whatever the world heaps upon me, remembering that this life is but one small step towards eternal life.

    Admittedly it makes no sense for us to relish the idea of persecution, yet at the same time it is obvious that there is no other way to restore the True Church. One could argue that the Faith was at its strongest and purest during its first three centuries of the church’s existence when believers were persecuted without mercy.

  128. Gary Eden says:

    The problem in the church is, they have completely abandoned the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. No longer is the average Christian one who has taken up his cross to follow Jesus. Christianity is inherited and the Gospel stripped of anything offensive or burdensome.

    Literally, very few in the visible church are actually Christian.

  129. BillyS says:

    Oscar,

    That may be true. We won’t know who’s genuine, and who’s counterfeit, until the fire burns away the dross.

    That would be true. I am sure many would call me apostate. Not that I care though.

    I just know so many misguided men are attempted to live up with bad teaching on how to treat their wives and families properly. The poor teaching is not completely their fault anymore than all of you disagreeing with a doctrinal point I KNOW is true is your fault. (A little humor there for the humor challenged.)

  130. Mad_Kalak says:

    @Scott

    Thanks for the link.

  131. Oscar says:

    Billy,

    I am sure many would call me apostate.

    Not I. Outside some very obvious beliefs (i.e., disbelieving the deity of Christ, or His physical death, burial, and resurrection, etc.), I try to not judge another’s salvation, though I admittedly fail.

    Fruit, however, can tell us a lot. Additionally, the gospels and epistles tell us that those who persevere through persecution do so because they belong to the Lord. I fear that the American church will have to undergo that purification, because I see very little will to adhere to, and enforce Biblical mandates.

  132. Dalrock,

    Pastors could also teach and enforce a hard line on divorce, weakening the threatpoint. Pastors could do something really radical and follow the instructions in Titus 2, setting up a group of older women and having them visit younger wives and urging them to (among other things) submit to their husbands. This last one would be enormously effective if the Pastor was serious about accepting what the Bible plainly says and could survive the inevitable demands for his ouster.

    This is why I almost insist the only way a Christian church can work in the United States of America is if the building (itself) is actually OWNED by the pastor and he collects no paycheck from it. You need to be a lay pastor, earn your living elsewhere (during the week.) You pretty much need to have the building be in the back yard of your house and have complete authority to preach only the KJB while in it. If feminists do NOT like what they are hearing (and they wont) they can’t have ANY HIGHER AUTHORITY with which to appeal what the pastor says on the pulpit. In the end, they will just leave and find a church where TAHT pastor preaches pure churchianity.

  133. feeriker says:

    Pastors could do something really radical and follow the instructions in Titus 2, setting up a group of older women and having them visit younger wives and urging them to (among other things) submit to their husbands.

    I ask once again: where would these pastors find these “older women” who aren’t victims of late-60s/early-70s Second Wave Feminism and aren’t thoroughly infected with it themselves? The only thing these “older women” in the church do today is egg on the younger ones to be steadfast in their rebellion.

    Part of the reason that the deterioration continues is that there are almost NO “older women” in the church today who are not completely and thoroughly part of the problem.

  134. feeriker says:

    You need to be a lay pastor, earn your living elsewhere (during the week.)

    +1000. Reliance on the collection plate for their daily bread has been the Achilles Heel of pastors.

  135. BillyS says:

    Oscar,

    I didn’t think you would, but I do hold some views that happen to be in the “name and claim it area” (without the error of that crowd), as one example. I am also a confirmed Roman Catholic, though I left in college because I saw the Scriptures deviating from what they taught.

    Though I am not that far off. Probably wimpy enough on some things to still be a stupid white knight in areas too, but I am working on watching that. Though being quiet about things overall is far better since few men are ready for the truth in the areas discussed on this blog.

  136. American says:

    “What are the effects of hops on the endocrine system?”

    ^ The correct answer depends on the quantity ingested and what form that takes. For example, say someone with very little of the enzyme ADH drinks fifty thousand beers over a decade….

  137. princeasbel says:

    @Oscar

    Really? How so? Does an individual man have the power to take his wife’s authority away?

    My apologies for replying so late. I agree with Bnonn’s bare assessment of male power. If every man woke up tomorrow united in the single desire to make every woman on the planet wear dog collars, then within a month, every woman on the planet would be wearing a dog collar. And there’s nothing all the united women in the world could do about it.

    So Bnonn is technically right that the primary problem is men who gave women the power they currently have. Because to be blunt, men could take it away in a second. They won’t, but they could. The thing is, just because men are the primary problem, that doesn’t mean you don’t address the secondary problem, I.E. immoral women. Bnonn would like to only focus on correcting the men because he and his colleagues just don’t have the energy to do both (like anyone really believes that). His laziness directly contradicts the writers of scripture. I’m sure they knew men had the brute strength and superior intelligence to take women down a peg should they desire to do so- BUT, that didn’t stop them from going out of their way to put women in their place. Even comparing them to slaves!

    I’m not trying to say Bnonn has a valid point insofar as excusing his cowardice towards women. I’m saying he’s technically right that men have the power to take women’s authority away. I say it should start with the elders of the flock. Hardened criminals have bowed the knee to Christ and forsaken their life of sin with the faithful preaching of God’s word by many a God-fearing elder who expounded the words of Scripture. I believe that same approach is powerful enough to make a rebellious authoritarian harpy into an obedient respectful wife. We just have to do as Cane Caldo says- follow the instructions.

  138. Cane Caldo says:

    @Prince Asbel

    We just have to do as Cane Caldo says- follow the instructions.

    Thanks!

    @BJ

    Like Anonymous Reader, I too am encouraged by your comment.

  139. Anonymous Reader says:

    If every man woke up tomorrow united in the single desire to make every woman on the planet wear dog collars, then within a month, every woman on the planet would be wearing a dog collar. And there’s nothing all the united women in the world could do about it.

    Sure, and if every household flushed their toilet at exactly the same moment, the sewer system would be overwhelmed and, like, man, things would have to change.

    Which logical fallacy is this?

  140. Anonymous Reader says:

    So Bnonn is technically right that the primary problem is SOME men who gave women the power they currently have. Because to be blunt, ALL men could take it away in a second. They won’t, but they could.

    sigh.

    Repeat after me:
    “IS’ and “OUGHT’ are not the same thing.
    “SOME” and “ALL” are not the same thing.

    Joe Average attending Meeting Corner: A Foundational Bible Teaching Thriving Church is all on his own with his wife and 2.1 children, because odds are nobody in the church leadership has his back on any issue. The leadership consists of older Boomers like Piper and Keller, middle aged ragers like Driscoll and young hipsters like Bnomm with a few men like Foster.

    None of them will give Joe a sliver of the benefit of the doubt if Mrs. Joe comes in complaining about him. All of them will drop a ton of bricks on his head, none of them will suggest that perhaps Mrs. Joe might be exaggerating or even wrong about something.

    Then here you come, Prince Asbel, to a drowning man and you throw him a concrete life preserver, blaming Joe Average for the actions of men he’s got zero authority over. Sploosh-gurgle-bubbles.

    Heck of a job, dude.

    SOME is not ALL. IS is not OUGHT. I didn’t write the Duluth Wheel protocols, and for sure not one man in my extended family was consulted about them. But they are the law of the land, and overturning them would be as big a fight as repealing the 19th Amendment. This isn’t OZ and we cannot click heels on ruby slippers to go back home.

    Make a note of those facts. TradCons cannot grasp any of this, but you’re smarter than them.

  141. BillyS says:

    Asbel,

    If unicorns were real and their farts were worth more than gold, everybody could be rich by owning one. Never going to happen, but hey, we are wishing here!

    All men will never unite, especially not ungodly ones who are hawt and benefit from the current system. The white knights in churches will also never unite, for a variety of reasons. Some of them do benefit from the system, at least by their feelz, so claiming anything would happen if they all united is just as ignorant as claiming they will unite for anything else.

    Thus it is a complete waste of time to even consider and put forth as a viable proposal. Anyone who does so is ignorant at best, and evil at worst.

  142. BillyS says:

    A general comment: I cannot agree that pastor’s should not make money for their profession when that is possible. They would still be just as much in error even if that were too happen. It is the ideological base that is off, not the pay. The idea also flaunts the Scriptures which clearly note that those who focus exclusively on the Gospel have a right to live at it, if that is a possibility.

    We may not like parts of it, but I have seen enough white knights in churches that don’t make a penny to know that the payment is not the core problem.

  143. Isabelle says:

    All the heresies and falsehoods exposed on this blog can only lead to much confusion and sorrow.
    I would like to bring hope and share something with you .

    I used to attend a a very strong bible-based independant church in Paris where the pastor kept telling his flock to always check out in the Bible if what they heard or read was true. He always invited us to be Berean Christians in fact.
    The truth was preached with no compromize , heresies and false doctrines were firmly denounced if necessary , there was no such thing as twisted servant leadership , mutual submission or sickening wife worship. If a woman started to pray or give a prophecy with her head uncovered , she was automatically stopped.

    The church was so blessed , the spiritual food was solid and good . No junk food was allowed there.
    Not even books written by theologians . The pastor used to say that these books to him were like stale crusts and only the Bible is the fresh bread of life calling it the instructions for life for mankind.
    How blessed we were really .The Holy Spirit filled the church.

    I remember hearing two prophecies for two men in the church :

    The first one said :
    ” You are not the head of your family anymore . Your wife and chidren have taken over. Repent.”

    The other one said :
    “I want you to be a man who does not fear Satan ”

    Whatever pastors may say , man IS the head of his wife. He is head whatever . He is not head IF the wife agrees to submit . The prophecy clearly showed that .
    The Duluth stuff and VAWA garbage are all weapons in the hands of Satan to disarm husbands from their authority. Even though it may sound easier said than done , husbands shoud not fear Satan and its police system .
    If husbands who let their wives run the show are firmly ordered to repent , then God will be with them . If they fear Satan , they will never repent , remain in sin because of their rebellious wife and things will only get worse.

    These were the words of the Lord , the one who loves his sons who are like the apples of his eyes.
    I sincerely hope that will help you . Satan and all its corrupt misandric system is defeatd in the name of Christ.

    God bless you all.

  144. BillyS says:

    Did they listen to the pastor Isabelle? Then they listened to a verbal “book”, but only his it would seem.

    Books can be good, but always need to be compared against what is Written.

  145. Isabelle says:

    @ BillyS
    I am afraid I do not understand what you mean.

  146. ys says:

    Billy-
    You are correct Re: paying pastors. Folks oppose paying pastors here because many were hurt by a pastor during their divorce, whatever. Maybe you were too. I get that. But scripture is there, as you noted, and besides that, look at the State of the Union last night.
    I believe Trump has all the money. More than plenty. And he still said things to pander, and to be liked, by those who hate him. The desire to be liked is there whether the paycheck is there or not.

  147. Paul says:

    ” You are not the head of your family anymore . Your wife and chidren have taken over. Repent.”

    contradicts

    ” man IS the head of his wife. He is head whatever . He is not head IF the wife agrees to submit”

  148. Paul says:

    1 Pet 3 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

    A wife not submitting is sinning and needs to repent.

    Was there a prophecy about that too?

  149. Isabelle says:

    @ Paul
    No there was no prophecy about that because the prophecy was for the husband.
    What it meant is that the husband was not in the power seat anymore . He had let his wife sit there in his place , and for that he was in sin in God’s eyes.
    A husband IS head of his wife in essence , but if he starts to submit to his wife , there is a dissonance between what he IS and what he actually does or shows he is.
    I wrote that man is head no matter what , because I have already heard false teachings saying that IF the wife submits , then the husband will be the head , that she has to LET him be the head.
    If she does not submit , of course she sins as you say . But since she sins and her husband lets her sin against him and God , he himself sins by not keeping his place and submitting.
    This clearly shows that a husband must struggle against a rebellious wife and WIN.
    Duluth stuff and VAWA will not intimidate a man whose God walks with him .

  150. Isabelle says:

    @ BillyS
    Are you saying that the pastor preached himself ? That would be a serious accusation. He was the exact opposite , always bringing his flock back to the Scriptures . He even said once that if he said something wrong , he encouraged Christians to come and correct him if the Scriptures don’t endorse what he said. He was no “verbal book” . The only book that he wanted us to read , know , love and hide in our hearts was the Bible . Nothing else.

  151. RichardP says:

    From the body of the article, Dalrock said: the Apostles Peter and Paul both set examples in their epistles by directly telling wives to submit to their husbands.

    There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Folks need to have a clear understanding of what the Bible says. Many do not.

    The fact that the New Testament tells women to submit to their husbands is not what is relevant. All can see what it says. Not all understand what it means. And it is the meaning that is relevant, not what is said.

    1. God did not tell Eve to submit to Adam. God told Eve that Adam would rule over her.

    2. Paul and whoever did not say that the office of Bishop was reserved for a man whose wife submits to him. They said the office of Bishop was reserved for the man who rules his house well. That is, the man who is doing exactly as God told Eve how Adam would relate to her.

    3. The story of creation tells us that Adam had no help, that this state was not good, and so created Eve to be his help. If Adam and Eve are the prototype of husband and wife, then we can safely conclude that the wife is to help the husband. It is the husband’s vision that she is to attend to, not her own. The wife who understands that her role is to help her husband, as Eve was meant to help Adam, and understands that this means it is his vision she is to attend to and not her own, and does it – that wife is submitting her will to the will of her husband.

    That is the context that is missing in many of the comments here at Dalrock’s place and elsewhere. Readers who are not informed will read many of these comments and get a picture of husband standing there proclaiming “submit, woman”. Such a reader could rightly question “submit to what?”

    Indeed. We see a lot of reference to “the Bible teaches women to submit, so they should”. We see very little discussion about what the wife is to submit to. And the reality that is not much discussed is simply this: God told Eve that Adam would rule over her. Paul said those eligible for the office of Bishop were to be demonstrating that they rule over their family. Eve was created to help Adam. Wife was created to help husband. The ruling over part comes when the husband informs the wife of the ways in which she can help him. The submission part comes when wife tends to husband’s vision, not her own, submits her will to his, and does her best to give husband the help that he asked for.

    There are too few conversations around this corner of the manosphere that explain that difference.

    The issue that is mostly ignored is this: what does a wife do when the husband has no vision that he needs her to help him with – or has a vision but tells her he does not need her help? Point 3 above cannot be accomplished when Points 1 and 2 are missing. God’s plan is husband rulership – having a vision and informing the wife how she can help him achieve it. God’s plan is not for the husband to stand there and loudly proclaim “woman, submit”. If that is what is meant when the New Testament exhorts wives to sumit, then the New Testament folks were imposing a new requirement on wives that God himself did not impose. The Bible warns against adding to or taking away from what God says in his word. So it is not likely the New Testament folks were imposing a new requirement that God did not impose. So it is our duty to find the meaning of the command to submit in the words that God and his agents (the New Testament church leaders) used. And it starts with God saying rule over to Eve and ends with folks saying that the office of Bishop was reserved for those who rule over their families. Ya don’t do that first, what is there for the wife to help you with? If nothing, how can she help you bring your vision to life by submitting her will to yours?

    But when we talk that way, the general response is “there you go again, blaming the man.” Silly response. Who did God tell to “rule over”, the woman or the man? Who should be called to account for failing to “rule over” (in the sense that God meant it, which includes informing the wife how she can help him carry out his vision), the man or the woman.

    4. Finally, re the question of whether husband can force wife to “submit”: consider that God says this through Paul – A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:11.

    That is God speaking. It is an acknowledgement that the husband cannot force his wife to submit. If he could force her to submit, she would not be leaving him so God would not need to say that.

  152. Paul says:

    @Isabelle

    I find it hard to believe this was an actual prophecy, for multiple reasons.
    The man is the head of the wife as God’s Word teaches, it is independent of his behavior. Therefore it cannot be a man at any moment is NOT the head anymore, nor that his wife has taken over that position. That is a contradiction to God’s Word. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a “power seat”; the most you could say is that the man might allow his wife to not submit to him, or the man might submit to his wife. Which would be wrong to do for him, but he still would be the head. However, a man is really powerless if the wife stubbornly refuses to submit to him, and the church will not discipline her. Therefore I would expect that the wife would be reprimanded, of not by a prophecy, than at least by church leadership.

    This sounds like putting the blame on the man for his wife’s behavior. Compare for instance with 1 Peter 3
    Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

    Hence, believing wives are commanded to be submissive, even to their unbelieving husbands, who might not even know nor acknowledge they are the head of their wife. She should show it to him through her deed.

    Furthermore, the older women should be teaching this to the younger women. Where were the older women teaching this to this younger woman? Were they disobedient too? And were they reprimanded for it?

  153. Paul says:

    @RichardP: The issue that is mostly ignored is this: what does a wife do when the husband has no vision that he needs her to help him with – or has a vision but tells her he does not need her help?

    That is not the issue at all. Being submissive for a wife is like the Church being submissive to Christ; acting according to His will, and obeying His commands. A vision is not needed, a lack of vision is no excuse to not follow the husband. And ANY husband will have enough things he would like his wife to do for him, don’t worry.

  154. Isabelle says:

    @ Paul
    But if he submits to her , the hierarchy is inverted . That was what the prophecy meant.
    If a husband starts to submit , he gives her control. And this is a sin in God’s eyes. A man must take back control whether verbally or in extreme cases maybe , physically . He has to , otherwise he is in sin (just like his wife) and things can only get worse in his marriage.
    You say that a man is powerless if the wife stubbornly refuses to submit to him. But that is exactly what he should not be ! The more powerless , the more stubborn she will be , believe it or not . As the weaker vessel , a woman must be sure that she has someone solid and stong in front of her , someone who , because he does not grovel (like most heretic preachers teach today ), is a limit to her .
    I should say , and this will ring a bell for an American I guess , a Clark Gable to his whimsical Scarlett O Hara in Gone With the Wind. He knew how to deal with her . He OVERPOWERED her.
    She had locked up herself in a room to escape from him from her marital duties . She finds herself carried BY HIM into the marital bed . See what I mean ?
    Light years way from what poor nice Christian men are encouraged to do by plenty of so called pastors who pander to female foolish rebellion for the sorrow and confusion of everyone ( including women) .
    What are they encouraged to do ? Nothing. Great advice indeed !

    Most men take on the bad attitude : they are powerless , and try to be “nicer” .. instead of being strong . And they pray and expect things to change . But things cannot change . They have no idea how women work . Women are a bit like children : they need limits in order to feel safe.
    Why do you think so many women act up today ? Why are they so obxonious , proud , stupid , stubborn ? Because they have no limits anymore . They sometimes wear t shirts ( in France too) where it is written No LIMIT . That is the tragedy . No limit for women = chaos for men , women and children.
    The prophecy said that the man had to stop letting in wife be in control . Maybe God knew that the wife had reached a point of stubborness that only the husband could stop (not her , just by being taught to submit as you say ) . I don’t know . Nothing was said about that but God knows .

  155. feministhater says:

    Duluth stuff and VAWA will not intimidate a man whose God walks with him.

    Sure. Whatever. No marriage.

    Any women who thinks like this is unacceptable rubbish. Putting your husband up against the entire state, with a military and a police force, with training, weapons, an arsenal no man can contend is batshit insane and not to be touched.

    You forget yourself. That is all intimidating to any normal thinking man. Now men must take on the entire state by themselves or they’re not proper Christian men, way to fucking up the ante, a shit test straight from hell itself.

    Did the Devil send you?

  156. Paul says:

    @Isabelle

    A man must take back control whether verbally or in extreme cases maybe , physically . He has to , otherwise he is in sin (just like his wife) and things can only get worse in his marriage.

    I don’t think this is proper biblical advice. If someone sins against me, I cannot by force prevent that person from sinning. The most I can do is defend myself. You totally ignore free will here, especially free will of women. If even God cannot prevent a person from sinning, what makes you think a man can do that? And to call it sin if he doesn’t is even worse.

    I do agree to what others have called ‘frame’, as to acting from a posture of power. In this case resisting rebellion, instructing the wife, and calling out sin IS important. If necessary call in the church to expose her sin. Unfortunately as many here already have testified, most churches don’t help a man in such cases.

    Furthermore, this advice is very dangerous to many men, as it will surely get them thrown in jail real quick.

    As the weaker vessel , a woman must be sure that she has someone solid and stong in front of her , someone who , because he does not grovel (like most heretic preachers teach today ), is a limit to her

    To this I can agree. But in the end, if a wife persists, there is nothing a man can do.

    To give an extreme example: how many men here have testified their wives decided to divorce them? What can ANY man do to prevent his wife from divorcing him? Nothing, if she will not listen to him nor the Church (who often side with her anyways).

    Why do you think so many women act up today ? Why are they so obxonious , proud , stupid , stubborn ? Because they have no limits anymore .

    No, it is because women are sinners. It is because women decide to not obey God. It is because they refuse to submit to men. It is because older women in church refuse younger women to teach how to treat their husbands. Remember 1 Pet 3, which is the instruction for believing wives of unbelieving husbands.

    You have a large blind spot here.

    Maybe God knew that the wife had reached a point of stubborness that only the husband could stop (not her , just by being taught to submit as you say ) . I don’t know . Nothing was said about that but God knows .

    That’s simply false. If the wife keeps on sinning, why did she not get publicly rebuked in front of the church? Why was she not excommunicated? Or before that, why did other women not instruct her to submit to her husband?

  157. Paul says:

    formatting gone wrong. Not a quote:

    To this I can agree. But in the end, if a wife persists, there is nothing a man can do.

    To give an extreme example: how many men here have testified their wives decided to divorce them? What can ANY man do to prevent his wife from divorcing him? Nothing, if she will not listen to him nor the Church (who often side with her anyways).

  158. BillyS says:

    Isabelle,

    I am saying the pastor is a hypocrite. He preached something (I would assume) unless he did nothing as a pastor. A book is just preaching on paper. Opposing all books is like opposing all preaching, and is against what the Scriptures say. The 4-fold ministry (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor-teachers) couldn’t do their job without speaking and writing.

    We all need to be like the Bereans and validate things against the Scriptures, but God set it up so we would all learn from others, not just by reading the Bible alone.

    The Apostle Paul preached messages, was he in error in this pastor’s eyes?

  159. BillyS says:

    RichardP,

    You need to study the Scriptures better. Eve was told she would desire to rule over her husband and that he would overrule that. The same words/phrasing there were spoken to Cain about sin desiring to rule him, but that he must master it. Same principle.

    Men were called to lead their wives. Get over it. Quit blaming men for women trying to usurp authority.

    We get sermons regularly about how men should behave. When was the last one you heard about how a wife should behave? Churches can and must teach the entirety of the Scriptures, not just men’s (potential) faults.

  160. BillyS says:

    Isabelle,

    You say that a man is powerless if the wife stubbornly refuses to submit to him. But that is exactly what he should not be !

    You are holding the wrong party responsible. Some men do never step up to the plate, but 1 Pet 3:1-6 still holds women to proper submissive attitudes and actions. It does follow with a single verse on a man’s responsibility, but only after presenting what the woman’s standard must be.

    Many men do only focus on 1 Pet 3:7, but that is because almost no one teaches 1 Pet 3:1-6 first, as the order it comes in.

  161. BillyS says:

    My wife would not work with me, even when confronted about her rebellion. She blamed me for the fact she withdraw long before the divorce. She did not want to be happy and couldn’t accept ANYTHING I did as good for her, even if she wanted it. Isabelle is in complete error thinking I could have forced anything. Any attempts of mine to do that were turned around when she did leave. She didn’t tell everyone, but she turned enough church people, especially women, against me based on my trying to lead.

    Go away Isabelle if you are going to sow lies and discord.

  162. Sharkly says:

    I don’t believe any prophet stories that aren’t in the Bible, and especially not anonymous ones on the internet. But my friend Jimmy Hoffa sure does now that I’ve used my spiritual gifts to find him and raise him from the dead. Here, Jimmy is setting here beside me, and he wants to type you a personal note. I’ll scoot over and let him.

    Hi Isabelle,
    Jimmy here. I really feel bad for you that nobody believes you. I probably wouldn’t have believed in a thirdhand prophecy either, before today when Sharkly used his gift of prophecy to find my body, and raised me from the dead to prove his power was from God, who alone has power over death. Maybe Sharkly will raise my wife from the dead so I can force her to have sex with me like Rhett Butler, at least I hope so, it has been way too long for me. Oh, Sharkly is pushing me aside, he wants to type now, I’m not familiar with how these typing machines work, we didn’t have them, I’d better let him back on.

    Sorry Jimmy, but nowadays you’ll go to jail for the rest of your unnatural second life, if you “rape” your wife. And as much as I’d like to take Isabelle’s advice myself and just force fuck my wife the next time I drop by to pick up the kids, my prophetic Spidey-sense tells me that is not a wise idea. If I am in jail my wife will raise my boys to be as immoral as herself, unchallenged. But maybe my new friend Jimmy can help me on the outside, while I’m in the Big House. Unless the mob whacks him again… Who could that be knocking on my door? I wasn’t expecting anybody way out here in the middle of nowhere on such an icy night. Maybe it’s one of Jimmy’s old friends coming to take him out for another drive. BRB.

  163. Swanny River says:

    I am missing something, because it seems to me Billy, that Isabelle would hate how your wife acted and considered it foolish. You think she is saying it’s your fault for not taking control of your ex? She can answer for herself, but I don’t see her blaming you.

  164. Swanny River says:

    Oh oh, I am not in agreement with Sharkly. That’s not a safe play, but if Isabelle responds to Billy, then I will find out if my take is right or not.
    I like the Rhett example. I haven’t seen the entire movie but I like what she said, Scarlett refused, Clark went and got her anyhow. I took Isabelle to say that is how she wishes it would be again.

  165. Sharkly says:

    I took Isabelle to say that is how she wishes it would be again.
    MeToo. LOL If only it were so.
    If “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts,
    We’d all have a merry Christmas!

    Yeah, I think my late mother would have been an impossible wife these days, but back in the day dad bitch slapped her a few times and she was much improved then. According to the apocryphal tales of my older siblings, one day mom turned the thermostat up after dad had told her not to, and dad slapped her upside the head so hard that she had to stay in bed for three days due to being too dizzy to function. He had huge mitts for hands. Anyhow, we all respected my father, because our lives depended on it. One day at the dinner table I said the food was awful. Before I knew it my dad had backhanded me in the face so hard my chair had flipped over and I split the back of my head open on a door frame. I was bleeding out the front of my head and the back of my head both at once a split second after I disrespected my mother’s cooking in front of my father. I’ve still got a small scar on the back of my head from it. I never doubted that I might die if I ever disrespected my father himself.

    I find very few people who truly fear their heavenly Father. I don’t know if the two are connected, but I feared both of my Fathers.

  166. ray says:

    “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

    Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (John 5: 18 – 19)

    ‘Nothing of himself’, so that answers the question from another thread about hierarchy of Father and Son. Also answers why satan and co. invest so much in demeaning and destroying fatherhood and masculinity. Keep us relying on them instead of Father.

    The first target of the organized fem movement in the Sixties directly attacked the novel creation of ‘Domestic Violence’. Where I grew up men led the families and community, working class military town. it was assumed by the culture generally that men could, and sometimes should, keep their wives and daughters in check, as part of proper guardianship.

    That some men inevitably went overboard out of evil/sadistic purpose was accepted as a harsh and sometimes regretful part or making society work for best benefit of all. Not just of women. The DV chink in men was hammered on relentlessly by organized feminism and govt elements, primarily intel behind scenes, followed by laws in calculated course. All part of the weakness of Adam plus a heapin helpin of lucyfer.

    My dad never hit my mom, not to my knowledge anyway, but disciplining the family was part of male headship where and when I grew up, working-class and mostly Christian. Though there were legit abuses, male discipline was much more a comfort and benefit than detriment. That culture was far healthier and happier than current psycho-fem culture.

  167. The reason why I say no pay for the pastor is because that frees up the pastor to be a Christian Pastor. He can preach the Gospel, not churchianity. And if the church is EMPTY (as are the offering plates) because the feminist harridans refuse to spend one minute listening to one man tell them that they MUST submit to their husbands, well, that is okay. That is just fine. He earns his living during the week. He does NOT have to tell them what the feminists want to hear in church. Christ was a carpenter. That is how He earned His living before saving all of us. A lay Pastor is the best Pastor.

  168. BillyS says:

    Swanny River,

    I am missing something, because it seems to me Billy, that Isabelle would hate how your wife acted and considered it foolish. You think she is saying it’s your fault for not taking control of your ex? She can answer for herself, but I don’t see her blaming you.

    She said men should just “take charge” of their wives and it was their responsibility to do so, whatever the external threats. She can clarify if she meant otherwise, but that seemed pretty clear to me.

    I do agree men need to do what they can, especially preaching against sin in ALL Christians. Though that goes against the idea of “only the Scriptures, no books” which is why I take issue with that. I agree we need to filter our books and hold them against the Scriptures, but we also need to watch what we eat or we will get or stay fat (something I am working to be better at).

  169. BillyS says:

    You can say that IBB, but I think I will take the Scriptures over whatever you say. They say one preaching the Gospel should be able to live on that. Clearly temporary exceptions do exist on that, where someone needs to do other work for a time, but not being able to live at preaching very well may mean you are not called to preach, at least on a full time basis, if it forever stays that way.

  170. feeriker says:

    Christ was a carpenter. That is how He earned His living before saving all of us.

    A cursory read of church history would seem to suggest that “professional clergy” (i.e., men trained in no marketable skills whatsoever) is a largely post-Fourth Century phenomenon, the result of the (post-Constantinian corruption of) the Church turning into a de facto arm of the temporal state, where clergy were essentially government bureaucrats.

    While Scripture calls for those who preach the Word to be compensated, all of the early Christians who preached had “time in the real world earning a living” prior to doing so. This would strongly suggest that evangelizing is intended by God to be a calling rather than a profession. This is why one is not to depend on it as a lifelong means of earning one’s daily bread and butter.

  171. Isabelle says:

    @ BillyS
    ” Eve was told she would desire to rule over her husband and that he would overrule that.”

    You say it yourself ! The Lord said he shall RULE OVER you.
    I am not saying that a wife should not submit . Of course not ! I cannot stand Western women anymore for their demonic rebellion. But what I mean is that if men just let it go , things can only get worse. Men today submit and grovel to their wives. It is wives who run the show because men are not in control anymore. You cannot have two ways . Whether the man rules or the woman rules (she takes over ).
    I don’t know why you men are against me , even going as far as suspecting the devil for sending me here . I can’t believe it. It is really offending.

    If God said he shall rule over you there is a reason for that.
    You think I have no idea what VAWA is ? It is exactly the same garnage in France. Women are portrayed as victims instead of being pointed out as in full mode rebellion and deserving correction.
    Obviously , France has modeled its domestic violence garbage after the Duluth model too .
    Isn’t it a trick of Satan to cancel God’s word ” he shall rule over you” ? Sure it is.
    But my question is ? Should a Christian man fear Satan or the Lord ?
    That is why I gave you the prophecy I once heard in that church which said that a Christian should have no fear of Satan’s malice because God is with him.

    Do you even realize that some women are so rebellious and the rebellious spirit is so ingrained in them that they can not even submit by themselves anymore ?
    Some even unconsciously wish her man to slap them . I am no liar.

    Saying that there is no patriarchy because women do not submit anymore is putting all the power within their hands. If men expect rebellious women to submit by themselves , I think they can wait for ever. Once again I’m not saying that women should not be taught submission. Of course they should . What I am saying is that their rebellion must be tamed. Some kind of taming of the shrew.

  172. Isabelle says:

    @ Swanny River

    “I like the Rhett example. I haven’t seen the entire movie but I like what she said, Scarlett refused, Clark went and got her anyhow. ”

    I have seen the entire movie , but the thing that struck me most was this part of the movie .
    Maybe ,unconsciously , as a woman (I was still a teen back then) it gave me proof that women must know their limits and when they go too far , they have to be overruled by MEN .
    If Rhett had not acted like a man , he would still be waiting for her to unlock the door of the room by herself.

    Satan has made up the absurd lie of “marital rape” . God says that a husband has power over his wife’s body (and she has none). He says that !
    Once again , WHO is right ? WHO should a Christian man follow ?
    I watched many videos on You Tube about Christian marriage . What struck me is how all the quacks in the pulpit wilfully SUPPRESS 1 Corinthians 7:5 .
    It is clear that they are in bed with the devil (not me , please).

    ” Come back together again so that Satan does not tempt you”
    So , if his rebellious wife just thinks she owns her body , he just has to let her go and let himself being tempted by Satan ? ( she will be tempted too , no doubt about it).
    I once said to my husband : how can some Christians now believe in the lie of “marital rape” ?
    Isn’t it how Satan wins ? Should we let him win ?
    Is there another way out for Christians to have sex ? No . So marital rape is a lie .
    The Bible says ” in order to avoid fornication , let every man have his wife etc..” .
    So , you really think Satan can cancel the truth ? There is no power against the truth .

  173. white says:

    @Isabelle
    And what ways do you propose a husband can “take back control”? Something tells me your proposed methods will be extremely stupid, risky – in that it places all the risk on the man – , unfeasible in the long run and ultimately just place the blame of the wife’s rebellion on the husband. Again. Like the “slap” method you implied above, an incredibly stupid thing to do in 2019 but I’m guessing you want husbands to just ignore wisdom and go ahead with it anyway? Otherwise it is his fault for not slapping his wife and not “take back control”? Is that what you’re saying?

    Btw, if you are the same “Isabelle M” on youtube then I’m a big fan and I don’t doubt your intentions. That doesn’t change the fact that what you’re proposing now seems incredibly stupid, but let’s hear what you have to say.

    Also, Dalrock made his case with Scripture reference on how it is the wifes’ responsibility to respect her husband. All you have presented so far are anecdotes and supposed prophecies (prophecies not even from you), you’ll need to do better to convince other Christians.

  174. feministhater says:

    I don’t know why you men are against me , even going as far as suspecting the devil for sending me here . I can’t believe it. It is really offending.

    Oh fuck off ya cunt! I directly quoted you as stated men shouldn’t be intimidated by the Duluth model or VAWA because they walk with God, as if that is a shield against stupidity.

    If I walk with God, can I merely walk onto a busy highway without looking? Can I walk into the cross fire between gangs and expect not to get shot?

    I’m sure there were plenty of men fighting wars who walked with God and could manly brave the battlefield and didn’t get hurt…

    Your reasoning was plainly, batshit insane and I called you out on it. Get fucked!

  175. feministhater says:

    Satan has made up the absurd lie of “marital rape” . God says that a husband has power over his wife’s body (and she has none). He says that !
    Once again , WHO is right ? WHO should a Christian man follow ?

    Are you this dense?! I don’t know, maybe if the wife submitted and screwed her husband when he asked, there wouldn’t be a stupid problem in the first place.

    All the problems have their solutions in a wife submitting to her husband. The state has no power if women submit to their husbands.

    The state has power because wives do not submit, I’ll repeat, because wives do not submit to their husbands, as required by God, they instead submit to the state. They have made their choice. To disobey God and worship the state.

    Men cannot fix this, women have made their beds.

  176. feministhater says:

    Feminism is Eve in modern times.

    Once again, Eve eats of the fruits and gets Adam to eat with her, thus bringing him down too.

    That is where we’re at. Men have the choice, either shun the bitch or be dragged down with her.

    Women have a choice to, shun feminism and submit to your husband.

    God did not use force when Eve sinned and Adam joined her. He instead cursed them and kicked them out. He went MGTOW on their arses.

  177. Paul says:

    @Isabelle Once again I’m not saying that women should not be taught submission. Of course they should . What I am saying is that their rebellion must be tamed. Some kind of taming of the shrew.

    So why don’t you respond to what I said about that:
    – why are older wives not teaching younger wives to be subject to their own husbands?
    – why do the elders of the church not correct that?
    – why are wives who will not submit be called out on their sin by church leadership first privately, then publicly?
    – why are unrepentant rebellious wives not excommunicated?
    – why are the elders of the church not enforcing this?

  178. info says:

    @Isabelle

    Good that you went to a biblically sound church. However as others have said such churches are in the minority.

  179. BJ says:

    Dalrock said this:

    “Pastors could also teach and enforce a hard line on divorce, weakening the threatpoint. Pastors could do something really radical and follow the instructions in Titus 2, setting up a group of older women and having them visit younger wives and urging them to (among other things) submit to their husbands. This last one would be enormously effective if the Pastor was serious about accepting what the Bible plainly says and could survive the inevitable demands for his ouster.”

    This is obviously very good advice, and I have followed this to some degree. But here in my world I have encountered a real problem with this. There is a broad generational divide among the ladies in our church. There are a number of reasons for this divide that are not relevant to this discussions, but the effect it has on us is that the younger ladies (18-30) are far more likely to be conservative on this issue than the older ladies (50 and up). The group in between is hit and miss. The younger ladies who are actually in church tend to have more red pilled husbands, and the ladies are attending church out of a conviction that the Bible is right and to be obeyed. The older ladies tend to have less red pilled husbands and tend to carry some of that old school feminism that isn’t nearly as radical as the leftists on the news, but still very troubling. They tend to make disparaging comments about their husbands. They casually insult the men in their life, and talk about low level girl power stuff. Any time I hear stuff like that I find a way to address it, but it happens more than I like. The ladies are saved and love the Lord. They reject the really radical stuff life homos and trannies, but they still carry the worldview of those 50s and 60s feminists.

    I quite frankly would rather not have them teaching the young wives anything about that nonsense. I tend to lean on the husbands of the young ladies to lead well, not because I think they are failing (they ain’t), but because they are the best resource available.

    Any thoughts or suggestions?

  180. Lost Patrol says:

    BJ,

    I hadn’t thought about what you posted but now that I do, it’s easy to imagine it being the case in many churches that older women are not the proper guides. They have had longer to be steeped in the culture of men as primarily servants to women.

    More decades of “I better check with my wife”, “what does your wife say about that?”. More decades to develop a kind of disdain for the men of their cohort, who came up under the same model. The cure might be worse than the disease and all that.

    Not helpful with regard to your question but it is going to put me on watch for any older church ladies that appear to break this mold. NAOCLALT?

  181. Dalrock says:

    Great question BJ. Would you mind if I quoted it and responded in a post?

  182. BJ says:

    @Dalrock

    By all means, go ahead.

  183. Oscar says:

    @ BJ

    My suggestion would be to confront the issue head on.

    I’d suggest that you preach a series of sermons on wifely submission, covering all the scriptures in the New and Old testaments on the subject. Make sure to emphasize words like submission (explaining the definition and etymology of hupotasso), obedience and respect.

    When you get to 1 Cor 11:3, emphasize that the husband is the source of the wife’s authority, and that by cutting their husbands down, wives undermine themselves, and encourage their children to rebel against their mothers. Ask them; how can you expect your children to obey and respect you if you disobey and disrespect the person in authority over you (your husband)?

    End the series with Titus 2, and emphasize that it’s the older women’s responsibility to teach the younger women everything you just taught them, plus teaching them domesticity in general.

    That’s sure to piss off a lot of women.

    Good.

    The ones who really love the Lord will be convicted and repent. The ones that don’t will most likely leave. Either way, your congregation improves.

    Of course, that’s easy for me to say. I don’t have to deal with the fallout.

    Good luck, and God bless, brother. I’ll be praying for you, and I’m sure others here will, too.

  184. Paul says:

    @BJ

    Why not confront the older ladies? Men in your congregation are counting on YOU!

  185. Swanny River says:

    I’ve seen people defend Wilson as being on our side, therefore lay off of him, but between he and Isabelle, I like where she is going a lot better than him. I’m not saying lay off, but I am not understanding who she is being misunderstood. She says something boldly that Wilson never would, that is, women are full of rebellion and need a (godly) ruler. Instead, you argue with the technique to achieve the rule? She says she’s against marital rape as valid, especially among Christians, and you somehow think she is deserving a name calling? Yes, I am opening myself to be called a white night, but I think she gets it, and it is encouraging to me.
    Yes, I won’t use physical force, I am cowardly about jail and the nonending State involvement in my life, but she talks right about it.

  186. Paul says:

    On Titus 2

    https://biblehub.com/interlinear/titus/2.htm

    Paul instructs Timothy to teach sound doctrine to older women (and in application: to all teachers of the Church). Sound doctrine means first of all that older women are to control themselves (in wine, slandering etc.), then to be teachers of what is good to young women, in order to ‘admonish/control (from ‘discipline’)’ them (i.e. make sure they understand and apply it) on the following:
    * to be lovers of their husbands
    * to love their children
    * to be self-controlled (!)
    * pure
    * oikourgous (W) / oikourous (B)
    * kind
    * to be subject to their husbands

    to be subject:
    https://biblehub.com/greek/5293.htm

    NAS:
    to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey

    Thayer:
    to subject oneself, to obey; to submit to one’s control; to yield to one’s admonition or advice: absolutely

  187. white says:

    @Swanny River

    If I’m reading her right, she’s saying it is the husband’s responsibility to enforce his wife’s submission. Which means if the wife does not submit, the husband is not doing something right. Note in her story, the pastor tells the husband to repent for his wife not submitting to him, and Isabelle endorses it. You can’t get more Complementarian than that.

  188. BillyS says:

    BJ,

    The ladies are saved and love the Lord. They reject the really radical stuff life homos and trannies, but they still carry the worldview of those 50s and 60s feminists.

    They are just like my exwife. She claimed to completely oppose feminism, yet she embraced it to go “her own way” in divorcing and being single again. (Though she had no problem aiming to take alimony from me.)

    The problem is they are not “loving the Lord” in this action and need to be confronted and held accountable for this. Many will simply find another church as Oscar notes, but why should this be treated differently than any other sin? Would you put up with an older single woman actively prostituting herself in the church, even if you didn’t always personally catch it? That would almost not be as bad as regularly cutting their husband down or living a life having abandoned a husband (and perhaps family) to pursue the single lifestyle at her age.

    You are right that these women have no business teaching younger women, at least until they repent and have their minds completely washed in God’s Word. That is what makes this so hard today.

  189. info says:

    @BJ
    ”Any time I hear stuff like that I find a way to address it, but it happens more than I like. The ladies are saved and love the Lord. They reject the really radical stuff life homos and trannies, but they still carry the worldview of those 50s and 60s feminists.”

    In the beginning of my Christian walk. My worldview was leftist and in accordance with those 50s and 60s feminists. I thought the bible verses were sexist and disparaging of women. And yes I used to believe in “gay rights” and other stuff.

    It took years at minimum 3 years and longer but my worldview changed.

    the-spearhead.com and the manosphere helped that transformation.

    If they are saved then divine providence will clear away their deceptions over the course of the life and their views will become as with God’s views. If God is with them and his spirit rests in them. Then the Holy spirit will guide them into all truth(John 16:13).

  190. info says:

    Game for lack of a better word. Even with fools like Mystery and Gary Brodsky. Somehow God used these as a catalyst in helping me come to the knowledge of the truth of Scripture more than ever before.

  191. BJ says:

    All,

    Thanks for the feedback.

  192. BillyS says:

    info,

    If they are saved then divine providence will clear away their deceptions over the course of the life and their views will become as with God’s views. If God is with them and his spirit rests in them. Then the Holy spirit will guide them into all truth(John 16:13).

    It should, but then so should many issues. Lack of teaching on the proper way to live is a big part of the problem now however. And Christian leaders actively teaching contrary to what is Written.

    It is horrible that Christians fall short of what they should achieve, but that will remain true until we are all transformed into His image. But the modern Church needs to put significant more effort preaching the truth in this area instead of ignoring it or working against it!

  193. Isabelle says:

    @ Swanny River

    Thank you. I can understand somehow the way they reacted because of all the misandric climate of our Western world . However , I just wanted to bring some hope and help by sharing this spiritual gift with you .

  194. BillyS says:

    Isabelle,

    Your problem is that you are naive and don’t realize that the task you set before men is impossible in the current climate. Sure, a man could seek what you note and likely end up paying a significant penalty for it. This is not a “deny your faith” issue where we must stand no matter what the cost. It is a “it should be this way, but it is not so we must adapt to how it is” one where the adaptation makes the preferred/ideal direction impossible for most.

    I knew I was marrying someone strong willed, but I though (and she claimed) that God’s Word was important to her and that she would follow it no matter what. It turned out this wasn’t true. It is possible I should have seen the signs of that, but most of the responsibility still lies on her and the system that enabled her to do this action. I will not accept any of the blame for it being the way it is.

    Hopefully you can open your eyes and see that you have to deal with the “log in your own eye” first, before trying to clear out the splinter in the eyes of men.

  195. Isabelle says:

    @ feministhater

    We are on the same side you and me . I hate feminism just like you . Anyway , how could a true Christian side with feminism ? When you hear the voice of feminists , you hear the voice of Satan since everything they preach goes hard against the Word.
    You can hate me if you please and suspect that I want men to get into more trouble , but you are wrong.

  196. Isabelle says:

    @ Paul

    “– why are older wives not teaching younger wives to be subject to their own husbands?
    – why do the elders of the church not correct that?
    – why are wives who will not submit be called out on their sin by church leadership first privately, then publicly?
    – why are unrepentant rebellious wives not excommunicated?
    – why are the elders of the church not enforcing this? ”

    Because those churches just side with the devil . If I were a man , I would not stay one minute more in those “churches” . No time and no money for those “churches”.
    Churches that side with a misandric government are not churches of Christ. You can not say you love the Father and the Bridegroom and at the same time bash and debase earthly fathers and husbands . When I watched the video ” Marriage and Men” with Mark Driscoll , I could not believe my eyes . I had never seen such a thing here . It was in that video that I heard about “marital rape” thrown at the faces of Christians for the first time. Unbelievable.

  197. BillyS says:

    Isabelle,

    Also note that a “prophetic word” only has value to those who respect that sort of thing. I doubt many are in this forum. I do, though I have heard enough of them over the years to be much more skeptical of them and many end up just being the wish of the one speaking them rather than a true message from God.

    They also have context in the situation they were given and may not easily apply on a global scale.

    As James notes, telling someone who is starving that God has provided all their needs is not much comfort. It may be accurate, but it lacks what is needed for the current problem. The modern male-female situation, especially in marriage, is similar in a different area.

    Things will come back to a more supportable standard, but that may take a long time and be much more painful along the way that any of us would prefer.

  198. BillyS says:

    BTW,

    Feminist Hater is just that and is almost always going to come across very harshly. It is better to recognize that than argue with it. Learn what you can from his posts, but don’t sweat it too much.

  199. Anonymous Reader says:

    Isabelle has served up a slice of the feminine mindset. I’m not going to get into the details of “prophecy” vs. “teaching”, but it is amazing that anything along these lines can be said in any church in France now.

    The scene she describes in “Gone with the Wind” is a classic example of male/female interactions, however there are some things not obvious. The character of Scarlett doesn’t want just any man to literally sweep her off of her feet and dominate her, she wants a man who is attractive to her to do that. She doesn’t know this intellectually or rationally, she just “knows it” emotionally and she wants it very much at the primal, hindbrain, level.

    Isabelle is being astoundingly frank, and in fact answering Sigmund Freud’s famous question: “What do women want?” (Fried ice, of course). She’s attempting to encourage men, not discourage, but she’s speaking the foreign language of logic rather than the feminine language of emotion.

    I’m very impressed, Isabelle, at the clarity of your thought. It is rather unusual.

    Now I will remind you, Isabelle, of how “Gone with the WInd” concludes, it is very similar to the ending of Moliere’s “Le Misanthrope”: Scarlett offends and betrays Rhett one time too many, and he leaves, saying “Frankly, Scarelett, I don’t give a damn!”. When I saw this movie in the company of other young men and young women a remarkable thing happened: all the girls insisted “He’ll be back!” just as Scarlett said, and all the young men said “Nope. Not gonna happen”.

    This really does highlight a difference between men and women. I’d have to link to several articles at Rollo’s rationalmale.com to really flesh it out, but it’s there.

    Some of the men here have gotten to the “Frankly, Scarlett….” stage in their lives and that is why they find your observation to be objectionable, because they are done with a particular woman, or with women as a group, for intense and valid personal reasons.

    But thanks for the comments, Isabelle, it really is helpful.

  200. Isabelle says:

    @ info

    “Good that you went to a biblically sound church. However as others have said such churches are in the minority.”

    My husband would never stay in a lukewarm church .

  201. Hazelshade says:

    @Emperor Constantine

    When are you going to start doing affiliate marketing from your blog Dalrock? Get with the times!

    Dalrock already does marketing! :O)

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/01/18/they-see-the-good-in-men/

  202. Isabelle says:

    @ white

    Yes you’re right. It is me on You Tube .

    “If I’m reading her right, she’s saying it is the husband’s responsibility to enforce his wife’s submission. Which means if the wife does not submit, the husband is not doing something right. Note in her story, the pastor tells the husband to repent for his wife not submitting to him, and Isabelle endorses it. You can’t get more Complementarian than that.”

    No . I’m not saying it is the husband’s responsibility to enforce his wife’s submission. She should submit by herself. What I am saying is that being a head means being in control. Of course woman’s submission makes everything easy , peaceful and joyful , no doubt about it.
    Since the woman was made for the man , she has to adapt to him , help him , support him , cheer him up and be his sexual joy. That fits God’s plan perfectly.

    However , I am saying if a husband waits for his wife ‘s submission to be the head , there is something wrong. He has to show her right from the start that he is the head and that she cannot do whatever she pleases , that “free will” and ” My body my rules” are things from a decaying woomen in a decaying world and unworthy of a Christian woman.

    And you misunderstood something : it was not the pastor who told the husband to repent for not being in control . It was a spiritual gift , given by someone else in the audience.
    And I took the prophecy as coming from God . Not from a pastor .

    Do you really think the Lord is pleased when husbands grovel to their wives and obey them ?
    Do you really think that a man who pushes the pram in a public garden , does the dishes , obeys the list of chores his Almighty Wife hands him out and has NO sex in his own marriage can still be called a head ? I am sorry but I cannot call that a head anymore . And no woman can still respect such a man. The more powerless he is , the more she will despise him. It is a vicious circle.

    The focus on ” husbands love your wives” , as incredible as it may be , has led to such misery and curse. Husbands should love their wives , true , but always keeping control .
    I had the opportunity to talk about it with so called Christian women and they said But love is not about control ! Great manipulation indeed . Good job Delilha.

    I do hope that if I started to give my husband a list of chores , he would tear it down into pieces in front of me.
    How can men let themselves be humiliated that way ? I may be naive as BillyS said but I cannot get over it.

  203. ray says:

    BJ — “The ladies are saved and love the Lord.”

    Neh. That’s just Churchspeak. If they loved the Lord, they would not delight in a consistent pattern that rebels against Him and Father. They need to be told the truth, that they DON’T ‘love the Lord’ and that the Lord they keep yammering about is VERY upset right now, specifically about THEIR rebellion, and the co-rebellion of their national and international sisters.

    We all have fault and sin, we all fall short of the Lord. Way short. But occasion of sin is not delight in sin, and pleasure in rebelling against God’s created order, including human created order. It’s like how the homos built an entire celebratory subculture around their rebellion; that’s the kinda stuff that gets people damned.

    Christ’s salvific life opened the door to heaven. Many things on Earth and in heaven changed when the curtain tore. But we are judged on works, there ain’t no freebies. Females that take delight in degrading their husbands, or men in general . . . you really think the King wants these rebels with Him in the Kingdom? So that too can be polluted? So it’ll become ANOTHER thousand years of running around, putting out Rebel Fires all over the planet? Uh uh.

    Let them learn to respect their betters, starting with husbands and men in general, even as the Scripture demands. Perhaps one day their respect might turn into genuine love. IF they can manage that, THEN they can muse about ‘loving the Lord’.

  204. feministhater says:

    You can hate me if you please and suspect that I want men to get into more trouble , but you are wrong.

    I don’t even know you enough to hate you. I’m just sick and tired of women coming here and demanding men do something. Especially when that something includes putting our lives in danger and potentially breaking the law for your benefit.

    Anon Reader is right. I have gotten to a point in my life where I no longer care about trying to save women. As far as I’m concerned, you’re on your own. Few men could do what you demand. It is right to be intimidated by the Duluth Power model and the effects of VAWA. Those that enforce it, whether in robes or jackboots, have immense power to deprive me of life or limb. God has not called me to do what you demand, thus doing so would lead to my death without reason.

    It is stupid for men to fight a losing battle. Feminists won, the culture war is over. If we stand up, we get shot down and no one cares. This is why I walk away.

    Submit to your husband, but for the love of God, leave us men alone. Why do you need to try and influence us? Go away.

  205. Isabelle says:

    @ ray

    ” Neh. That’s just Churchspeak. If they loved the Lord, they would not delight in a consistent pattern that rebels against Him and Father. They need to be told the truth, that they DON’T ‘love the Lord’ ”

    Exactly. They just malign the Word of God.

  206. Isabelle says:

    @ feministhater

    ” tired of women demanding men to do something”

    I don’t demand anything. I just wanted to share something I had heard from the Lord and thought it would be a blessing for men to stand up and not feel defeated anymore.

    ” Feminists won , the culture war is over ”
    I cannot resign myself though . Satan is defeated in the name of Christ. So are feminists.

  207. feministhater says:

    I don’t demand anything.

    A man must take back control whether verbally or in extreme cases maybe , physically. He has to, otherwise he is in sin (just like his wife) and things can only get worse in his marriage.

    Those are demands. If someone ‘must’ or ‘has to’ do something, you are demanding that they do such. Furthermore, making a sin out of men not controlling women through the use of words or even physical force, means you’re placing a Scriptural demand upon men to possibly break the law as it currently stands, thus placing himself in immense danger and at the mercy of his wife should she choose to detonate the plunger.

    This is what you call a catch 22 situation and women placed men there with their ridiculous standards of ‘fried ice’.

  208. white says:

    @Isabelle

    Hi Isabelle M, big fan and keep up the good fight! 🙂

    Unfortunately, I have no idea what you’re trying to say anymore. One minute you demand husbands with unrepentant wives to repent:

    “” You are not the head of your family anymore . Your wife and chidren have taken over. Repent.”

    Next minute you say wives should submit by themselves.

    “No . I’m not saying it is the husband’s responsibility to enforce his wife’s submission. She should submit by herself.”

    Next minute you say some wives can’t submit by themselves:

    “Do you even realize that some women are so rebellious and the rebellious spirit is so ingrained in them that they can not even submit by themselves anymore ?
    Some even unconsciously wish her man to slap them””

    Are you saying it is the husbands’ responsibility to HELP their wives repent…?

    Last but not least, you still have not proposed any feasible method husbands can “take charge” of their unrepentant wives that can work in 2019. Yet you keep demanding husbands take charge anyway.

    IIRC I think you once mentioned English not being your first language, so that could be it. Otherwise I have no idea what your point is anymore.

  209. feministhater says:

    It’s the pointlessness of the thing. Like marketing yourself as a Christian baker. You’re painting a lawsuit on your back.

    LGBTQRSTVQUPISAFIFUCKSAKE activists will hunt you down and demand you bake them a cake with dildos and vaginas and with well wishes for the happy, gay couple, knowing you are at their mercy. Then when you decline to bake such a cake, they will sue you.

    Now imagine this goes on for 60 or more years, how many Christian bakes do you suppose will still be in business.

    Now imagine we did this to marriage… oh no wait, we did already.

  210. Isabelle says:

    @ feministhater

    Ok you’re right. I should have said “Husbands should ” instead of “must” . I did not pay attention to what I wrote . I did not mean to be authoritative.

  211. Isabelle says:

    @ white

    Thank you . It is good to feel supported sometimes.

    I will try to clarify what I said . I said that a wife should submit by herself as commanded in the Bible ( even though sometimes some are so much ingrained in rebellion that they cannot do it by themselves . Those are extreme cases but they do exist).

    I said that husbands should not grovel to their wives . I really wonder what would happen if they stopped being so soft on them. I gave you an example with the list of chores. Do you really think a wife could give her husband a list of chores if he said I AM NOT DOING IT ?
    Would women have done that in the 50s ?

    I also said that a husband should make it clear that “free will” and ” My body my rules” are things advocated by decaying women in a decaying civilization and are unworthy of a Christian woman.
    That he should be in control right from the start , as such his wife would see that she cannot do whatever she pleases.

    Finally I said that if a husband is not in control , the wife will be. Saying he is the head is not enough. A head that is not in control is no head anymore. God cannot be pleased with that (hence the prophecy I heard that did not come from the pastor at all ).

    Yes English is not my first language . I’m French.

  212. BillyS says:

    AR,

    I still have a desire for my exwife. I wish it was gone, and I wish God would take it, but it still remains. No chance I see of her ever repenting, especially since so many churches fail to confront this form of intentional ongoing sin.

    I can handle the thoughts though. I just have to control my mind. It is the dreams that are more of a pain. Those and the ones where I had a woman who is actually interested in me for me. No unicorn dreams yet though, so at least I am not fully into fantasy there….

  213. Swanny River says:

    White,
    Thanks for the clear and direct answer. It helps me understand better. I see that you and her are further clarifying issues, which has been informative.

    Feminist Hater,
    You haven’t given up, you comment here, and I am glad you do, despite the quick name-calling of Isabelle. I agree with you and Billy that enacting a husband’s rule shouldn’t be such a drastic act of faith that it now is with jail and/or divorce the most likely outcome.

  214. Paul says:

    @Isabelle

    OK, I’m going to try it for the third time now; you claim men should take (ridiculous) risks to make their wives submit. You gave a prophecy which scolded a man for not making his wife submit.

    Both I and others have pointed out that you put the blame on men, but fail to see that both women themselves, as well as church leaders have a responsibility, which I spelled out. So why single out blame on men, and don’t talk at all about the blame on women and elders? The latter two are the groups failing at large.

    So why did that happen at your church? And why at your church men were blamed, but women and elders were not?

  215. Billy,

    You can say that IBB, but I think I will take the Scriptures over whatever you say. They say one preaching the Gospel should be able to live on that. Clearly temporary exceptions do exist on that, where someone needs to do other work for a time, but not being able to live at preaching very well may mean you are not called to preach, at least on a full time basis, if it forever stays that way.

    At work, I sometimes must write code and develop solutions that I disagree is in the best interest of the company. But I do it since they pay me and I have no authority (other than to quit, which I have done) to refuse. But it puts me into a terrible quandary, I sometimes do things at work that I know are not in everyone’s best interest. A Pastor should never-EVER be put in this situation. But if he must earn a living from his preaching, quite often he is put in exactly this situation. That is why all pastors should be lay pastors. That way if everyone tells the pastor he is wrong and they walk out (and take their tithes with them) well, that is too bad, but the pastor is still doing right. He is helping people with eternity. That is more important than any job but he still needs to eat while doing this job.

  216. BillyS says:

    Too bad Paul disagreed with you IBB, among other writers in the NT and OT for that matter.

  217. BillyS says:

    I am also principled enough that I will quit if I am asked to write code or do other things that are ethically wrong. It is also not my job, nor that of a developer/programmer to decide what is best for the company. You were never placed in that role, so who guarantees your belief in that is correct?

  218. No guarantees Billy. I just think we are all better off if the one running the church shouldn’t have to worry about no longer running the church just because he is speaking out for what the Lord commanded of us.

  219. feeriker says:

    Concerning the argument of whether or not pastors should be paid:

    The question ultimately comes down to being one of whether the pastor is willing to risk the wrath of man and trust in God to guide and protect him in preaching the truth as set forth in Scripture, no matter how bitter that truth is, no matter how angry it makes the flock, and no matter how uncomfortable –or even severe– the short-term blowback.

    Sadly, far too many men carrying the title of “pastor” have demonstrated that they are unwilling or unable to endure this risk, thus showing how little faith they truly have and how much greater is their fear of man than their trust in God.

  220. Isabelle says:

    @ Paul

    Sadly you misunderstood the prophecy . The prophecy did not blame ONE man for not making his wife submit . He blamed him for not being in control (anymore). There is a huge difference.
    And sorry but you err when you say that men were blamed in this church . This prophecy was for just ONE man who maybe had relinquished control and allowed his wife and children to take over. I don’t know the context , nothing was said about it .

    Believe me , there was no man bashing , no dumb man up rants in this church. Women were not pandered to , nobody was anyway. If a woman started to pray with her head uncovered , she was stopped. That is why when I compared this church to all the stuff on You Tube ( Driscoll , Chandler and the rest ) , I could not believe it.
    How I miss that church.

    There is a difference between being in control and make someone submit. I mean , when a man is not in control , it is easy for his wife to take over.
    I think , but it’s only me that a man should be in control by not being too soft on his fiancée or wife right from the start and not letting himself be trapped in the honeymoon romance . I did not use to speak this way . I was very romantic , but then I realized that it could be a trap to many men and an open door for many women to run the show in the name of romance and eros .

    For example , if she starts to tell him that he should help around the house , she gives him a list of chores , he should just say I am not doing it and tear it into pieces in front of her. It will give her food for thought.
    No” physical violence” here , right ? And prevention is better than cure anyway.

    Women are generally impressed by power . Not by romance . Romance is their domain.
    Power is a male thing. Women are impressed by what they do not have. If a man lets his wife usurp his power , he is done.
    She expects him to yield because of her self entitled education ? She finds herself with a rock in front of her . Powerful .

  221. Isabelle says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    Thank you so much . I will have to read Le Misanthrope again because I don’t remember it !

  222. Paul says:

    @Isabelle

    I don’t care too much about the so-called prophecy, I care about your statements which focuses solely on men.

    You questioned yourself what could be done regarding rebellious wives who refuse to submit, and didn’t know the answer to that. I gave you that answer from biblical instructions; older wives should teach younger wives, elders should oversee, and deal with stubborn sin first privately, then publicly, eventually resulting in excommunicating.

    You continuously go back to telling that men are responsible to “take control”, and fail to acknowledge the responsibility of the women themselves, of the elder women and of the elders.
    I’m not sure why you do that, I do not want to ascribe evil intent on your side, but it makes it hard for me and others here to take you seriously.

  223. AnonS says:

    We already have people that “make their living” “preaching”; they are now called professors and radio hosts. But they have to actually know their stuff, answer questions, and cover a broad range of topics.

    The average pastor is closer to a motivational speaker giving low information talks that he just recycles on a 2-4 year schedule. Avoiding talking on any real topics, just “don’t be selfish, now lets sing again”.

    Why should have receive a living when they aren’t even doing their job?

  224. Sharkly says:

    Bnonn is clever, but he is fighting on the wrong side.
    He is a mighty White Knight fighting to remove due responsibility from women.

    The book of Hosea and the story it tells destroy’s his Bnonnsense. (the B is silent)

    Hosea was the only man, besides God’s son, ever chosen by God specifically to illustrate God’s love, and his story is recorded for all time. I have no doubt that Hosea was the most loving husband of all time as he was illustrating God’s love for the nation Israel. And I don’t doubt that God enabled Hosea to love His wife better than any of us could ever hope to. Anyhow, after Hosea manned-up and married his recycled virgin, And did everything right like God, guess what? He had the perfect marriage…..No, Hell to Da Naw, Naw, Naw! His wife was a completely evil whore, cuckolding him repeatedly, publicly, and without shame.
    Now If Hosea would have had the benefit of Bnonn’s teaching he would know that this was almost entirely his fault for being weak , abdicating, and being effeminate by lacking Bnonn’s own masculine mojo. However the Bible descends into misogyny totally lets Hosea off the hook, and…well, you just shouldn’t read that book if you want to maintain your chivalry. /S

    Bnonn says: We can state the error simply as the inverse of Dalrock’s Law: the belief that women are evil and naturally want to dominate men, followed by demands that women solve this problem by submitting to men.
    Funny thing is, that’s God’s plan that Bnonn is mocking and calling an error. I believe 100% that the inverse of Dalrock’s law, as presented by Bnonn is exactly God’s way back to His Patriarchy. And it must start with repentance. Folks like Bnonn will blame you, as a man, no matter what. If you did something that didn’t work, you should have done something else. If you did everything and it didn’t work, then you should have waited on God, or Given it over to Him. If you waited on God and gave it over to Him, and things didn’t get better, then you should have done something. And around it goes, they spin, but they will never let you point out your wife’s responsibility in making a marriage function. Bnonn’s blind when it comes to dealing with women.

    Too bad Bnonn wasn’t around back then to AMOG, telling God’s loving prophet Hosea, “Either exercise the power God gave you and stop giving it to brassy whores, or stop whining about brassy whores taking power. It’s your choice. Not theirs.” Maybe Hosea wouldn’t have written his whiny book. Perhaps someday the two might meet in the life to come, and Bnonn can give the most loving prophet, who loved like God, his “step up or shut up” speech.

  225. Isabelle says:

    @ Paul

    Of course women should be taught submission , among other things that belong to Titus 2:4 . These things are powerful weapons to blow up feminism overnight.
    If a so called church intentionally suppresses these things , it is not a true church because it rejects sound doctrine and embraces something impure instead.
    I do acknowledge the responsiblity of women but I also remembered a prophecy I once heard that was about a wife usurping power . If this happens , then the husband should overpower her , just as the Lord said in Genesis 3:16 ” He shall rule over you” .
    That is what the prophecy was about. And you cannot deny that the Lord said this to the woman right after the fall.

  226. Paul says:

    @Isabelle

    I’m not talking about women being taught submission, which should be part of regular teaching, but addressing the sin of rebellious women who stubbornly refuse to submit. Not only these rebellious women themselves, but elder women, and the elders carry responsibility for that!

    And as for Gen 3:16; it does not follow that it means a man should overpower a woman if she will not submit. So indeed, the Lord did not say that to the woman.

    And to repeat, although I maintain that man should keep frame to be the head, and not submit to his wife, he CANNOT somehow (physically) overpower her. Any such advice is both unbiblical as well as legally dangerous.

    So to come back to my question; in your church which did teach submission, why was the man scolded, but the woman was not, not by the elder women (including yourself?), and not by the elders.

  227. Isabelle says:

    @ Paul
    “He shall RULE OVER you ” cannot be clearer .
    So , what does it mean to you ??

  228. Paul says:

    @Isabelle

    If you answer my question, I’ll answer yours.

  229. Paul says:

    @Isabelle

    If you answer my question, I’ll answer yours.

  230. Bertholdt the Black says:

    Between Foster/Bnonn and this guy, it looks like the “teaching Christian men to be men” market is experiencing a gold rush.

    https://www.faithwire.com/2019/02/14/theology-professor-launches-christian-man-academy-to-combat-destruction-of-biblical-masculinity/

  231. seventiesjason says:

    Don’t worry Bertholdt……this “christian man academy” is just repackaging. It’s the same as the previous “Be A Man” conventions held all over the country in the past decade. The same as Chandler, Platt, Driscoll have been saying for awhile…………same as the Salvation Army “tackling” it’s “man” problem (the lack of men enlisting, and the men 35-50 leaving in droves), same as all the other bloggers and v-loggers……I checked this out a few weeks back

    but…this time, this time…well, it’s so radical and different.

    As an aesthetic in art and design, I can see the set was designed by a woman or someone who is gay. From the fonting, the lighting….and its designed for already married younger men.

    The first lesson……here we go. Two Paragraphs in:

    “What does it mean to love our wives in a Christlike way? And, how we can evaluate whether we are succeeding? Guy Richard answers both questions in this article.

    “Self-sacrifice” sums up his answer to the first question. His conclusion is worth re-reading:

    I often hear men say that they feel like they are giving more in their marriage than they are getting out of it or that they are giving more than their wife is giving. My response is usually something like this: “Congratulations! That is exactly the way it is supposed to be.” God calls us as men to give ourselves every day in service to our wives, to lay ourselves out sacrificially—to spend and be spent—just as Christ gave Himself sacrificially in every way for His bride.”

    …….it goes down from here. Christian men telling us to be authentic, but they mean by dress. The pastor wearing a shirt with an “underarmor” logo I guess is edgy……

    The only way things will change really in the end is if men walk the walk and walk the talk that Christ gave, with grace, with learning, with intellect and with a “band of brotherhood” mentality. It won’t ever happen. The leaders in our faith and churches don’t consider any men beneath them as worthy of grace or Christ’s love.

    “Yes Jesus loves you….but he loves ME a little more” and hence men can get that in the world daily….why would they want it from supposed brother in a church or faith? That’s not just these places. That’s over on the “real man” end of the Christian sphere as well.

    Also….again, assuming all men can just get dates, have zero problem finding a wife……..

  232. Dalrock says:

    Seventiesjason can you share the link you quoted from? I Found the original article he is reposting but not the repost on man academy.

  233. BillyS says:

    I would guess he means the article here Dalrock:

    https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/2019/02/jesus-trains-husbands/

    I found another link to the thelogcollege.wordpress.com blog, but it must be on another page since it didn’t match when I got there.

  234. BillyS says:

    Note that the author of that article is nuts. Jesus also expects many things from the Church, something the author doesn’t allow from Christian husbands.

  235. BillyS says:

    I should reply slower.

    Is Guy Richard one of the people you note elsewhere Dalrock? He notes that foolish idea you correctly dismiss: “If I am giving myself sacrificially to my wife, then I should expect that over time my wife will become more and more beautiful.”

  236. seventiesjason says:

    Here you go Dalrock:

    http://christianmanacademy.com/required-reading/

    I was reading this a few weeks back…..I have other issues besides this…”man up” again repackaged……go on read it….the intro here is full of the same stuff I have been hearing since I became a Christian. They wonder why I want nothing to do with a church.

  237. seventiesjason says:

    Billy…is your name Seventiesjason????? It isn’t? Then let me reply to the question Dalrock asked. You should have stood up to your wife….and now you find it “bold” as a man to stand up to me. Jerk.

    http://christianmanacademy.com/required-reading/

  238. Dalrock says:

    Thanks seventiesjason!

  239. seventiesjason says:

    I did a ton of user-centered design at IBM and applied user analysis in the labs when we attempted to make our manuals and onlne publications more user friendsly. Hard to do with a manual that is seven books and a few hundred pages or more……

    But the second I saw this “man academy” page I knew they got their input from women. Women are going to use the site, and “make” their husbands go through it….or else!!!! The softer colors, even the images and butcons and “clicks” for the navigation……

    Not for the content….but for the design and schema of the whole thing……the content is standard “bold” fare for men today in the Christian world that has been the same for over two decades. If the pastor was is a Scot, not that we should hold that against him, but if he preaching a “wee bit more on the hellfire that the Scots and Welsh were once famous for….he would at least have had my attention…..

    When I saw the page, I knew it was going to be a “real man of God” approved by women of the Christian faith to tell me again how to “man up”

  240. Bertholdt the Black says:

    seventiesjason, thanks for the primary source!

    I note that, in Guy Richard’s answer to the second question (“how we can evaluate whether we are succeeding?”), also quoted by Christian Man Academy’s “Required Reading” editor, he goes full Doug Wilson:

    I have found this to be especially helpful in diagnosing the condition of my own marriage and in determining how well (or not) I am loving my wife in a Christlike manner. If I am giving myself sacrificially to my wife, then I should expect that over time my wife will become more and more beautiful. Her beauty is the test by which I know how I am doing as a husband. If she is bitter or beat down with discouragement or feelings of insignificance, then this is an indication that I am probably doing something wrong

  241. seventiesjason says:

    Bertholdt

    Hey…..you know what. You’re welcome. I do a lot of data mining on this topic because I am praying and somehow wishfully thinking that on a Google search on page 7,000 I’ll find something that will actually help me.

    All of it is like above….even the stuff out there I find like Dalrock’s……..it’s a+b=c just apply this and everything will be okay……….and I find on sites like this in general the comments to be more harmful, hurtful than helpful.

    All the videos……….what I want is someone to walk deeper and HELP me. I am asking the impossible I am sure. Maybe its just because I actually want a friend. I am beyond hope and repair at this point.

    Anyway…..if you come across anything that you ever foind that “pings” your brain as “hmmmmm…..not perfect but just different” please let me know. Being drug and alcohol free has made me a again a “productive” member of society…….but it has made me much more miserable because I actually care now…….befoer I could just get obliviated on drink and blasted on cocaine and forget about it. Now I have to “just deal” and hear the jr high nonsense over and over from the pulpit, from the men like WIlson et al…..and men on pages like this…..even IF I was making progress, they would find a way to urinate all over you while cloaking it in self-righteous Biblical manhood.

  242. Pingback: A real life example of the power of a Christian wife. | Dalrock

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.