Why Warhorn Media’s duplicity matters.

Larry Kummer asked me a question in an email exchange that I want to discuss as a stand alone post:

Reading your last post, I don’t understand your objection. They posted your content in full, and gave a comprehensive reply. That fulfills the agreement. It presented your most thoughtful work to a new audience.

As many commenters said, expecting a useful exchange was (to be kind) wishful thinking.

You could make this a back and forth by giving a response, which I strongly urge you to do.

Since there is little substantive content to their reply, it should be easy to write. Listening to their podcast is the difficult part.

They do make some points requiring a reply.

I wanted to focus on substance from the beginning, but they changed the subject to character.  So be it.  Warhorn is on untenable ground here.  As I shared yesterday, back in January Nathan approached me claiming Warhorn wanted their audience to understand my perspective, even if we disagreed:

I’d like to get as clear an articulation of your views as I can, and present it to the world.

The podcast may ultimately reflect these differences, but I’d like to give you a fair chance to say your piece. This won’t be “gotcha journalism.”

I’d like to sincerely understand and present your point of view, even where our camp diverges.

Now Nathan writes that this was never their intent:

To be perfectly clear, however: Dalrock is bad news and we recommend you stay away from him. We seriously considered canning this episode because it might inspire a greater interest in Dalrockian writing and philosophy. If it does, frankly I’ll be sorry we did it.

He then reiterated the point:

We didn’t want to get too far into the weeds of Dalrock’s philosophy. To do that was to risk validating a dishonest and uncharitable man.

Even worse, in his final private email to me Nathan wrapped himself in Christianity as he went back on his word, matching the worst stereotype of the sanctimonious Christian hypocrite:

It’s brutal, as you’ll see. But after much thought and prayer, we decided what you’re doing is not just misguided but harmful, and we wanted to inoculate people against it.

I hope you don’t think yourself ill-used. I did ask the questions in good faith, despite what your followers say about me. And then we took a long time to weigh our options and craft a response.

Your followers who validate you are are not really loving you.

I am.

I don’t feel that I owe Warhorn any further substantive discussion on the issue. I might decide that I really want to address something for the sake of my readers, but this would be elective on my part*.  I took quite a bit of my time to write thoughtful answers to Warhorn’s questions, but Warhorn was never interested in the substance.  They wanted to make it an issue about character, yet from their own words they never acted in good faith!  I’m not crying about it, but I will shine a light on Warhorn’s duplicity.

Keep in mind that Warhorn isn’t just another blog, it is a ministry of Pastor Tim Bayly’s Clearnote Church.  Here is how Nathan described his position at Warhorn Media when I asked:

I’m the creative director of Warhorn Media, a media ministry of Clearnote Church, Bloomington, In.

Moreover, Pastor Tim Bayly claims he had no idea the men who work for him were engaged in this duplicitous enterprise, as they evidently did it without his approval or knowledge.  But bizarrely, instead of apologizing to me and my readers for how terribly his ministry behaved, he is angry with me for what his underlings have done behind his back:

After putting up three posts and a tweet about Nadia Bolz-Weber and Glorian Steinem, I come to Sanity to see if there are any questiions directed to me and find this thread. Which leads me to go to the podcast itself and read the stuff between Nathan and Mr. Anonymous Dalrock. Let me say here that I never knew Mr. Anonymous would be addressed, let alone interviewed on Warhorn, and when I found out I was not pleased. This for a number of reasons I won’t go into here, but not in one iota because I think Mr. Anonymous is right or has drawn blood with his critique of me or what I’ve written. I like good back-and-forth, but not ever anonymously—particularly when for fifteen years I have suffered much for the Name of the Lord Jesus and His Words and know how privileged I am for doing so and how much strength it lends to the work to which all believers are called.

But just a couple comments about Mr. Anonymous’s arguments, such as they are. Reports of a General Assembly are all written with an eye to getting the majority to sign on. That Mr. Anonymous is ignorant of this is excusable, but now he knows and needs to stop repeating himself that the report is worded and argued by Tim Bayly. I was its principle author, and I wrote in such a way to win the majority of the committee and to give the report the greatest possibility of being approved, some or all, by the Assembly. Which they did and they did.

That said, at the same time as I was writing, a student at IU decided to go into the Navy as an officer responsible for nuclear reactors. I loved her and told her she should not do so. We’re still friends and she’s always known I think she was not obeying God in this. Full stop.

This is just one of many, many examples of my fulfilling my responsibility as husband, father, and pastor to say “no” to women, and rebuke them. That Mr. Anonymous spreads his false accusations otherwise is disgusting to me. False charge after false charge after false charge. Long ago I decided not to answer him, and then I find out Warhorn is providing him a platform, so now I’m having to do what I determined wasn’t worthwhile, or even right.

One last thing: for fifteen years I’ve been online saying that the only thing the feminists have given men is the right to cry, and Jesus already gave us this right. For fifteen years I’ve also been saying that feminists’ chief gift to women has been removing any moral agency from them, most especially their moral agency in the slaughter of their unborn children. Look at my Warhorn posts the past three days alone and see if it isn’t true that Mr. Anonymous bears false witness against me and us. Look at my tweet yesterday about the stories of unborn children being “ripped apart” by their mothers. Does that sound like a man who denies women moral agency and places all the blame on men?

Ridiculous.

Between Nathan’s spiteful underhanded behavior and Bayly’s claim of oblivion, this paints a picture of Warhorn Media as a ministry out of control.  But I would remind Bayly that it was his ministry that approached me with a proposal to help Warhorn’s audience understand my views.  That his men acted behind his back, and were duplicitous in the process is not my fault.  Someone is responsible for Warhorn, but it isn’t me.  When Bayly learned his team was out of control and dragging the Warhorn name through the mud, he should have apologized to me and my readers for their duplicity.  Perhaps he still will, but after I shared the email exchanges I had with Nathan last night, Warhorn tweeted today advertising the podcast:

This makes it look like either Pastor Bayly is still oblivious, or he approves of what the men of Warhorn did behind his back.  I’m not sure which would be worse.

With that in mind, looking through my own comments and the (now locked) comments at Warhorn, I want to address what seems to be Bayly’s and Warhorn’s core complaint:

mischaracterizes

Their chief complaint with this regard is my discussion of the PCA resolution in the exchange Male responsibility and female agency.  What Nathan is saying is he (and presumably the other “elves”) objected to what I wrote in the discussion, but kept it to themselves for over a month so they could complain about me being disingenuous in the podcast.  The whole benefit of an email exchange is that you can call each other out if you feel like the other side is missing something or misrepresenting something.  As I demonstrated yesterday, I proposed an email exchange to Nathan and he accepted the proposal.  This was one of our first exchanges, and at this point Nathan hadn’t started backing out of the deal.  Warhorn manufactured a crisis so they could exploit it a month later.  They were disingenuous so they could accuse me of being disingenuous.

But this still leaves the question.  What if the Warhorn media ministry wasn’t disingenuous and Nathan had raised this concern when I was prodding him for responses to this very argument?  What if instead of manufacturing offense, Nathan had challenged me during our discussion with the argument Warhorn moderator Ben Sulser challenged commenter Nereus:

sulser

Then I would have had the opportunity to respond pointing out that while the resolution quotes Calvin and a heathen poet disapproving of women dressing as men, it very carefully does not tell women they are sinning if they become warriors.  This in fact is what commenter Nereus went on to do quite well (comment, first link, second link):

nereus

In his comment Joseph Bayly expands the same argument, that if you delve deeply into the document you will find that there is some commentary against women joining the military.  However, this is discussion of what the authors of the resolution didn’t agree on.  Nereus quoted the final recommendation presented to the assembly, and we can see the same thing from this section from the larger document as well:

AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT

The dearth of men ready to serve their country in defense of their wives and children is a concern shared by our entire committee. Further, we rejoice that the Holy Spirit brought us to consensus in these statements:

The history of the Church’s views on women serving in the military reveals that the Church has stood opposed; this was never a significant issue because warfare was a male duty.[10]

* * *

By eating the fruit, Adam betrayed his duty to protect his wife, the race, and all creation. …By calling the woman a weaker vessel, Scripture indicates that there is a greater vulnerability attendant to womanhood, and calls upon her husband to be considerate of this fact. This vulnerability of the woman and the duty of the man are further confirmed by Scripture’s command that a husband serve and lay down his life for his wife. (We) have come to unanimous agreement that women ought not to be conscripted. [11]

Still, our Committee remains divided over whether the Word of God speaks with clarity concerning the meaning and purpose of sexuality as it bears on the normal practice of women serving in military combat roles. Thus our consensus report states:

We confess that, while we also are unanimous in stating that the above doctrine of sexuality gives guidance to the Church concerning the inadvisability of women serving in offensive combat, some among us believe that such guidance should be limited to pastoral counsel that does not bind the conscience while others among us believe that this counsel rises to the level of duty.[12]

I’ll take Bayly at his word that he wanted to pass a resolution that called out women’s sin, but was forced to accept one that called out men’s sin instead.  But this was my point in the exchange.  It wasn’t about Bayly’s desire to hold women accountable, but the fact that blaming invented sins of men is used to avoid calling out real sins by women.  This is exactly what happened in the PCA resolution.  If Bayly is frustrated that this happened, this is something we both can agree on.  And if his organization weren’t sneaky and duplicitous, we could have had that very agreement a month and a half ago** instead of him wrongly directing his outrage at me today.

*I still haven’t gone through the podcast, and probably won’t have time to go through it until this weekend.  I’m tiring of the subject as it is, but if I see something further I really want to address I’ll probably roll a post out on it some time next week.

**I sent my first message to Nathan in the referenced exchange on January 16th.  Nathan sent his message asking to delay further comment on January 17th.  At the time I took him at his word that he would reengage after I answered other questions, but given what he has now publicly stated I see that he never intended to reengage in the email discussion and was merely fishing for more items for Warhorn to suddenly become outraged over once it suited their purpose to be outraged (a month and a half later).

This entry was posted in Larry Kummer, Nathan Alberson, Pastor Tim Bayly, Warhorn Interview, Warhorn Media. Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to Why Warhorn Media’s duplicity matters.

  1. Keith says:

    The first thing you learn to hate is the teachers that taught you to hate yourself. Nathan is tool looking for a enemy so he can improve himself. He is so Machiavellion he does not know it

  2. I don’t think even Warhorn’s commenters think Warhorn looks good.

  3. Jack says:

    @Dalrock,
    From the onset, I wondered if their intent was to expose you, or wear you down. It seems to be both. Their podcast was an embarassing clownshow, clearly intended to create public apathy for the Christian Manosphere. You’ve responded in the most gracious manner imaginable. As far as character goes, that speaks for itself.

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    Well, there’s a lot to unpack here…I’m sure it would all be a lot clearer if both Dalrock and Nathan had written their exchange in Koine Greek, then the hand of friendship could be extended in a brotherly fashion to all concerned, as surely hedges of mercy and compassion would arise from the wasteland of conflict to provide a balm of healing and peace to everyone…except for the rabble, of course, who deserve nothing.

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    PS: Forgot the “heavy, sincere sigh” at the end. My bad.

  6. Lexet Blog says:

    If there is one thing I’d like to tell bayly, it would be the lyrics to a Godsmack song. “You were crying like a bitch.”

    What a girl. How pathetic of him

  7. It’s comical that they admonish you and anybody else for using a pseudonym. Part of the proof that we’re doing God’s work is that our views offend the powers that rule every boardroom and courthouse from Honolulu to Hartford. It’s the complementarians who think they can burn incense to Caesar while somehow maintaining their Christianity. I’d go a step further and say they’ve added that into their sacraments and now defend it as orthodox Christian practice.

    So consider this a personal exhortation: drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. That or get out of the business altogether.

    I can’t see how this could be interpreted as anything other than an arrogant and glib demand for submission. They can’t argue with you, yet they somehow demand the right to teach you. If there were any better evidence we were dealing with sycophants rather than Godly and righteous men, it couldn’t be clearer than their sneering response. And of course, the fact that the Bible, the Church Fathers, and virtually every moral man in history is to be mortally condemned as a bigot under their world view never receives a second thought.

    It seems like much of their justification for their actions, such as the failure to condemn women in the military due to the friction it would cause with their own female congregation, stems from their innate tendency towards moral utilitarianism. I wouldn’t be surprised if they default to that in order to defend their sins of lying, misrepresentation, and dishonorable conduct. After all, is it really a sin to bear false witness against a misogynistic bigot? If your enemy is so dangerous that he is poisoning the minds of your followers with his evil teachings he got from reading the Bible and reasoning using statistics and information he gained from the world around him, it’s actually your moral duty to behave immorally towards him if that is what it takes to defeat him. The ends justify the means when it comes to the sacred cow of egalitarianism in our society.

  8. TB10000 says:

    The “authority” of what amounts to a splinter sect of the universal Church — a tiny rump party in a few countries. Literally fewer than 400,000 people–less than the population of Wyoming. Yes, I’m a Catholic…

    Dalrock won this exchange with the sheer force and logic of his arguments. The lack of self awareness in the appeal to “authority” is icing on the cake, though.

  9. Hmm says:

    We at Warhorn are shocked! shocked, I tell you! that Anonymous Dalrock has the nerve to think that we could ever engage with his ideas rather than impugning his character. Ideas don’t matter – the Scriptures are all about character. Besides, it’s his own fault for answering leading questions. He should have seen our hand-wringing coming.

    What? our character? Doesn’t matter – we’re not anonymous. If we give our names, it doesn’t matter what we say about those that don’t.

  10. Novaseeker says:

    Shake the dust from your feet … let the dead bury the dead.

    These are not numbered among God’s chosen, quite obviously … by your fruits shall you know them, and the fruits of the Spirit are not duplicity, underhandedness, set-ups, defensiveness, and corner-cutting, among many other things that should be very easily considered to be under the umbrella term “disingenuous”. Liars are always from the Evil One … as our Lord Himself said, the devil has been a liar from the beginning, and he is the father of lies. The liars, like these, the disingenuous ones, are his children, and no elect of Christ.

    Let the dead bury the dead.

  11. ray says:

    You owe these people absolutely nothing. No explanations, no responses, no recognizance. If you can find it in your heart to pray for them that’d be good, Jeshua loves that. I won’t be doing it however.

    You did them, and the actual church, a service by organizing and explaining your points diligently, at significant length, as to why mainstream American churchianity is opposing God and percolating heaven.

    Some regular readers at warhorn will be enlightened, or at least discomfited, by your exposure of their hearts. Eventually some of those will turn away from WomanChurch. Now, it’s out there and they got to make up their minds. That’s right where you want them.

    It takes endurance, that’s the only thing Christ asked of Philadelphia.

  12. Christopher Conrad Nystrom says:

    Typo alert
    “but given what he has not publicly stated I see that he never intended to reengage”

    – I believe this should read

    “but given what he has NOW publicly stated I see that he never intended to reengage”

    [D: Good catch! Fixed.]

  13. okrahead says:

    Bayly admits women SHOULD be called out, but cannot get a committee vote to say so, so he calls out men instead… Dalrock calls out Bayly for calling out men when women are at fault… Bayly’s staff, without his knowledge, attempts a character hit on Dalrock and his readers/commenters…. Bayly gets wind of it and gets mad at…. Dalrock?
    I’m sure there is a psychological term for taking your anger out on a third party when you cannot bring yourself to punish the party actually at fault.
    Or Bayly could have simply admitted he couldn’t get a majority vote chastising women so he settled for chastising men… which he did, which must really be a bitter pill to swallow and stick in his craw… and he needs someone other than himself to blame.

  14. okrahead says:

    Really, if I read this correctly, Bayly originally wanted to push through a proposal in agreement with what Dalrock teaches, but the majority of his own denomination would not go along with it. If so, does this make Bayly an evil Dalrockian? Inquiring minds want to know.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    okrahead
    I’m sure there is a psychological term for taking your anger out on a third party when you cannot bring yourself to punish the party actually at fault.

    Possibly “displacement activity”. Imagine a cat sitting on a window sill, batting at a fly on the window, only to overreach, slip and fall onto the floor…then glare at the nearest human, as if to say “You pushed me!”.

    Scott in Montana will know for sure.

  16. Anonymous Reader says:

    if I read this correctly, Bayly originally wanted to push through a proposal in agreement with what Dalrock teaches, but the majority of his own denomination a committee within a general assembly of his denomination would not go along with it.

    FIFY.
    I wonder if that was a permanent, standing committee, or something created for that task – either way, I wonder who chose the members, and therefore stacked the deck?

  17. Dalrock says:

    @Okrahead

    I’m sure there is a psychological term for taking your anger out on a third party when you cannot bring yourself to punish the party actually at fault.

    I can’t find it via Google, but I recall hearing a Roman (I think) saying, something to the effect that we tend to hate the people we have wronged.

  18. okrahead says:

    As to bloggers posting under pseudonyms… this was a proud tradition of the Revolution https://www.ifs.org/blog/protecting-anonymous-speech-used-to-be-common-sense/
    Additionally, more than one book of the Bible was published anonymously for various reasons (Hebrews, Ecclesiastes). We may use historical evidence to guess the writers of these books, but they obviously chose not to identify themselves at the time in writing for various reasons.

  19. Scott says:

    I’m sure there is a psychological term for taking your anger out on a third party when you cannot bring yourself to punish the party actually at fault.

    Displacement. (Of object)

  20. Basedangemon says:

    Malachi might have been a straight-up pseudonym, too. Guy critiques the most powerful, elite class in his culture at the time and simply goes by “My Messenger”?

    That’s a bit on-the-nose, don’t you think?

    Yet the theology grads staffing Warhorn say (it has been reported), “no one in the Bible used a pseudonym.”

    I for one am not put at ease by the institutional accreditation of these talking heads. Maybe what’s really in play here is a bit of a Napoleon complex/short-man syndrome that Dalrock (putatively a layman) has a better grasp of Scripture than his “betters” among the intelligentsia?

  21. Oscar says:

    That his men acted behind his back, and were duplicitous in the process is not my fault. Someone is responsible for Warhorn, but it isn’t me. ~ Dalrock

    Clearly, Dalrock misunderstands federal headship.

  22. Jake says:

    Can’t tell people they sinned because then people might think they sinned. God forbid anyone ever recieve something from my life and use it as a good example of what not to do. Then i might be embarrassed.

    Appreciate you putting up with this dalrock but they are clearly a bunch of tossers. As i suspected, the organisation that has to have a debate every year about women deacons was incapable of producing a useful document. I never understood why 4chan responds to every attack with filth and swastikas until i saw this from the very beginning. They are really just responding in kind. These double minded men who say one thing and think another. Who dress up as a reasonable man coming to discourse with a brother.

    They are threatened by you. That you would DARE to speak the truth. That you would DARE to love these broken men. That you would DARE to provide a positive example to young men seeking wives. That you would DARE to help slightly older never married men navigate this upside down world and show them why they are the way they are and how to fix it. What the signals mean. And not do it in such a way that just teaches them how to take advantage of women. That they could give a shit about. What has really upset them is you are poaching. They asked for your license. How dare you hunt their deer. They see Gods work and their first reaction is to demand a permit?

    You tell the truth. You do it in a fairly entertaining way and cut right to the heart of the matter. That scares the jeebies out of these soy soldiers because all they have going for them is a blue checkmark. And wonder of wonders you do it anonomously. Not sure if you realize itbut that is what scares them most of all. No one cares if their pig is smart, or playful, or what not. They only get worried when the pig starts reading. You deny their degrees, their ordination and you arm yourself simply, helmet over face so you can’t be known. They can’t take apart your ideas because you ground yourself well. But if they get that helmet off maybe you work as an underwater welder. He never went to seminary! He’s not even educated! Or he is an insurance guy. A math nerd! Hardly qualified.

    Bah. Organizations grow until they lose their original purpose and their new purpose becomes simply to exist, and to continue to grow. Once they reach a certain size they are targeted for sjw infestation and if there is one thing zogbots outdo the right in its faceless meaningless organization. You can’t trust anything larger than maybe fifty members.

    Keep doing God’s work and stay hidden. That it bothers the turds so much means it must be right.

  23. ray says:

    ‘I’m sure there is a psychological term for taking your anger out on a third party when you cannot bring yourself to punish the party actually at fault.’

    Projection.

  24. Basedangemon says:

    Has it ever occured to anyone that “Paul” might have been a pseudonym taken by Saul, for a time?

    Pure conjecture, but it would explain some things.

    That said, I expect that Nathan believes that Martin Luther’s German translation of the Bible is a sacreligious work since it was done while Luther was working under the name “Knight George” after faking his own death?

    Come now, Mr. Alberson, and stop being silly.

  25. ray says:

    Basedangemon — ‘That’s a bit on-the-nose, don’t you think?’

    yes

  26. Adam says:

    Even though I thoroughly enjoyed the email interview series, the level of duplicity of Warhorn Media after the fact would be ridiculous if not for the fact that they are the media. Which leads me to believe that it was in fact a mistake to accept their proposal in the first place as their intentions were never good.

    In other words it’s the grand old truism: never talk to the media.

  27. 7817 says:

    Tim Bayly:

    But then, Anonymous One and his acolytes did not suffer on the committee, did not write for the committee, did not shepherd the vote of the Assembly on the committee’s work, did not suffer under the belligerence of the male-only commissioners on the Assembly floor, did not lose their reputations because of their work, and on it goes… They are not pastors and so their words are costless. They are anonymous, and so their words are cheap.

    The disconnect between their echochamber and the world where men work and suffer under their real names is so obvious.

    How I wish we had never dignified them on this site.

    Calling it now, Bayly is a gamma.

    Interesting that in another thread he said he had no reputation, and here is saying he lost it over this vote. The man obviously has a lot of emotions wrapped up in this, but that doesn’t excuse all this passive aggressive commentary which he is indulging in rather than correct the member of his staff that did this whole thing.

    He says “They are not pastors and so their words are costless.”

    This reveals some pretty twisted thinking. Pastors are not the only ones to get to suffer for the gospel as a result of faithful words for God.

  28. ray says:

    Jake — ‘They see Gods work and their first reaction is to demand a permit?’

    Phar. I. See.

  29. ray says:

    ‘You deny their degrees, their ordination and you arm yourself simply, helmet over face so you can’t be known.’

    Never take off the mask.

  30. Matt says:

    But then, Anonymous One and his acolytes did not suffer on the committee, did not write for the committee, did not shepherd the vote of the Assembly on the committee’s work, did not suffer under the belligerence of the male-only commissioners on the Assembly floor, did not lose their reputations because of their work, and on it goes… They are not pastors and so their words are costless. They are anonymous, and so their words are cheap.

    Christians are indeed attacked by the unsaved and ungodly world, exactly as Christ predicted. But I can’t help but note that every example of suffering given here is not an attack by the world but instead an attack by his fellow church members. At minimum, that logically requires – per his own formulation – that either he or his church is seriously apostate.

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817 quotes Bayly
    They are not pastors and so their words are costless.They are anonymous, and so their words are cheap.

    Passive aggressive seems to be pretty common among the celebrity pastors.
    Intelligence and thoughtfulness, not so much.

  32. Sharkly says:

    Cunts gonna cunt! Blayly & sons gonna cunt!

    I don’t think your time has been wasted, Dalrock. You put out some good material for the discussion. You also were wise enough to not take the bait and give the cunts your name. They intend to destroy you, because they are of their father the devil who was a destroyer from the beginning.
    God is anonymous too (I AM, Etc.)
    Revelation 19: His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.
    Proverbs 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down?
    Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
    Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment?
    Who has established all the ends of the earth?
    What is his name, and what is his son’s name?
    Surely you know!

    He will also give you a new secret name,
    Revelation 2:17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.

    The cunts at Whorehorn Media had better go to hell, if they don’t want to become “Mr. Anonymous” along with all those of us who aren’t ashamed of any part of God’s word.

    … Did I forget to mention that they are crazy cunty cunt-worshippers?
    I say Cunt in vain, and Alberson gets sand in his twat over it. LOL
    I’ve got a new favorite triggering word.

  33. feeriker says:

    To be perfectly clear, however: Dalrock is bad news and we recommend you stay away from him. We seriously considered canning this episode because it might inspire a greater interest in Dalrockian writing and philosophy. If it does, frankly I’ll be sorry we did it.

    Dalrock, you could not buy this kind of publicity. The above might as well serve as an open invitation to visit this site. It’s the kind of reverse psychology a parent might use to try to get their toddlers to eat their vegetables.

    Imagine the father to his teenage son:

    “You stay away from that liquor cabinet, boy! All that that booze will do is make you drunk!”

    “Don’t let me here that you’ve been cruising the red light district, boy! Those loose women are bad news!”

    I think the Whorehorn soyboys have just invented a whole new level of cluelessness.

  34. Anon says:

    By any objective standard, Nathan is cowardly and dishonest. Others have pointed out that his soyboy high pitched voice sounds very gay, and such men tend to be unethical backstabbers.

    Bayly is just a cowardly Pastorbator who is trying to subvert the Bible. He is in the service of Satan himself, and worst of all, exhibits a complete lack of genuine faith.

  35. Pingback: Why Warhorn Media’s duplicity matters. | Reaction Times

  36. Laikastes says:

    I want to encourage you to continue blogging and staying anonymous. Although I no longer profess to be a Christian, I enjoy reading your blog, and have mostly lurked, as I don’t think I have much to contribute to the discussion most of the time. However, years ago, I obtained two fancy theology degrees and worked in churches for several years. I left church service before I got divorced and became an apostate, because I came to the conclusion that I was not really called by God to be a church leader, but had been called by my pride. Even after that, I had to work on getting rid of my deeply buried pride in the fact that I was so much more educated than those rubes who didn’t know Greek or Latin or Hebrew. In all of the comments made by Mr. Bayly and his lickspittle followers, their inordinate pride in their belief that they are special and above people like you and the “rabble” here is the thing that jumps out the most for me. The statement that you should subordinate yourself to “men who can discipline what you write” (which means them, of course!) and that you should “get out of the business”, is so arrogant and dunderheaded it makes me laugh and seethe with rage at the same time!

  37. Cane Caldo says:

    @7817

    He says “They are not pastors and so their words are costless.”

    This reveals some pretty twisted thinking. Pastors are not the only ones to get to suffer for the gospel as a result of faithful words for God.

    This whole episode (from emailing Dalrock through their comments on their own site) is disgraceful and reveals the entire Warhorn operation as deeply weird. They do not disagree with Dalrock about pretty much anything except his criticisms of Wilson and Bayly, and they desperately want to be in the business of telling men what’s up.

    Said another way: The Warhorn Media guys envy Dalrock’s success and they hate him for giving away for free what they ask men to pay for. Don’t let me distract you: I don’t think the Warhorn Media exists for the money. No. It’s the respect they want. Money is because they don’t want to work a normal job while they produce content–you know, like losers like Dalrock (or myself) work.

  38. Jason says:

    I would be willing to bet that Dalrock will have a sudden increase in subscriptions because of this…

  39. JRob says:

    The ChurchioUteroanitarian Industrial Complex is rabid in its justifcation of.its.own existence.

  40. ranger says:

    That shifty character Jesus was clearly up to no good. Everytime a demon tried to dox him as the Messiah, he told them to shut up.

    He also gave a pseudonym to his closest follower.

  41. squid_hunt says:

    Moreover, Pastor Tim Bayly claims he had no idea the men who work for him were engaged in this duplicitous enterprise, as they evidently did it without his approval or knowledge.

    “Uh…I’m shocked. I found out the same way you did, by reading the news…”

    Pretty strange position to be in when your argument against someone’s teachings is that they aren’t submitted to their pastor and their pastor doesn’t know what their up to.

    Sanctimonious, pretentious jackasses.

  42. Basedangemon says:

    @Cane

    It’s the respect they want. Money is because they don’t want to work a normal job while they produce content–you know, like losers like Dalrock (or myself) work.

    Aye, there’s the rub.

    But “men like [them]” do it the RIGHT way, you see. THEY have donors with deep pockets and an audience that validates them by name.

    Of course, the risk inherent in the mechanism is that they have to serve filthy lucre rather than God if they are going to keep the lights on.

    And that they have to be craven to public opinion so that their valuable “approval” doesn’t dry up, leaving their millennial souls once again starved for the affirmation their fathers were too busy to give them.

    I always thought that those who were content with goatskin living in the desert were more trustworthy than those are dressed in fine clothes in king’s houses. Less high maintenance, Champaign taste to service. The tradesmen know more about the real world anyway; let them eat cake, indeed.

    Keep making tents gentlemen.

  43. Okay I just listened to the entire podcast. I will have some thoughts tonight. I just want to collect my thoughts very carefully and I don’t have time for that now.

  44. MiAndy says:

    How embarrassing for them to act like such babies in public

    I found his comments about the most military troubling. There is no scriptural imperative that presents it as necessary for to men to serve in the military or be considered lazy. The New Testament has many who weren’t in the military and offers verses a that could support concienscious objectors.
    He has no scripture to stand on that men are required to serve. Nor do women served due to a shortage of soldiers in the US armed forced. They are superfluous.
    Further the American military is a tool for rebellious Israel. The Lord too that land from them for their rebellion against him. These current wars are in their interest but harmful to Americans.

  45. Nathan Bruno says:

    To push too far on the idea that Christian men must take up arms in defense of women, somewhere, is to push them into living by the sword.

    In his zeal to give the PCA women grounds to be conscientious objectors, he has taken it away from PCA men, who he would have be ordered by their church to die for some woman, somewhere, as a general debt for all men to all women (odd debt to an assistant! Do these same men repeat, “not the foot to be below, or the head to be above, but the rib to be beside”?).

    His hatred of the commenters here shows he doesn’t love men. He has a problem with men. He does not respect the Imago Dei; Christian men demonstrate both the image and glory of God when gathered in the assembly.

    On a personal note, coming from those Pennsylvania Deutsch, all I can say: they would not raise a fist in their own defense. They would all go to their deaths if they could not flee. They would not serve in the military, because of that very commandment I alluded to at the beginning. Now, as I am not Amish, I believe there is a Biblical justification for self defense; I do not believe there is a Biblical mandate to sign up for the US military. If we pursue the logical conclusion, I might get offended further if Bayly’s view is that my ancestors were not Christians because they were not soldiers for Uncle Sam.

    Dalrock, you are absolutely right to demand fair treatment and to expose the communications. Get it all out there. That exhibition from Warhorn and Sanityville has shaken my ability to fellowship with PCAers. We already had some suspicion of them, but we were going to do a joint event with them.

  46. Cane is right. The most bizarre part of all is they don’t really have any major disagreements with Dalrock! Sure, some minor ones, but the minor ones are stuff I think we’d all be happy to just *discuss* without resorting to such nastiness and dishonesty.

    Consider if Dalrock actually WAS wrong about Wilson and Bayly or their documents (he isn’t). So what? Dalrock has repeatedly ASKED people to show him counterexamples!

    That they might have found some would have been further grounds for discussion and possibly (if he actually misinterpreted something or missed some of what was said) even an apology from Dalrock, but instead they went scorched earth. And even their commenters appear to be seeing through it, at least partially.

    It is a very bad look. Pastor Bayly’s response makes it look even worse. They seem not to understand that *nobody cares* about Dalroxk’s anonymity. The weird obsession with it is just dumb.

  47. BillyS says:

    They must not like the book of Hebrews since it was written anonymously!

  48. BillyS says:

    I see that okrahead beat me to that point.

  49. Warthog says:

    > He says “They are not pastors and so their words are costless.”

    Bayly presumes that Dalrock has never suffered for the Gospel. Perhaps Dalrock’s choice to go under nome de plume was the result of personal experience earlier in life. That is definitely why I don’t post under my real name anymore.

    Bayly doesn’t have a monopoly on suffering. What he has suffered is minor compared to men who have been fired, imprisoned, or killed for speaking the truth.

  50. “…needs to stop repeating himself that the report is worded and argued by Tim Bayly. I was its principle author…”

    I mean, it sounds like “stop claiming I wrote this, I wrote this”.

  51. cynthia says:

    Does Bayly understand his own position on female agency?

    In his response to you, he says this: “For fifteen years I’ve also been saying that feminists’ chief gift to women has been removing any moral agency from them, most especially their moral agency in the slaughter of their unborn children.”

    I would personally rephrase that as moral RESPONSIBILITY, or “personal sense of guilt”. “Agency”, or the ability to act without constraint, is the thing that feminists think they need to give us. And they don’t give a crap about traditional morality. They don’t see abortion as something immoral that women should not be made to feel guilty for, but rather, they see abortion as a good thing. Denying it to women is the immoral act. Anyway, broadly, I can appreciate his point here.

    However, Bayly’s evidence for this previous statement, as you point out, are apparently things such as this: “By eating the fruit, Adam betrayed his duty to protect his wife, the race, and all creation. …By calling the woman a weaker vessel, Scripture indicates that there is a greater vulnerability attendant to womanhood, and calls upon her husband to be considerate of this fact. This vulnerability of the woman and the duty of the man are further confirmed by Scripture’s command that a husband serve and lay down his life for his wife”

    That is NOT disagreement with the feminist point of view. That is laying responsibility for female behavior squarely at the feet of men, which is exactly what feminism still does. The only distinction is why women cannot be held responsible. But at least the feminist position adheres to its own internal logic (morality is determined by the ability to choose, every woman’s choices are therefore moral, anything bad that happens is somebody else’s fault).

    I can get behind the idea of men protecting women, but at the same time, it needs to be explicitly made clear that man’s responsibility to women does not supersede, override, or supplant a woman’s responsibility to make moral choices that honor God’s will. Lacking that verbiage, it very much appears that Bayly teaches that everything a woman does can be blamed on the men in her life. (If this pastor doesn’t realize just how far female solipsism will take the omission I just described, then he is a moron)

    The entire point of the story of the Fall is that at some point, in the exercise of our God-given free will, our people chose not to follow God’s commands. We made the wrong choice. Eve chose, and Adam chose. Both are punished by God. If it wasn’t Eve’s fault, wouldn’t God have only punished Adam? Eve is told that she will be made to suffer in childbirth; she is specifically punished in a way that only a woman can be punished, beyond what is done to Adam. She is very clearly being assigned blame here. She is held to account for her actions. Doesn’t this story illustrate that even if a man bears a degree of responsibility for the situation, the woman still wholly owns her guilt for her actions?

    For Bayly to justify his position as presented here, women must have some diminished mental capacity or a lack of free will. His idea of us being “weaker” cannot just apply to our physical make-up. He must think we have some lesser degree of free will as well – in short, it would seem that Bayly considers us less human, which is the exact same idiotic straw man argument feminists have been fighting since the 1910s. Either that, or this man cannot separate guilt from responsibility in his head.

    Bayly is clearly following a feminist frame here. Using Bible verses to justify it doesn’t change what philosophy he’s really teaching. It doesn’t seem like he realizes it, though.

    (And Dalrock, I know I’m butting up against the commenting policy here, so that’s the last I will say on this matter. I just continue to find it horrifying that this is the Christianity taught today. How can women ask for repentance, how can we find redemption and our way back to God, if we don’t know we are sinning?)

  52. squid_hunt says:

    @MiAndy
    I found his comments about the most military troubling. There is no scriptural imperative that presents it as necessary for to men to serve in the military or be considered lazy. The New Testament has many who weren’t in the military and offers verses a that could support concienscious objectors.

    I agree there is no verse that requires willingness to serve, however, when Israel asked for a king, Samuel laid out the conditions of a king and one of those was conscription of soldiers. It is the perogative of your government to demand your service.

    You may argue that we don’t have a king, however, there is a Republic set up in the same authority as a king and if your government demands you go, you can refuse, but it likely won’t go well with you, and again, their perogative. We’d have been better off never having had a king. Israel was nuts, in my opinion.

    I think Christians should never be in support of war, per se. We should be the first ones to demand a peaceful solution. Every unwashed soul who dies wakes up in hell. What Christian in their right minds demands we bomb the infidels in far off lands who could never even reach us, much less hurt us?

    But when the war comes to your land, it is your duty, no matter how strenuously you object due to conscience, to take up arms and defend your country. There is such a thing as a just war.

  53. squid_hunt says:

    @cynthia

    I can get behind the idea of men protecting women, but at the same time, it needs to be explicitly made clear that man’s responsibility to women does not supersede, override, or supplant a woman’s responsibility to make moral choices that honor God’s will.

    Biblical authority works like this:

    I set up my tent and my area of influence. I am obligated to defend those who come within my area of influence. I establish the rules. I mete out the punishment. Those who do not like my rules, punishment, or authority are welcome to leave. However, if you leave, you have no right to demand that I support you while you are outside of my authority.

    That’s how God does it, which is what makes it crazy for people who will not submit to God to rail against him when things go wrong. If you want protection, you must submit to the authority of the protector first.

  54. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @ BillyS. Bullseye!

  55. Barnie says:

    I never see pastors taking any stand that will actually cost them. You might see some frizzy haired yokel in a denim jumper lose a nice government job over gay marriage licenses but Evangelical pastors are savvy enough to rationalize and triangulate so they keep their sinecures.

  56. OKRickety says:

    Dalrock,

    For what it’s worth, I’m trying to create a transcript of the Warhorn podcast in my free time. I have the basic text but it is subject to many audio-to-text errors. I will try to clean it up some tonight for a rough draft.

    I do not recommend that anyone suffer through that podcast. It’s 75 minutes long with maybe 15 minutes of meaningful content. Reminds me of many sermons.

  57. Hazelshade says:

    Dalrock posts “Warhorn interview: male responsibility and female agency”. Included are ten links that support, if not prove, that men are in fact doing a good job taking the male responsibility of combat in defense of the country. That is, men step up and take the male responsibility for an extremely dangerous, extremely hard task. Perhaps THE most dangerous and difficult responsibility, period. Anyway, those ten links were ten chances for warhorn to affirm that, yes, men are in fact doing a good job taking responsibility for combat. Or, at least, to say that it *appears* that men are currently doing a good job taking responsibility for combat. (I have a feeling warhorn would have no problem saying that men *once* did a good job taking responsibility for combat back when men were men and all that.)

    The podcast came and went and if they did give men credit for taking the male responsibility of combat I didn’t catch it. (If they did give men respect for combat it certainly was not as prominent as the silly parody which was, as noted, certainly not prominently disclosed in the expectations for the exchange.)

    I’ve commented on this before and I’m beating a dead horse but gosh, this is galling. Talk about being miserly with respect.

  58. white says:

    This won’t be the last we hear from them. This whole episode caused great embarassment to Warhorn and the Baylys and they’ll be back to find something to latch on to. Even their supporters on their websites (using real names lol) are left questioning Warhorn/Bayly’s intentions and credibility.

    Take a break over the weekend dude

  59. MK Riker says:

    Tim Bayly:

    “I like good back-and-forth, but not ever anonymously—particularly when for fifteen years I have suffered much for the Name of the Lord Jesus and His Words and know how privileged I am for doing so and how much strength it lends to the work to which all believers are called.”

    “A pastor suffers just as much, or even more, for not being ashamed of Jesus and His words. That some don’t know this is understandable, but embarrassing. I could expand on it at great length, but it would be unseemly.”

    Contrast that with this description from his church’s website:

    “Tim Bayly has served Clearnote Church, Bloomington (CNB) since 1996. After receiving his M.Div. at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, he was ordained in 1983 by John Knox Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA). He transferred his credentials into the Presbyterian Church in America in 1991 and then into Clearnote Fellowship in 2010. Pastor Bayly writes articles for church leaders regularly at Warhorn Media (link is external). He is married to Mary Lee, and they have five children and twenty-four grandchildren.”

    Wow! Talk about suffering! A life in academia, then church leadership while being sorrounded by a loving wife, 5 kids and 25 grandkids!

    Oh the humanity! You bitter divorced anonymous men just have no clue what it means to actually serve Christ with your real name!

    This brought to the forefront an issue I have been dwelling on greatly: we don’t have pastors who are hard workers with their hands, suffering with their flock; instead they are the elite of the church: soft faces, soft bellies, soft hands with very loving wives and very successful families (a lot of kids & grandkids).

    It’s the opposite of what Jesus told his apostles:

    “Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:25-28

    And Paul’s example:

    “You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions.” Acts 20:24

    And again:

    “Surely you remember, brothers and sisters, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you.” 1 Thessalonians 2:9

    Not to even mention Paul’s list of his actual sufferings.

    Contrast that with Tim Bayly’s horribly successful life from ‘serving’ and not being able to handle a few posts of criticism in that they couldn’t even keep their comments open on a hit-piece podcast.

    I love the Bible but these people make me ashamed to be a Christian.

  60. Pingback: A few more Warhorn notes. | Dalrock

  61. squid_hunt says:

    @MK Riker

    There is nothing I despise more than the career pastors. The Daddy’s son of the Daddy’s son who have been living off the church for three generations and never done a day’s work in their lives, came straight out of their Daddy’s church when they graduated high school, went straight into their Daddy’s friend’s school and got farmed out to their Daddy’s other friend’s church as the youth pastor/assistant pastor, eventually taking over Daddy’s church. There is no model for this sort of career path Christianity anywhere in the Bible.

  62. BillyS says:

    Further the American military is a tool for rebellious Israel. The Lord too that land from them for their rebellion against him. These current wars are in their interest but harmful to Americans.

    I don’t think Israel is that much against China and Venezuela….

    Quit letting your hatred blind you. The modern US military has a boat load of problems and should not just be Israel’s lackey in the Middle East, but don’t get so simplistic.

    Read Romans too. Realize God is not done with Israel, whatever their current position.

  63. Nitpicker says:

    “I wanted to focus on substance from the beginning, but they changed the subject to character. So be it.”

    Maybe that is what Peterson does so well. No “so be its”. You want to focus on substance, focus on substance and call the

    A streetfighting trainer told me: The one first to know there is a fight going on is usually the one who wins. You have to be really good to win a fight you didn´t know was happening.

  64. Joe says:

    Warhorn addresses women worship leaders. Says that should not be happening. And they’re right.

    Then they blame MEN.
    *************************************************************************
    “Women might be disinclined to be silent. Women might wear white. Women might cut their hair short and take up karate. Women might grab the mic. Women might invade the elders board or force their husband to call the pastor and protest the decision just made an hour earlier in the elders meeting. The woman leading worship might be the pastor’s own wife who is more gifted at leading worship than her husband or any other man in the congregation.

    It doesn’t matter. The Apostle Paul doesn’t allow it and neither may we. Got that, men?’

    “Women cannot win the war against feminist rebels. It’s a man’s job.”
    ***************************************************************************

    GOT THAT MEN?

    And women, you are HELPLESS against feminism. HELPLESS I tell you.

    From “Cynthia” above:
    “That is laying responsibility for female behavior squarely at the feet of men, which is exactly what feminism still does”.
    ********************************************************

    I just left a Church that was letting the (feminist) Camels nose in the door:

    1. Had a women worship leader, because “oh she’s so GOOD!!”
    2. Teaches that same sex attraction is NOT a sin. And used a book by a same sex attracted (homosexual) “preacher” to back it up. This in spite of Col 3:5
    3. Started a sermon with “Stupid Things Men Say’ and prefaced that with “I’ll pick on the men, ’cause we don’t want to make the women mad”.

    We’re gone. We found a good Church with a masculine preacher and not affiliated with denominations and none of the pastors are seminary educated, not do they seek them.
    Highly unusual for such a large Church.

  65. New to word says:

    “…we decided what you’re doing is not just misguided but harmful, and we wanted to inoculate people against it.

    I hope you don’t think yourself ill-used…”
    I´m no expert on the matter but it would seem to me that Nathan will probably rot in hell for that. Doesn´t he mind?

  66. Mitch says:

    Warhorn’s ad hominems and the comments here that attack the Bayly’s personally are understandable but part of the reason I am so disappointed by the entire episode..Dalrock does not have the bandwidth to inspect everything a particular person he criticizes has ever said to qualify his critique. Dalrock delivers the medicine without the spoon full of sugar. But just because he doesn’t read everything written by the targets of his criticism doesn’t mean we cannot read what they say and make our own judgments.

    I actually have respected Tim Bayly a lot and I think he deserves credit for many of his courageous stands. I think Matt Chandler deserved credit for going into Steven Furtick’s church and taking a stand against some of the fluff taught there. I think Doug Wilson has a lot of good things to say and we should be free to take the good and reject the bad. Discerning readers are capable of thinking for themselves and don’t have to be told to stay away from anyone.

    I actually thought the Sound of Sanity guys did a pretty good job de-constructing the Revoice Conference last summer. They did a spoof using sexual attraction to pigs as a way of demonstrating some of the absurdities that came out of it. The spoof itself had a kernel of cleverness but was still pretty juvenile and not nearly as funny as they set out to make it, though.

    So when Nathan Alberson tells me to avoid Dalrock, I have to laugh. I read commentary from all over the web criticizing the opinions of other people on the web. Dalrock links to his sources. He encourages us to read it. I read Newsbusters some time to find out what is going on in the liberal media world. They link to the videos. I can read HuffPost, I can read Mother Jones. I can read Alex Jones. I can read the Communist freaking Manifesto.

    But if somebody tells me that I simply must NOT read a particular thing and to stay away at all costs, I begin to wonder what they’re so worried about. Do they think I’m too stupid to be able to evaluate things on my own? I guess so. All the commenters on Warhorn must be warned to shun the evil apostate Dalrock or he might take their thoughts captive to his special brand of misogyny.

    No trust in the discernment of their readers, I guess. Maybe they’re afraid that Dalrock will hypnotize them with his clever lies and, because of his anonymity, there will be no punishment meted out for his corruption of the flock.

  67. Basedangemon says:

    What’s worse is that seminary educated pastors generally come out with loads of debt. Thus, they are tasked with serving two masters: Christ, and Fannie Mae.

    And, since Fannie Mae is (temporally speaking) a more pressing master, that means they will serve that one and despise the other.

    Can’t speak uncomfortable truths to a body of people that control your salary, and thus your ability to service your bonds to Fannie. If you become a stench in their nostrils for calling out their adultery, a la John the Baptist, it’s not as simple as shaking the dust off your sandals and moving on.

    After all, those sandals are on loan from Fannie, as is your one cloak and staff.

  68. Tim says:

    Longtime reader here, I find it interesting you are making this such an issue, enough to have multiple blog posts “defending” yourself from someone whose opinion you say you don’t care about.

    This:

    “They wanted to make it an issue about character, yet from their own words they never acted in good faith! I’m not crying about it, but I will shine a light on Warhorn’s duplicity.”

    Dalrock, it amazes me that you cannot see yourself in how they’ve treated you (albeit in a lesser form, they really went nuclear). But you’ve done similarly wrong tactics to your opponents in the past. Yes, their response is bad, but I think many people reading, who will probably never bother to comment, are amused somewhat, because it looks like the pot calling the kettle black here. You’ve wrongfully portrayed many people over the years, I’ve seen it personally. I find it strange that you didn’t realize at least part of their mischaracterization of you is true. Yes, they’re wrong, but you’ve also acted in this way (again, not to this degree) and you’ve been lucky to have such a large following who never holds your feet to your own kind of fire.

    Over the years, it’s been my observation your blog has unfortunately become an echo chamber. A Caldo-Dalrockian echo chamber, where only those two players’ ideas are really allowed and respected. I don’t think I’m the only one who is disappointed by this, but perhaps I’m wrong.

    I think… when reading Bayly’s response, he is disgusted with your character because he’s seen what really happens here. Perhaps people have emailed him their personal stories of how you treated them (wrongfully), and obviously it never convicted you or bothered you, like those men in the podcast. You’ve allowed men, Christian men and even their wives, to be thoroughly lambasted at your site by your commenters, and yet you specifically asked for Bayly’s wife to be excluded from being humiliated by those kinds of attacks. Ken Alexander is just one I can think of off the top of my head, but there have been many many others. When you asked for Bayly’s wife to be excluded from overly harsh criticism and disrespect, that meant you knew it’s a regular occurrence under your authority at this blog. For some reason, you just didn’t allow it that time (perhaps it was an acknowledgment that you’ve also wronged and hated others… or you wanted to appear better than you really are, and have been in the past, to impress Bayly)? Either way, it’s clear his rejection of you and your character stings, or you wouldn’t be making it such a big deal.

    In my opinion, figuring out how to stop having it be an echo chamber would be priority number 1. Also, Caldo for some reason has always acted as your personal pit bull, and is a proven reviler, slanderer, and false accuser of fellow brethren, yet he seems close to you and holds your highest respect. Having an echo chamber with him was probably not the best idea, as bad company corrupts good morals and all. If his actions reflect your character, then Bayly’s harsh judgment of you makes a lot of sense.

    Just my .02 from someone who’s been reading long enough to know you are a good man, but it’s odd you’re taking this so personal, when you’ve acted wrongfully many times before.

  69. av says:

    I have been reading and following Tim Bayly online for many years now. One of the reasons I did that is because he is one of the most consistent voices for Biblical fidelity on the issues of sexuality in the conservative Presbyterian world. The way they have handled disagreement with Dalrock has really surprised. I know that Tim doesn’t like psuedoanonymity, a few years back he banned anonymous commenters on his personal blog, but turning that into the grounds for attacking Dalrock instead of the actual substance of the arguments is absurd.

    I don’t think that that all of Dalrock’s criticisms of Doug Wilson, Tim Bayly, etc. hit the mark, but it would be far more fruitful for them to respond with substance rather than try to discredit him.

    The other revealing aspect of this exchange, something I didn’t expect from the Bayly side at all, is that they are rejecting the position that individual women ought to be held responsible for their personal sins. Indicting men as a general class instead of dealing with the particulars is the same line of reasoning SJWs use to hold all white people guilty for everything they perceive as wrong.

    A man who isn’t in a position of authority can’t, without engaging in violence, stop a woman from pursuing the pulpit or enlisting in the military. It’s obvious from their conduct that they don’t believe they are obligated to engage in random acts of violence, but they have inspired members of their own congregation to do just that: https://www.rawstory.com/2013/04/indiana-man-arrested-for-taking-axe-to-planned-parenthood-facility/

  70. SirHamster says:

    There is no model for this sort of career path Christianity anywhere in the Bible.

    Eh, it shows up in the priesthood and kingship in the OT. Being effectively apprenticed from a young age yields an individual with more experience and skill than his peers.

    Children do take after their parents. But the tendency to lost important things from generation to generation is a known failure mode of hereditary positions. Need new blood and a disqualification process.

  71. Mocheirge says:

    So consider this a personal exhortation: drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. That or get out of the business altogether.

    Amazing. Plus ça change… Some 15 years ago, a friend of mine started calling out some Reformed leaders who were kowtowing to mainstream culture (at the time, they called it “being relevant”). The accused Reformed leaders demanded his identity be revealed so that they could lean on his pastor to discipline him. But that wasn’t enough to slake their anger, so they also contacted his employer and started problems there. Eventually he had to leave that job. Somehow they were then surprised when the man — with nothing left to lose — did NOT surrender but merely continued his criticism. At that point some member of a criticized pastor’s flock decided to flood my friend’s forum with tranny pr0n. Because love.

    It’s funny; my friend was primarily concerned with churches conceding the marriage battle back in the early aughts. He (and anyone not beholden to the gradual leftward creep) saw that we were going to get f4g marriage good and hard unless we fought back. We were naive; we hadn’t realized that the “churches” were already part of the feminist cultural war machine.

  72. squid_hunt says:

    @sirhamster
    I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think the comparison is equivalent. Pastors aren’t kings. That’s kinda the point. And there’s nothing related to natural heredity in the New Testament. The few people who were family members didn’t sit around in Daddy’s church waiting to inherit their throne.

    I agree that you would be likely to learn from your father. I don’t think that implies a career path guarentee like we seem to want to practice now.

  73. SirHamster says:

    Pastors aren’t kings.

    But they are leaders, and they have roles similar to that of priests.

    No one thinks it odd if a plumber’s son goes to be a plumber, or an engineer’s son goes to be an engineer, or a soldier’s son goes soldiering.

    But I do think there are advantages if the son of a pastor works a different vocation before pastoring. Avoids being stuck in an ivory tower.

  74. squid_hunt says:

    I’m not disagreeing with the part about him training up and becoming a pastor and can even sypathize. I have a problem with the expectant prince role that a lot of churches have. Maybe it’s more a denominational issue.

  75. @Tim

    Provide specific examples or we can all rest in the assumption you’re a Warhorn shill here to stir the pot. Your post reads like a concern troll. Given Warhorn’s seemingly cavalier attitude towards deception, I wouldn’t put outright lying beyond them. Also, the way in which you’re wringing your hands and going on about your concern that false teachers (and supposedly their families) were having mean things said about them here because Dalrock highlighter their complicity in the destruction of marriage seems womanly and subversive.

  76. SirHamster says:

    I have a problem with the expectant prince role that a lot of churches have.

    And it’s right to criticize that. But it is also natural – if the father does a good job, his son will inherit his reputation, deserved or not.

    And like it or not, that is the core of our own theology – we are children of the perfect Heavenly Father, so we must be like God in all ways.

  77. @ Tim

    You’ve wrongfully portrayed many people over the years, I’ve seen it personally. I find it strange that you didn’t realize at least part of their mischaracterization of you is true. Yes, they’re wrong, but you’ve also acted in this way (again, not to this degree) and you’ve been lucky to have such a large following who never holds your feet to your own kind of fire.

    You’re never going to get any traction unless you provide examples.

    From what I have seen, Dalrock has specifically shown that many Christian pastors have a blind spot in the realm of women and mixing chivalry/feminism with Christianity. This is why Dalrock has been careful to quote the pastors on their words. This also does not mean he (or I) think that other parts of their ministry are bad. In fact, I am sure that many of them are legit Christians and fighting the good fight.

    Criticizing is a blind spot is simply criticizing a blind spot. It doesn’t mean you hate the person, but you’re trying to help them see where they’re going wrong.

    From what we have seen over the years, most of the pastors who actually interact with Dalrock do not say anything along the lines of “I made a mistake here” or “you convinced me” or “that was poor wording on my part. What I actually meant was…” Instead, they double down on their theologically incorrect justification or try to obfuscate the issue.

    In this particular case, the podcast people admit to outright deception and “gotcha journalism.” Their pastors supports this. This is a bad look for people who call themselves Christians because they are engaged in behavior that is distinctly condemned in the Bible. This is the opposite of repentance and sadly pride in action. God will call them to account for that.

  78. 7817 says:

    @Tim

    You’ve wrongfully portrayed many people over the years, I’ve seen it personally.

    Do you have quotes and links or are you just making things up

    >many people

    Better make it many quotes and many links for the many people.

  79. Warthog says:

    From @Tim:
    “You’ve wrongfully portrayed many people over the years, I’ve seen it personally. I find it strange that you didn’t realize at least part of their mischaracterization of you is true.”

    “Caldo for some reason has always acted as your personal pit bull, and is a proven reviler, slanderer, and false accuser of fellow brethren, yet he seems close to you and holds your highest respect. ”

    “Just my .02 from someone who’s been reading long enough to know you are a good man, but it’s odd you’re taking this so personal, when you’ve acted wrongfully many times before.”

    I find this accusation against Dalrock on several blogs, but nobody seems to cite specific instances of him “wrongfully portraying” anyone. Pointing out an error or inconsistency in what someone has said is not “wrongful portrayal”.

    @Tim, when you are going to post serious accusations, then you should always include the citation. Otherwise you end up looking like a powderpuff.

  80. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tim
    You’ve wrongfully portrayed many people over the years, I’ve seen it personally.

    Please be specific. Name some of these people. Are you referring to Sheila Gregoire, Susan Walsh, Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, John Piper, Tim Keller, Doug Wilson, Bnonn or someone else? As a long time reader and commenter, I’m ready to dig into the archives with you on any of the individuals mentioned above or anyone else.

    Frankly, though, lacking specifics, you rather appear to be a concern troll attempting to engage in tone policing.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    Comment was posted in the wrong thread. Recommented here.

    @Tim
    Genuinely want to see your examples, since you are a long time reader it should not be difficult for you to find and cite some. Because as a long time reader I have gone back and found my own comments from as far back as 2010, it isn’t that difficult to search WordPress archives if one knows how to use search engines, multiple windows / tabs, etc.

    Plus it is a surprise to me to find out that in addition to being part of the “rabble” as Pastor Tim Bayly noted in his very Christian way, I’m also part of an echo chamber. Did I imagine all the times that I have disagreed with Dalrock? Or did you just not see them while you were reading for a long time?

    Please do interact with me, TIm. Help me to see where I’m wrong. Use facts, though, not feelz.

    PS: To any Warhorn readers, as someone whose ancestors go way back in the US and parts of Europe, being called “rabble” amuses me. It’s a poor choice of words in particular for a Presbyterian pastor[1]. Remember Fort Ticonderoga? King’s Mountain? Rabble! Nothing but Rabble, sirs!

    [1] The American revolution of 1776 was commonly referred to in some parts of the British government as “The Presbyterian revolt”, for example, and Americans who took up arms derided as “rabble”. One would expect a student of history to know this.

  82. Junkyard Dawg says:

    @Tim, @Dalrock and others

    Tim’s comments were interesting, but I’d first want to know if Tim is Tim Bayly. Second, Tim, do provide examples of Dalrock treating others badly. That being said, I do worry about this blog being an echo chamber, mostly because it presents some really good ideas and I don’t want it to become closed off to dissent and challenge. Technically speaking, it’s not my blog, therefore it’s not mine to be concerned about, but I do derive much insight from it, and the echo chamber criticism you have raised could be valid.

    As far a Tim being a “concern troll,” as someone has said, I think that if this is Tim’s first post, it’s too soon to tell if he is a concern troll.

    @Tim:

    Perhaps people have emailed him [i.e., Tim Bayly] their personal stories of how you treated them…

    You don’t know that, why speculate? I don’t see Dalrock’s comments to other people as “hate,” as you assert. Hyperbole sometimes, yes. Cane Caldo also has a good blog, maybe not so well-written as Dalrock’s, but for sure, he is not “bad company,” as you call him. This is an unfair criticism.

  83. Pathfinderlight says:

    Since the country belongs to feminists, leftists, and cuckservatives, I suggest they join the military to defend it. I don’t get why, after destroying the old system of morality, that they would feel justified in appealing to that old system to protect them.

  84. Cane Caldo says:

    @Tim

    Just saw your comment.

    Also, Caldo for some reason has always acted as your personal pit bull, and is a proven reviler, slanderer, and false accuser of fellow brethren, yet he seems close to you and holds your highest respect. Having an echo chamber with him was probably not the best idea, as bad company corrupts good morals and all. If his actions reflect your character, then Bayly’s harsh judgment of you makes a lot of sense.

    I have my own blog. If anyone has a problem with me then why not take it up with me or my blog? If it is the case that I, in particular, reflect badly on Dalrock and am therefore Warhorn’s underlying problem, then why did they not say so? It sounds like you have a problem with me.

    Orthodoxy could be construed as a form of “echo chamber” so I don’t worry about that charge at all. It is axiomatic to me that there are sides in this world, and I am more than content to choose Dalrock’s part; though he does not need it. My experience is that those who complain about echo chambers intend to subvert the “chamber” by playing upon compassion to form a breach in the “chamber”.

    Anyway, if it was a problem, the remedy is at your fingertips: Comment your dissent. Dalrock rules with a very light hand. In fact that is what Warhorn complained about. They don’t fear the echo chamber. They envy the respect we all pay Dalrock, and they’d rather this chamber to sound their echo.

    @Junkyard Dawg

    Thanks man.

  85. Pingback: Warhorn’s projection | Dalrock

  86. Pingback: Warhorn can’t keep their story straight. | Dalrock

  87. Chagrined says:

    Why do people seriously waste time debating the tedious proclamations of the PCA or any other self-appointed collection of religious posers? Who in the hell are they to impugn “sin”? Sam Harris said it best: “Bookish men parsing a collective delusion.”

Comments are closed.